Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Science or Pseudo-science

The study of science has a long history with some triumphs and some quackery, but beginning in the 19th Century it began to become more respectable with the formulation of the scientific method.  This method can be viewed as 1) Question 2) Hypothesis 3) Experiment 4) Data analysis 5) Conclusion 6) Duplication.   This is empirical science which can be repeated with the same results.  And example would be the demonstration of Einstein’s hypothesis that light has mass.   But somewhere along the way science deviated from this process and became based on faith and the belief that the hypothesis was all that was required even if it couldn’t be demonstrated.  Perhaps this division began with Darwin and his theory of Evolution.  Even though Darwin’s requirement for proof in the form of transitional fossils has never been met, Evolution has become FACT even though all that has ever been demonstrated is environmental adaptation and not speciation.  But this is just an example and once you begin to look more closely at particle physics and cosmology the issue of faith based science becomes more obvious.

The world of physics and cosmology is littered with questions and very few answers.  What passes for answers are really more like possibilities than answers and even those possibilities have built in logical conflicts.  For example science has determined – through observation – that the universe is expanding and that galaxies at the edge of the universe are accelerating and nearing the speed of light.  But if these galaxies are accelerating then logically they must have had staring point and a zero speed.  To answer this question science has postulated the Big Bang.  At some point the entire universe came into being at one gigantic explosion of superheated energy.  The temperature of this energy is believed to have been 10^23 but heat is the result of energized particles which didn’t yet exist.  Ignoring that detail -- how fast was it accelerating?  That probably isn’t as relevant as knowing that it is still accelerating and nearing the speed of light.  It is accepted that the Big Bang (which may or may not have happened) created space and time and energy.  Furthermore in violation of the law of entropy this energy organized itself into particles and ultimately into stars and planets.

But if the Big Bang created space-time then where was this infinitely dense mass of energy?  Furthermore, current thinking is that in this initial burst of energy it was expanding faster than the speed of light in violation of the General Theory of Relativity.  Without getting involved in that contradiction the implication is that if the energy released was moving beyond light speed then it must be concluded that the energy released must have slowed down below the speed of light in order for mass to come into being.  But if the energy was slowing down then what caused it to slow down and then to restart its acceleration?    Exactly what kind of energy was released at the Big Bang since it was moving beyond light speed?  Science now believes that mysterious energy was “dark energy” which remains mysterious and unknown, but scientists believe ultimately it will be identified and explained without resorting to some faith based explanation like intelligent design.

If we accept that the Big Bang was a gigantic release of some mysterious energy moving beyond the speed of light the question then arises is why did it slow? Newton’s Law says that a body in motion tends to remain in motion.  There was nothing to impede its expansion or momentum but something did in fact cause this mysterious energy to decelerate and begin to undergo a transformation from energy to mass.  And that introduces another question and that is “mass” – where did this mass come from?  Did the energy released at the Big Bang have “mass” because if it did that would violate general relativity which states that mass cannot exceed the speed of light.  This means there cannot have been mass at the beginning.  Science also tells us that photons only have mass in motion so this mysterious energy did not emit light and is believed to be “dark energy”.   So some pure energy was released traveling faster than light with an incredible temperature but no mass meaning there were no particles like photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, or anything similar.  Then were did these particles that generated all of that heat come from?  Apparently some mysterious force caused this burst of energy to decelerate and in defiance of the law of entropy – begin to  coalesce into differing forms yielding electrons ( a negatively charged energy field), protons ( a positively charged energy field) and neutrons (mass but no charge).

In conclusion it seems unreasonable to expect a scientist to follow the scientific method and duplicate the creation of the universe but is it unreasonable to expect that they make logical sense?  In the beginning they postulate that there was a bundle of energy with infinite density.  For anything to have density it must have mass and if it has mass it must have space but there was no space because the Big Bang created space and time.  So this -- their hypothesis is illogical at the outset.  From that illogical start we find general relativity ignored, Thermodynamic Laws ignored, Newton’s Law of Motion ignored, and of course the Law of Entropy ignored.  Where the mysterious energy came from is not addressed but is simply accepted that it spontaneously came into being without any initiating force.    And there you have it! Science has explained how the universe came to be without any proof or logic whatsoever, but expecting you to have faith that they are correct.  An example of faith based science ignoring empirical science and many of its own laws.   Of course there is an alternate hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe and it is widely known and accepted – I think it begins with “in the beginning there was chaos …”




No comments: