Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Discuss deep philosophical topics and questions.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 12543
Joined: August 16th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Cornfed »

It seems like a series of kludges, implausible assumptions and magical thinking. Matter and energy are constant, except at one time when everything was magically puffed into existence from nothing. We’re travelling huge distances around the sun, so why is no parallax observed in the stars to speak of? Well, the stars are unimaginably far away. Why can we see them at all then? Because they are unimaginably huge. Why are they red shifted? Because they are moving away from us due to the Big Bang. So are we in the center of the universe then - that seems rather implausible? Well, everywhere looks like it’s in the center of the universe somehow. What explains attractive forces like gravity? Negative energy particles or some other kind of magic. And if the numbers don’t add up, dark matter, dark energy, cosmic strings, eleven dimensions or whatever. So basically just a lot of counter-intuitive nonsense.
gsjackson
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3758
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 7:08 am
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Contact:

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by gsjackson »

The attractive force gravity has been proven to your satisfaction? It's never been observed in nature or demonstrated experimentally. It was necessary to make plausible a spinning ball traveling around the sun (to explain why ocean water and such don't just fall off), and Newton, like Einstein later, was declared a genius for pulling the heliocentric' model's chestnuts out of the fire with explanations that might at least conceivably be possible. But take away the need to validate the heliocentric model, and gravity just fits easily into the category of "counter-intuitive nonsense."
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 12543
Joined: August 16th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Cornfed »

gsjackson wrote:
September 27th, 2020, 7:31 pm
The attractive force gravity has been proven to your satisfaction?
Not really, but that is how they explain it. I suspect having an up/down orientation with things finding their level of density in a medium is a matter of habituation, as Sheldrake would say.
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Neo »

Read Romans 1. Some people don't want to believe God is real because they have evil lust. So then they have to make up a false creation story to believe in. It's the same with evolution. Dinosaurs are also fiction. No such thing.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 12543
Joined: August 16th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Cornfed »

Neo wrote:
September 27th, 2020, 11:43 pm
Read Romans 1. Some people don't want to believe God is real because they have evil lust. So then they have to make up a false creation story to believe in. It's the same with evolution. Dinosaurs are also fiction. No such thing.
Probably a lot of the mainstream worldview is just made up. It makes me feel cheated because I have spent a lot of time getting an understanding of the mainstream worldview, only to realise that I might not be any better informed than the average dumbass in the street.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Winston »

Great observation cornfed.

Actually if u look at modern cosmology honestly, its primarily based on mathematical equations on a chalkboard. Not on real science like experimentation and observation. All one has to do to get a theory approved is make it add up on a chalkboard with equations.

Nikola Tesla (whom Einstein called the smartest man in the world) even said in his day that modern physics is all based on mathematical equations, not real science or real things that can be tested and analyzed in a laboratory using the scientific method. Therefore its bunk.

The problem with mathematical equations is that it can only predict simple things. For example u can calculate how much fuel a car will need for X miles of travel. But you can't use it to explain things like the origin of the universe because such things have an infinite number of variables (some of which could be intangible or metaphysical) that cannot be calculated on a chalkboard.

And math is like a language, and language can be used to lie amd deceive too, as Walter Russell said.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
gsjackson
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3758
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 7:08 am
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Contact:

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by gsjackson »

Cornfed wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 12:26 am
Neo wrote:
September 27th, 2020, 11:43 pm
Read Romans 1. Some people don't want to believe God is real because they have evil lust. So then they have to make up a false creation story to believe in. It's the same with evolution. Dinosaurs are also fiction. No such thing.
Probably a lot of the mainstream worldview is just made up. It makes me feel cheated because I have spent a lot of time getting an understanding of the mainstream worldview, only to realise that I might not be any better informed than the average dumbass in the street.
Amen. The older I get the more life becomes one giant epistemological challenge -- who or what to believe? The only thing I'm certain of: If the corporate media are presenting something as "news," it's almost certainly the opposite of the truth.

This does, however, make some sense out of the Garden of Eden story and fatally taking a bite out of the tree of knowledge. I always wondered, isn't knowledge a good thing? But now I see that most "knowledge" we come into possession of is simply untrue, whether we've been deliberately lied to or had simple stupidity passed along.
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Neo »

gsjackson wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 5:49 am
Cornfed wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 12:26 am
Neo wrote:
September 27th, 2020, 11:43 pm
Read Romans 1. Some people don't want to believe God is real because they have evil lust. So then they have to make up a false creation story to believe in. It's the same with evolution. Dinosaurs are also fiction. No such thing.
Probably a lot of the mainstream worldview is just made up. It makes me feel cheated because I have spent a lot of time getting an understanding of the mainstream worldview, only to realise that I might not be any better informed than the average dumbass in the street.
Amen. The older I get the more life becomes one giant epistemological challenge -- who or what to believe? The only thing I'm certain of: If the corporate media are presenting something as "news," it's almost certainly the opposite of the truth.

This does, however, make some sense out of the Garden of Eden story and fatally taking a bite out of the tree of knowledge. I always wondered, isn't knowledge a good thing? But now I see that most "knowledge" we come into possession of is simply untrue, whether we've been deliberately lied to or had simple stupidity passed along.
There's the knowledge of good; then there is the knowledge of evil. It is the knowledge of how to do evil that can destroy a person, if they start to use it. The working of evil is sin, and the penalty for sin is death, and eternal death is eternal destruction.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Neo »

Cornfed wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 12:26 am
Neo wrote:
September 27th, 2020, 11:43 pm
Read Romans 1. Some people don't want to believe God is real because they have evil lust. So then they have to make up a false creation story to believe in. It's the same with evolution. Dinosaurs are also fiction. No such thing.
Probably a lot of the mainstream worldview is just made up. It makes me feel cheated because I have spent a lot of time getting an understanding of the mainstream worldview, only to realise that I might not be any better informed than the average dumbass in the street.
Remember, according to the Bible, the world is deceived by the adversary. A man must seek Christ if he wants to know the truth.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Winston »

Also keep in mind that since we cannot go into outer space, they can say anything about it and get away with it, and we can do nothing to verify anything they say.

If you think about it, there are some strange anomalies and things that don't add up when you look deeper into cosmology and astronomy. For instance:

1. They say there's no up or down in space, like someone here above mentioned. But how come every photo of Earth from outer space shows it right side up? Why not upside down or sideways? And why do all planets in the solar system orbit on the same level, like all pepperonis on a pizza are on the same horizontal level? Why wouldn't every planet have its own orbital path, including obiting the Sun north to south, above and under it I mean, too? If there's no up or down that is?

2. If the Earth and solar system are moving through space at vast speeds, and all the stars are moving away from us as the universe expands, then how come you see the same stars every night? How come the North Star Polaris is always in the same place above the North Pole, as though it were fixed? They can only say that the stars are too far away to move. But that makes no sense and sounds very ad hoc, like they just pulled it out of thin air to make their model work. The stars around us would have to move a little at least if everything were moving in space including the Earth and entire solar system. Seems very fishy and suspicious. Of course, we are programmed not to question science since it's the new priesthood.

3. If you look into it deeply, you find that there's actually no REAL evidence that the Earth moves at all, just like Neo said. They cannot prove it or demonstrate it. All they have to prove it are mathematical equations that add up on a chalkboard, but not real evidence. One can also use equations to prove Geocentricity too, as well as Heliocentricity. The top astronomers admit they are both equally valid and add up using equations.

The Heliocentric model is also based on Galileo's principle that smaller things revolve around bigger objects, so the Earth must revolve around the Sun. However, they cannot even explain what gravity is. Neil de Grass Tyson admitted this in an interview too. And they cannot prove how big the Sun is either. So all of this is suspect.

To try to prove that the Earth rotates, they have stuff like the Coriolis effect and Focault's pendulum. However, there are other explanations for those things, they aren't really proof of anything. And many experiments show no Coriolis effect at all. It's only there if you want it to be there it seems. And a pendulum will not swing by itself unless pushed, so that can't mean anything really. If you don't push it or move it or apply any force to it, the pendulum lies perfectly still. What does that prove? Really dumb. And even if those things did prove the Earth was rotating, it would only prove that the Earth rotates, not that it's moving through space around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is much faster than a speeding bullet. lol

Also if Earth is moving that fast through space, we would see objects whizzing by us like a speeding bullet all the time, like meteors, asteroids, space debris, etc. And when the astronauts go into space, like toward the Moon, the Earth would leave them in the dust faster than a speeding bullet, and they'd be doomed and lost in space forever. So it makes no sense.

Alex told me that it cannot work like that, they have to say that the solar system is like a merry go round carousel. So once you get off the horse on a merry go round, you are still moving with the horses because you are standing on a spinning platform, even if you aren't attached to anything. So that means even if you're in outer space and in the solar system, you are still orbiting with all the planets, on the same trajectory, even if you're not on any planet or attached to anything. They have to explain it like that. Kind of weird isn't it? Again it sounds totally ad hoc, like they just pull it out of thin air, like a magician does with a rabbit, any time they need to to make their model work.

