Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory
    A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory
    A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory
    Ebook104 pages1 hour

    A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

    By Khuram Rafique

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Scientific inquiry takes onward course from the point where previous scientists had reached. But philosophical analysis initiates from scratch. Philosophy questions everything and chooses starting point for itself after having ruled out all the unsubstantiated and doubtful elements of the topic under study. Secondly, known realities must make sense. If a theory is officially 'counterintuitive', then either it is mere fiction or at the most; a distorted form of truth. This book's analysis is based on the philosophical principle that knowledge is empirical and does not arise magically in absence of observational grounds. With philosophical approach, it was doubtful to accept that Georges Lemaître already knew Hubble's law in year 1927 that was yet to be found by Edwin Hubble in year 1929. Therefore this book started with denial of the claim that Lemaître already knew this law. But analysis of section I.III forced author to look the matter from original source and it came to surface that Lemaître knew this law in year 1927. But contrary to mainstream claim, Lemaître had not derived that law from general relativity (GR) equations rather had deduced from a method given by Hubble himself. Whereas whole case of the Big Bang Theory rests on misleading claim that Lemaître had derived this law solely from GR equations. The basis of this claim happened to be a manipulated translation (1931) of Lemaître's original 1927 article. People regard Big Bang Theory as truth because authoritative sources deceived them by presenting a manipulated translation in year 1931. 

    This book is a philosophical analysis of original papers of Alexander Friedmann (1922), Georges Lemaître (1927), Edwin Hubble (1929) and Albert Einstein (1917) thus covers actual roots and origins of the Big Bang Model. In this book, only the core elements of the Big Bang Model i.e. 'Expansion of Universe' and 'CMBR' are covered. It has been sufficiently shown that 'expansion' is an illusion whereas CMBR is a proof that we live in a non-expanding infinite universe. If these two core elements of the standard Big Bang Model are precisely refuted then there is nothing crucial left with the standard model. For readers of this book at least, Big Bang Theory shall become a story of past mistakes.

    Author is not an authoritative source on science topics therefore readers must download all the above mentioned original papers and check all the points outlined in this book from relevant original papers. Unlike reading from an authoritative source that makes readers relaxed and careless but enables authorities to deceive them in worst way possible, this book requires readers to remain alert on all the points discussed in the book and verify everything from original sources whose links are provided in footnotes section of the book. This book is not a judgment of the topic rather it is like a case presented by an advocate while readers are the judges. Readers are required to apply their own critical judgment to conclude the matter by themselves. After carefully reading this book, readers will also start taking 'authoritative sources' with due care and it will become difficult for the 'authorities' to deceive them again.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherRealism & Physics
    Release dateFeb 11, 2018
    ISBN9781393583639
    A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory
    Author

    Khuram Rafique

    Writing books has been fifth stage in my intellectual development. First stage was that world and reality appeared too strange to me to make proper sense. Either I had to get clarity or to live a perplexing life. I became like a bookworm and my task was to extract maximum sense out of reading and pondering. A stage came when my mind flooded with ideas that kept me under trance but I also started facing the problem of forgetting many of those ideas. Only to keep those ideas in memory, I started writing diaries. That was second stage. Third stage was facilitated by newly emerged blogging facility that helped me track and organize my ideas into short articles. At fourth stage, I became author of two book chapters of two different academic projects. I had no relevant academic qualification for both projects but both times I was honored as my contribution was solicited by those (South Asian) Universities. Back in year 2006, my one short blog article was discussed on a USA Radio Program with Zoologists. The topic of that blog article related to difference between human mind and animal mind. I shall further elaborate that topic in my upcoming book on Epistemological Realism. At fifth stage, now I am in process of writing complete books on various topics. Topics and subjects of my books do not relate to my actual educational or professional background. My qualification on writing about topics (of my books) is simply "I think therefore I can." After a long struggle with various philosophical themes, now I am settled with 'Epistemological Realism' and it is the pursuit of realism that compelled me to thoroughly analyze various aspects of Physics to see how they actually represent underlying reality.

