Everything You Know About The Universe Is Wrong
Faith In Science
February 11, 2012
Since JFK funded the space race, almost nobody said it was a bad idea. But when NASA asks for money, oooo that's bad. I am glad. Not because it's bad though. I will tell you why.
When the bulk of the funding source for endeavors in science shifts to the marketplace from grants and subsidies from the federal government, and the scientists who are all too happy to provide the politicians with an abundance of information in support of political agendas that will keep that money coming are no longer in conttrol, then maybe we can get back to where we were before FDR got to talk to the whole country at the same time on the radio.
. When one says something is "a well known scientific fact" what it really means is "a theory that may not have been proven but is believed by a consensus of scientists". If something is a fact it most certainly doesn't matter whether it is well known or not. So, to add the qualifier "well known" to it should be a clue that some subterfuge or obfuscation is probably involved. So, henceforth, in my writing, when you see the phrase "well known fact" in italics you will know it really means "consensus of scientists with a political agenda".
It takes away from its credibility when one must, in order to sustain support for a theory, take on faith that a presumption upon which the theory is based is true, especially when the presumption is tenuous at best. For example, it is a presumption that the cause of light from more distant stars being red shifted is that they are moving away from us faster. However, electromagnetic energy is attenuated over distance, and the reduction in energy over long distance results in the same red shift, its wavelength becoming longer. With these facts in mind it stands to reason that after light waves travel a really far distance enough energy would be lost that the wavelength would shifted beyond infrared and not visible any more. That distance would be the threshhold beyond which the infinity of stars exists that can't bee seen as light from here no matter how good a telescope we have. A good science experiment could verify that 12 billion or so light years is the threshhold.
Even though the light from stars beyond the threshhold would be invisible here, it would appear as radio noise precisely as detected with radio telescopes in 1964 by the Bell Labs scientists Penzias and Wilson. This discovery was famously claimed to be proof of the big bang theory when combined with conjectures previously made by George Gamow.
Back in the previous millennium, about the 1970s, it was a well known fact that the age of the universe was about 8 billion years. That stands to reason since at that time it was also a well known fact that the size of the universe was about 8 billion light years since the available technology only let us be able to see that far out into space. Since then a gamma ray burst has been detected around 12 billion light years away and the universe got suddenly older by about 4 billion years. If scientists just need something to have faith in, God should be better for that, and they should stck to the facts in science. However, if they insist on something scientific to have faith in, they would do better to have faith that the universe is infinite, without a beginning or end.
I think there is something in the very intelligent minds of the world's most accomplished scientists that keeps them hung up on the idea of scientifically proving the universe began at a singular point in time, which is pretty much the same as proving the existence of God. The incarnation of their creator would be the big bang, their God. Even though the big bang theory has not yet been proven to be fact, it is accepted by most as a well known fact. I believe scientists do know the truth. If I can get my brain around the idea of the cosmos infinite with no beginning or end surely they can too. The problem I anticpate they would have with that concept is once it is acknowledged as fact there will no longer be anything sensational to prove and science would just be another boring job..
Without a monumental theory that they would get worldwide recognition for, and go down in history for discovering the proof of, they have no inspired purpose. There wouldn't be much need any more for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of atom smashers that have to be more and more powerful superconducting supercolliders now to generate ordinarily nonexistent subatomic particles. This kind of research is their religion. Leon Lederman, former director of Fermilab, coined the term "the God particle". Theoretical physicists say they hate that term, the now media popularized name for the Higgs boson, a partcle physicists pursue the creation of in their labs with evangelical zeal. If they succeed, which is doubtful, they can say they discovered it and claim to have solved a great mystery of the universe. But it will only get them a little closer to actually proving the big bang theory, which will have to continue to be taken on faith.