What do you guys think? @gsjackson do you ever wonder about these things too?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Neo »

Winston wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 10:53 pm
Also keep in mind that since we cannot go into outer space, they can say anything about it and get away with it, and we can do nothing to verify anything they say.

If you think about it, there are some strange anomalies and things that don't add up when you look deeper into cosmology and astronomy. For instance:

1. They say there's no up or down in space, like someone here above mentioned. But how come every photo of Earth from outer space shows it right side up? Why not upside down or sideways? And why do all planets in the solar system orbit on the same level, like all pepperonis on a pizza are on the same horizontal level? Why wouldn't every planet have its own orbital path, including obiting the Sun north to south, above and under it I mean, too? If there's no up or down that is?

2. If the Earth and solar system are moving through space at vast speeds, and all the stars are moving away from us as the universe expands, then how come you see the same stars every night? How come the North Star Polaris is always in the same place above the North Pole, as though it were fixed? They can only say that the stars are too far away to move. But that makes no sense and sounds very ad hoc, like they just pulled it out of thin air to make their model work. The stars around us would have to move a little at least if everything were moving in space including the Earth and entire solar system. Seems very fishy and suspicious. Of course, we are programmed not to question science since it's the new priesthood.

3. If you look into it deeply, you find that there's actually no REAL evidence that the Earth moves at all, just like Neo said. They cannot prove it or demonstrate it. All they have to prove it are mathematical equations that add up on a chalkboard, but not real evidence. One can also use equations to prove Geocentricity too, as well as Heliocentricity. The top astronomers admit they are both equally valid and add up using equations.

The Heliocentric model is also based on Galileo's principle that smaller things revolve around bigger objects, so the Earth must revolve around the Sun. However, they cannot even explain what gravity is. Neil de Grass Tyson admitted this in an interview too. And they cannot prove how big the Sun is either. So all of this is suspect.

To try to prove that the Earth rotates, they have stuff like the Coriolis effect and Focault's pendulum. However, there are other explanations for those things, they aren't really proof of anything. And many experiments show no Coriolis effect at all. It's only there if you want it to be there it seems. And a pendulum will not swing by itself unless pushed, so that can't mean anything really. If you don't push it or move it or apply any force to it, the pendulum lies perfectly still. What does that prove? Really dumb. And even if those things did prove the Earth was rotating, it would only prove that the Earth rotates, not that it's moving through space around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is much faster than a speeding bullet. lol

Also if Earth is moving that fast through space, we would see objects whizzing by us like a speeding bullet all the time, like meteors, asteroids, space debris, etc. And when the astronauts go into space, like toward the Moon, the Earth would leave them in the dust faster than a speeding bullet, and they'd be doomed and lost in space forever. So it makes no sense.

Alex told me that it cannot work like that, they have to say that the solar system is like a merry go round carousel. So once you get off the horse on a merry go round, you are still moving with the horses because you are standing on a spinning platform, even if you aren't attached to anything. So that means even if you're in outer space and in the solar system, you are still orbiting with all the planets, on the same trajectory, even if you're not on any planet or attached to anything. They have to explain it like that. Kind of weird isn't it? Again it sounds totally ad hoc, like they just pull it out of thin air, like a magician does with a rabbit, any time they need to to make their model work.

What do you guys think? @gsjackson do you ever wonder about these things too?
Also, every so called star is moving in its own direction separate from that of the sun and the earth, and each so called star is moving at a different speed. Yet constellations have held for thousands of years and continue to hold night after night.

There's no point to discussing this with someone who can't see this, however. Either a person can get it or they don't. And for some reason, some people need to feel rage over this topic.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
User avatar
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1788
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by MrPeabody »

The big bang theory was created by a Catholic priest who believed in God. The biggest issue in theoretical physics is that there is no way to unify Quantum mechanics (the theory of small things) with General Relativity (the theory of super large things). The other issue is non-locality, that is, when two subatomic particles entangle with each other, then spread apart, their actions are correlated no matter how far apart they are. According to relativity, this can’t happen through transmission of energy because energy can’t travel faster than the speed of light. That means it could only be through non-energy, which would be information or consciousness. Wolfang Pauli, one of the inventors of Quantum physics worked with Carl Jung to develop the theory of synchronicity where mental events correlate with physical events.