    Related to A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

    Related ebooks

    Astronomy & Space Sciences For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Big Bang Theory

      Jan 27, 2022

      The Big Bang Theory
      8 min read

    • Article

      End Of The Multiverse Theory?

      Jul 18, 2019

      End Of The Multiverse Theory?
      7 min read

    • Article

      The Trouble With “The Big Bang”

      Sep 11, 2022

      Did the Big Bang happen? Has the James Webb Space Telescope found evidence against the Big Bang? If astrophysicists are sure the Big Bang happened, why do they also think the universe was born from a quantum fluctuation? And what does this have to do

      8 min read

    • Article

      Your Brain Can’t Handle the Moon: How the moon stirs tension between your conscious and subconscious minds.

      May 28, 2015

      What is this new theory?” the long-retired New York University cognitive psychologist, Lloyd Kaufman, asked me. We were sitting behind the wooden desk of his cozy home office. He had a stack of all his papers on the moon illusion, freshly printed, wa

      6 min read

    • Article

      Your Brain Can’t Handle the Moon: How the moon stirs tension between your conscious and subconscious minds.

      Nov 20, 2014

      What is this new theory?” the long-retired New York University cognitive psychologist, Lloyd Kaufman, asked me. We were sitting behind the wooden desk of his cozy home office. He had a stack of all his papers on the moon illusion, freshly printed, wa

      6 min read

    • Article

      When Beauty Gets In The Way Of Science

      Apr 18, 2019

      The biggest news in particle physics is no news. In March, one of the most important conferences in the field, Rencontres de Moriond, took place. It is an annual meeting at which experimental collaborations present preliminary results. But the recent

      7 min read

    • Article

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • Article

      The Metaphysical Baggage of Physics: Lee Smolin argues that time is more fundamental than physical laws.

      Jan 30, 2014

      An issue on time would not be complete without a conversation with Lee Smolin. High school dropout, theoretical physicist, and founding member of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, Smolin’s life and work reflect many

      7 min read

    • Article

      The Trouble with Theories of Everything: There is no known physics theory that is true at every scale—there may never be.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Whenever you say anything about your daily life, a scale is implied. Try it out. “I’m too busy” only works for an assumed time scale: today, for example, or this week. Not this century or this nanosecond. “Taxes are onerous” only makes sense for a ce

      8 min read

    • Article

      What Came Before the BIG BANG?

      Jan 9, 2019

      What Came Before the BIG BANG?
      9 min read

    • Article

      The Universe Began With a Big Melt, Not a Big Bang

      Oct 5, 2017

      There are two tantalizing mysteries about our universe, one dealing with its final fate and the other with its beginning, that have intrigued cosmologists for decades. The community has always believed these to be independent problems—but what if the

      10 min read

    • Article

      The THEORY of EVERYTHING

      Jun 20, 2019

      The THEORY of EVERYTHING
      6 min read

    • Article

      Quantum Mechanics 101

      Dec 5, 2019

      Quantum Mechanics 101
      7 min read

    • Article

      Book Reviews

      Jul 30, 2020

      Book Reviews
      3 min read

    • Article

      Will Quantum Mechanics Swallow Relativity?

      Jun 8, 2017

      It is the biggest of problems, it is the smallest of problems. At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbi

      17 min read

    • Article

      Will Quantum Mechanics Swallow Relativity?: The contest between gravity and quantum physics takes a new turn.

      Oct 29, 2015

      It is the biggest of problems, it is the smallest of problems. At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbi

      17 min read

    • Article

      The Inflated Debate Over Cosmic Inflation

      Jun 1, 2017

      On the morning of Dec. 7, 1979, a 32-year-old Alan Guth woke up with an idea. It had come into his head the previous night, but now, in the light of a California day, he could see the shape of the thing, and was itching to work through the math. He h

      15 min read

    • Article

      Why Science Should Stay Clear of Metaphysics: Meet the philosopher who revived anti-realism.

