Secular Modern Cosmology: Solving Mysteries?

One of the more imaginary ideas comes from cosmology. The vastness of the universe and man’s inability to explore the far reaching corners in space other than viewing through such means as telescopes, makes it open to a lot of conceptualized speculation and fictional stories.

In secular modern cosmology here’s how they go about trying to solve the invented mysteries of the universe…

In space.com

“A popular picture of the early universe imagines a single Big Bang, after which space blew up quickly like a giant bubble.  But another theory posits that we live in a universe of 11 dimensions, where all particles are actually made of tiny vibrating strings.  This could create a universe stuck in a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, due to repeat on loop.  Which scenario is closer to the truth remains to be seen….”

How does the “M theory” require “11 dimensions” instead of 100 or even 1000s of dimensions when the data is unobservable? Also, how can one expect this to be verified with any credibility, “the truth remains to be seen…” as proponents believe that 7 out of the 11 dimensions are hidden.  Sadly, these ideas are coming from cosmologists with PhDs in the most prestigious universities of the world!

Let’s look at another one in regards to the hypothesis of inflation…

“It means everything and anything that can happen, will,” [Paul] Steinhardt [Princeton] told SPACE.com.  “So basically everything could be a prediction of inflation.  This to me is a fundamental problem and we don’t know how to get away from it.”

When people no longer believe in God, they conceptualize wild stories with miracles that in some cases border on the occult.  There is no way to test these stories, invented notions while believing in a consensus to back them up rather than the evidence.

“If you have another brane living in higher dimensions, it’s extremely likely to move and slam into our own  brane,” [Burt] Ovrut [U of Pennsylvania] said.  “You have a brane with exactly the structure of our real world, and other branes that are likely to hit us, and all of the energy of colliding universes would come into play.”

This is really nice for science fiction but it’s not for real science. While it’s true the limitations of science do in fact restrict our ability to learn things from a far, but we certainly do not need to resort to such foolish story telling for either rejecting God, grant money, fame or both…

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Secular Modern Cosmology: Solving Mysteries?

  1. Michael: “In secular modern cosmology here’s how they go about trying to solve the invented mysteries of the universe…”

    ‘secular’ modern cosmology ? What is that supposed to mean ? There is only modern cosmology: secular is something that people can be, not a scientific topic.

    Michael: “as proponents believe that 7 out of the 11 dimensions are hidden.”

    No, they are not ‘hidden’. Read up on what is actually proposed !

    Michael: “… such foolish story telling …”

    and again the same phrase ! It surely is your favorite.

    Oh, and there is nothing foolish about inflation and string theory. Perhaps it is just too difficult for you to inderstand what is proposed ?

    Which brings us back to you qualifications, which you were going to reveal to Olorin. Let’s hear it !

  2. Michael, we’re ge6tting impatient over your refusal to produce your readership data to back up your claim that Eelco’s estimate is wrong.

    We’ve been waiting f o r e v e r for your substantive review of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.

    And, of course, we’re waiting for your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject whatever.

    In fact, you remember the basic science & logic questions I’ve been asking occasionally to establish your creds? (All of which you have ducked without acknowledgment, which demonstrates your ignorance.) Here’s another one that came to me when contemplating a glass of ice water at lunch. As ice cubes floating in a glass of water melt, will the water level in the glass rise or fall?

  3. Michael: “How does the “M theory” require “11 dimensions” instead of 100 or even 1000s of dimensions when the data is unobservable?”

    If we had already observes 11 dimensions, we wouldn’t need any theories to predict them, would we?[1]

    Michael, the answer to this is waaaay beyond your abilities. Just as a teaser, 11 is the smallest number of dimensions that is mathematically sufficient to contain the gauge groups of the Standard Model, SU(3) for the strong interactions and SU(2)xU(1) for the electroweak interactions. Also, 11 dimensions is the largest number of dimensions consistent with a single graviton, and a theory with more dimensions would have particles with spins greater than 2—which are not observed.[2] There are, however, several different theories that employ 11 dimensions.

    Your questions, Michael, should you choose to accept them: What is a symmetry group, and what field of mathematics studies them? (The second question is almost too easy, isn’t it? We’ll see.)

    Just one more instance where your lack of qualification is on glaring public display.

    ===============

    [1] Only creationism regards an already observed fact as a “prediction.”

    [2] The Michaeltrino can manage only a single spin, always in the same orientation.

  4. ” As ice cubes floating in a glass of water melt, will the water level in the glass rise or fall?”

    Think “Archimedes,” Michael. You remember him, of course. The “eureka” dude. What was it that prompted him to say that, and then run naked down the street/

  5. Well, Jerry Coyne didn’t last long, did he?

    A single day. Then it was time to duck out of Dodge. The bullets were beginning to fly too fast for Michael.

    ==Soc

  6. Eelco: “Michael: “… such foolish story telling …” and again the same phrase ! It surely is your favorite.”

    .

    Yes, it’s time to add another item to the burgeoning scroll of Stock Phrases that Michael employs to substitute for actual thought.

    Ten minutes of intensive research have established that Michael has dragged this word or phrase across our eyeballs no fewer than nine times in the past two months—once even as the title of a post.[1]

    Since the exact wording varies somewhat, I have chosen an exemplar from Mar. 20[2] upon which to base a template. The entry will read—

    “As you can see, xxx is not that strong at all as a hypothesis or a theory. It’s story telling.” (Where xxx = hidden dimensions, convergent evolution, hot chicken soup, etc.)

    Dave Barry often thanks his “observant readers” for suggesting subjects for his humor. Thanks, Eelco, for a new Stock Phrase.

    ================

    [1] Jan. 23, “Storybook Claims And Empirical Justification”

    [2] “As you can see, evolution is not that strong at all as a hypothesis or a theory. It’s story telling.”

  7. Interesting post, Michael.

    Fantasy. Empirical evidence. What’s the difference? There isn’t any for Naturalism. When they don’t like the facts they make up what they want.

  8. Dom: “Fantasy. Empirical evidence. What’s the difference? There isn’t any for Naturalism. When they don’t like the facts they make up what they want.”

    Ah, fantasy! Thy name is creationism.

    Please list all the physical evidence for biblical creation in this space: (___).

    .
    .

    What? Still blank?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s