Modern physics may eventually prove that consciousness is primary, and matter/energy comes out of consciousness. That would mean that the human brain does not produce consciousness but acts like a radio receiver that picks up a narrow spectrum of consciousness from the cosmic whole.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/03/0 ... auli-jung/
gsjackson
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3758
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 7:08 am
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Contact:

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by gsjackson »

Winston wrote:
September 28th, 2020, 10:53 pm
Also keep in mind that since we cannot go into outer space, they can say anything about it and get away with it, and we can do nothing to verify anything they say.

If you think about it, there are some strange anomalies and things that don't add up when you look deeper into cosmology and astronomy. For instance:

1. They say there's no up or down in space, like someone here above mentioned. But how come every photo of Earth from outer space shows it right side up? Why not upside down or sideways? And why do all planets in the solar system orbit on the same level, like all pepperonis on a pizza are on the same horizontal level? Why wouldn't every planet have its own orbital path, including obiting the Sun north to south, above and under it I mean, too? If there's no up or down that is?

2. If the Earth and solar system are moving through space at vast speeds, and all the stars are moving away from us as the universe expands, then how come you see the same stars every night? How come the North Star Polaris is always in the same place above the North Pole, as though it were fixed? They can only say that the stars are too far away to move. But that makes no sense and sounds very ad hoc, like they just pulled it out of thin air to make their model work. The stars around us would have to move a little at least if everything were moving in space including the Earth and entire solar system. Seems very fishy and suspicious. Of course, we are programmed not to question science since it's the new priesthood.

3. If you look into it deeply, you find that there's actually no REAL evidence that the Earth moves at all, just like Neo said. They cannot prove it or demonstrate it. All they have to prove it are mathematical equations that add up on a chalkboard, but not real evidence. One can also use equations to prove Geocentricity too, as well as Heliocentricity. The top astronomers admit they are both equally valid and add up using equations.

The Heliocentric model is also based on Galileo's principle that smaller things revolve around bigger objects, so the Earth must revolve around the Sun. However, they cannot even explain what gravity is. Neil de Grass Tyson admitted this in an interview too. And they cannot prove how big the Sun is either. So all of this is suspect.

To try to prove that the Earth rotates, they have stuff like the Coriolis effect and Focault's pendulum. However, there are other explanations for those things, they aren't really proof of anything. And many experiments show no Coriolis effect at all. It's only there if you want it to be there it seems. And a pendulum will not swing by itself unless pushed, so that can't mean anything really. If you don't push it or move it or apply any force to it, the pendulum lies perfectly still. What does that prove? Really dumb. And even if those things did prove the Earth was rotating, it would only prove that the Earth rotates, not that it's moving through space around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is much faster than a speeding bullet. lol

Also if Earth is moving that fast through space, we would see objects whizzing by us like a speeding bullet all the time, like meteors, asteroids, space debris, etc. And when the astronauts go into space, like toward the Moon, the Earth would leave them in the dust faster than a speeding bullet, and they'd be doomed and lost in space forever. So it makes no sense.

Alex told me that it cannot work like that, they have to say that the solar system is like a merry go round carousel. So once you get off the horse on a merry go round, you are still moving with the horses because you are standing on a spinning platform, even if you aren't attached to anything. So that means even if you're in outer space and in the solar system, you are still orbiting with all the planets, on the same trajectory, even if you're not on any planet or attached to anything. They have to explain it like that. Kind of weird isn't it? Again it sounds totally ad hoc, like they just pull it out of thin air, like a magician does with a rabbit, any time they need to to make their model work.

What do you guys think? @gsjackson do you ever wonder about these things too?
Do I wonder about these things? Well not any more because I've pretty much satisfied myself that they are bullshit.

Ad hoc? Yeah. Jerry-built and procrustean are other terms to describe it. Sun worshipers and secret societies 400 years ago -- we want the earth to revolve around the sun, and we have our reasons. Okay, so it can't be flat as it appears to be, because then the sun would shine on all parts of it at all times. So let's make it a spinning ball and that will explain night and day. But what's to keep the ocean water and everything else from flying off it? Voila, gravity. Why do the stars always stay in the same position if the earth is traveling hundreds of thousands of miles every day? It must be because they are inconceivably far away. Uh oh, 19th century experiments are unable to detect any motion of the earth. What are we to do? Here comes Einstein with a theory that no one can understand that explains how the earth can be in motion that is neither perceived nor demonstrated experimentally. Let's run with it, and declare him a genius.
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Why is mainstream cosmology taken seriously?

Post by Neo »

There's also a great controversy within the scientific community as to the nature of the "Big Bang." They cannot agree on the specifics. It is really still up in the air even as far as that theory is concerned.

It's interesting to research such things, once a person realizes that it's all fiction.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Deep Philosophical Discussions”