      Sep 8, 2016

      Philosophers of science are not known for agreeing with each other—contrariness is part of the job description. But for thousands of years, from Aristotle to Thomas Kuhn, those who study what science is have roughly categorized themselves into two ba

      11 min read

    • Article

      The Strangeness of Black Holes

      Apr 11, 2019

      This essay is one of the five winners in the 2019 writing competition held by the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University. “The Black Hole Initiative offers a unique environment for thinking about the topic of black holes more creatively and comp

      6 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory - Khuram Rafique

      Preface

      I. Foundation of the Big Bang Model

      I.I.  A Philosophical Review OF THE Big Bang Theory IS WARRANTED

      I.II. How the Big Bang Theory Dodges the Reader into believing that it is based on Real Observations?

      I.III. Doppler’s Effect was Not the reason of Redshifts in Light coming from far off Galaxies

      I.IV. In 1931, Lemaître Suppressed Crucial Facts by Publishing Manipulated Translation of his own 1927 Article

      I.V. Without using Doppler’s Shift Data and without knowing about Cosmological Redshift, Friedmann had already reached to the concept of Expanding Universe. How?

      I.VI. Concept of ‘Initial Singularity’ of Modern Big Bang Cosmology has been derived from Incorrect Understanding of Friedmann’s Model

      I.VII. Expansion of Space

      I.VIII. Differences of Friedmann and Lemaître

      I.IX. Why after 1929, Scientific Community Misread ‘Redshift-Distance Relationship’ found by Hubble as ‘Velocity-Distance Relationship’?

      II. Observational Support

      II.I. Cosmological Redshift

      II.I.I. Alternative Explanation of Cosmological Redshift

      II.I.I.I. Examples of Redshift-Distance Relationship in Nature

      II.I.I.II. Why Standard Model Assumes that Light Could Not Follow Simple Natural Pattern?

      II.I.I.III. Huygens Principle – the underlying reason of Cosmological Redshifts

      II.I.I.IV. Alternative Explanation of the ‘Accelerating Rate of Expanding Universe’

      II.II. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

      II.II.I. Alternative Explanation of the ‘CMBR’

      Preface

      The analysis in this book is started with the confirmed fact that Alexander Friedmann’s 1922 work had no relation with Hubble’s Law that was yet to be found by Edwin Hubble in 1929. Official sources repeatedly tell us that Georges Lemaître had found similar to Friedmann’s solution in year 1927 so I thought that Lemaître’s work also should have no actual relation with Hubble’s Law. My analysis kept going with this assumption till section I.III where I realized that if unlike Friedmann, Lemaître had the data of Doppler’s Redshifts of various galaxies then he also could have means to find the distance of those galaxies. Admittedly, this book up to section I.III is an analysis based on an incorrect assumption that by 1927, Lemaître should be unaware of Hubble Type redshift-distance relationship in light coming from far off galaxies. But that analysis forced me to download 1927 paper of Lemaître. Initially I found English Translation (1931) by the title: A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ. I was shocked to see that my analysis was wrong up to section I.III because apparently Lemaître had already derived Hubble type redshift-distance relationship solely from General Relativity (GR) Equations. But I was not wrong. This was a manipulated translation; he had not derived that relationship from GR equations rather had derived from a method that he took from Hubble himself, detail thereof I have explained in this book. Here in this book, original papers of Alexander Friedmann (1922), Georges Lemaître (1927), Edwin Hubble (1929), Albert Einstein (1917) along with other important relevant papers have been analyzed and only the most fundamental aspects like expansion and CMBR of the Big Bang Cosmology are covered. If these two aspects of the Big Bang Cosmology are precisely refuted then there is nothing crucial left with the standard model.    

      Philosophy is not concerned with providing definite solutions to the problems. Therefore, alternatives suggested in this book should not literally be taken as definite alternatives. They however represent philosophically solid and justified positions and it is up to readers who should conclude the matter by applying their own critical judgment. This book will however expose the undue authoritative nature of FLRW metric and with this book, The Big Bang Theory is set to become a story of past.

      Khuram Rafique (2018)

      Book’s Blog: https://bbtrejected.wordpress.com

      I. 

      Foundation of the Big Bang Model

      I.I.  A Philosophical Review of the Big Bang Theory is warranted

      Twentieth century had been remarkable with regards to scientific and technical developments. Real scientific progress converted to technological advancements that resulted in a paradigm shift in human way of living. Nevertheless, towering intellectual achievements of twentieth century are not unquestionable. No doubt science progressed – but so did huge bangs of intellectual fallacies. Highly educated people now keep on telling incomprehensible things as hard facts of science. A fashion of promoting ‘counterintuitive’ theories of Physics emerged. Metaphysics of Philosophy was discarded altogether but science itself assumed the shape of metaphysics. One such metaphysical theory of modern science is the famous Big Bang theory which is the subject matter of this book. This book is a philosophical review of the Big Bang Theory of Modern Physics.

      In essence, science ought to be an understanding developed out of careful real observations or experiments but modern science has, to a great extent, replaced real observations with equations of mathematics. Mathematics vs. experimentation, logic or commonsense is not the topic of this book as this topic will be covered in my other book on Epistemology. Here I will only show that whole edifice of the Big Bang Theory rests only on single pillar of mathematics which is not supported by real observations. Given this fact, the Big Bang Theory should be regarded as a Philosophical or Metaphysical Theory rather than part of science. More to this, the theory is not even legitimate metaphysics as the theory dodges the reader into wrongfully believing that it is based on real observations. At the most, they have a mathematical model as foundation. Real observation is not the part of foundation. Then on the basis of a dubious mathematical model, real observations are explained to show that observed reality has been a possibility due to the reason that proposed mathematical model is accurate. The argument is that observed reality cannot be explained except with the help of mathematical model of Big Bang or at least that Big Bang is the best explanation that we have of observed phenomena. Philosophical review of the theory is needed because after all it is not based on real observations and the task of only explaining observed phenomenon can be handled by Philosophy as well. Therefore this book will not only show that the Big Bang Theory is misleading and unscientific, here an outline of alternative possible explanations of observed phenomena shall also be presented. However, this book is not going to offer definite alternative because to work out a definite and detailed as well as correct model is still the task of science that will be done after getting assurance that model is not without real observations as part of foundation. If foundation remains devoid of real observations and model itself comes at foundation level to only account for or interpret real observations then the model shall remain part of philosophy.   

      I.II. How the Big Bang Theory Dodges the Reader into believing that it is based on Real Observations?

      There is definite dodge as I shall explain here shortly. But unlike malevolent fraud, it is more like an uncorrected mistake. It happened that mistake was duly realized – but mathematics was developed (or modified) to stay with the earlier incorrect understanding. It was all started with real observations when as early as year 1912, Scientists started noticing redshifts in far off galaxies (then thought of spiral nebulae as there was no concept of separate galaxies by that time). Naturally, those redshifts were interpreted in terms of Doppler’s Effect. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann and then in 1927, Georges Lemaître had data of Doppler’s Shifts and both of them formulated their equations depicting an expanding universe. Friedmann might not actually have employed Doppler’s Shift data as he only derived mathematical models of expanding or oscillating Universe solely from available solutions of General Relativity equations. Lemaître however employed Doppler’s Shift data in the formulation of his equations.

      So far, overall approach was not unscientific because Friedmann’s model was only abstract mathematics and he had not presented that model as a confirmed scientific fact. For the case of Lemaître, equations were derived out of available observational data relating to Doppler’s Effect, in combination with the same solutions to GR equations wherefrom Friedmann already had

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1