Cosmology: Is it True? Part One

4 Nov



From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

It is patently absurd to believe that it is factually true that “the universe” is a very large and rather static physical object shaped somewhat like a funnel, which began with a singularity occurring 13.74 billion years ago. The Big Bang model of the universe has no basis in fact. The theory of Black Holes is a mathematical construct only. Both the Big Bang and Black Holes are based on questionable theoretical modeling and are supported solely by paper and pencil mathematical computations (or, in more recent years, computer math). They and other similar cosmological fantasies are also supported by our unshakeable faith in the far-seeing ability of a handful of scientists who happen to be very good at telling interesting stories which capture the attention of the public.

In this four-part series I am going to explain why the properties of optics among other things demonstrate the universe could not possibly be a funnel-shaped “box of rocks” as the current scientific canon dictates. I will provide several alternative descriptions of the universe, including that the universe may actually be a smear rather than an “object.”

I will show that what we can see of the smear of the universe could actually be a mixture of organic and non-organic materials. Finally, I will demonstrate that the universe may actually be an ecological system where our solar system is simply an ecological niche. I will show that the universe as an ecological system is not capable of mathematical certainty, and therefore is indeterminate and subject to computational irreducibility. This is a long story. I guarantee it will be worth your while to follow the story to the end.

What we are seeking here is an actual coherent explanation of what we know and what we don’t know about the “universe,” and a coherent view of our place in the “universe.” Perhaps in our quest for coherence, we should keep in mind the possibility that the universe, as well as the vast world within us and without us, remains a mystery. To the extent that we can look at our whole world as a mystery rather than as a solved scientific problem, we will make eventual progress in finding better and more fulfilling ways of living in our bodies, our world, and our universe.

The excitement of the scientific stories of the “discovery” of the nature of the universe has spread around the world over the last hundred years. The Big Bang, Black Holes, the shrinking and expanding universe, objects about to collide with the earth: all these and many more speculative narratives have entered the consciousness of our time. These fictional accounts are now accepted as a fact by people who should certainly know better.

Please let me make clear at the outset that in these comments I am not attacking anyone’s religious beliefs, nor am I describing these religious beliefs as fictional. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and all the other foundational religious texts are what they are, and are worthy, and are based primarily on the faith one has in these ancient foundational texts.

What I am saying is that the texts written primarily by Twentieth Century cosmological scientists are to a great extent fictional, and are written in such a way as to have some of the same attributes as religious texts, yet are not worthy of belief as revealed truth. They are based solely on assumptions, and require faith in order to be believed.

At least Jules Verne had the integrity to declare that his novels such as “Journey to the Center of the Earth” were fictional. And when Orson Welles’ radio drama, “War of the Worlds,” in 1938 made millions of people actually believe that we were being invaded by Martians, at least the network had the integrity to follow up with heavy disclaimers about the truth of the show.

It is absolutely necessary for us who are not a part of the initiated priesthood of science to accept the fabulous assertions of our cosmologists based entirely on faith, as there is no other basis for belief. The foundational stories of cosmology were written by such notables as the five cosmic theologians Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre, and Stephen Hawking. For us to believe in the current cosmological description of the universe we must believe without question and with faith in these five men’s written texts, a Torah of science, and those of their minor prophets, who are many.

These physicists are the authors of the new cosmological creation stories, and their narratives are largely intended to replace the prior religious creation stories contained in faith-based religious narratives. The writings of these and other scientists are intended to, or have the effect of being, analogous to the writings contained in the five books of the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Everyone acknowledges that the writings of the Torah must be accepted on faith and without factual evidence to support them. Why is it that no one seems to recognize that the writings of the five above-named physicists and their minor prophets must also be accepted on faith and without factual evidence to support them?

From Easton’s Dictionary, faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a given statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching. Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith. Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of the source of the faith.

How do our cosmological physicists of the last hundred years get away with claiming infallibility and dodge the question of faith as a precondition for believing their narratives? First of all, they claim that each of their assertions is entirely based on facts, and as such we must accept the truth. The problem here is that their “factual analyses” are so complex and obscure that only a very few select people can understand them, so everybody in the common population must simply accept that the facts are there. And the truth is: the facts are not there.

This position is not so very unlike the position of the medieval European priesthood. Only a few selected scholars knew Latin, the Bible and all Biblical analysis was in Latin, and all masses and other services were conducted in Latin. Therefore the common people, which meant nearly everyone, were required to rely entirely on the priests and the scholars for an understanding and interpretations of the Christian faith. I don’t know about you, but this seems to me to have been a very unsatisfactory situation, especially since I’m one of the “common people.” Even with my considerable education, I know only a few Latin phrases, such as res ipsa loquitur.

The modern cosmological scientists are therefore claiming much of the same ground as these medieval priests. So we must agree, on faith, that the narrative stories of these cosmologists are true. Such an act of faith requires us common people to exercise our will to come to a place of agreement with these cosmologists. We must willingly assent and choose to believe, even without understanding the essence of what we are choosing to believe in. The ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of the source of the faith.

Are we as a people willing to blindly accept on faith the veracity of Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre, Stephen Hawking and their followers, and their very obscure computations and suspect “observations?” We really don’t know these men, or their followers, and we don’t know what was or is in their heart of hearts. We do know that Albert Einstein was a man of noble intentions, yet even he may have inserted some extraneous factors into his Special Theory of Relativity equations to make them balance.

I’m certainly not suggesting any conspiracy among scientists. I expect that they were good guys who were doing the best they could with what they had in front of them. None were deliberately trying to generate a false cosmology. It’s just that one thing got piled onto another, as things tend to do in everyday life as well as in the hallowed halls of scholarship.

Another source of our faith in these cosmological scientists is the award to many of them of the Nobel Prize in physics. If the work receives a Nobel Prize, it must be true. Just remember, though, that the Nobel prizes are generally awarded based on a consensus of scientists who are in the same field. Each of these scientists has a vested interest in preserving the current narrative. Thousands of men and women are frantically publishing academic papers confirming and extending the current narrative. This is just what scientists do. No one should make them out to be either good or bad for doing what they normally do, even if they’re getting it wrong some of the time.

Another source of our faith in these cosmological scientists is that their creation and history of the universe stories are peppered with observations and experiments which they say demonstrate that the facts they are writing about are true. They tell us in a facile way that the computations on which their stories are based are so complex and obscure that we normal people couldn’t possibly understand them. But the observations, experiments, and calculations are there, take our word for it, they say.


The “cosmic microwave background radiation” shown above is considered by cosmological scientists to be actual evidence and proof of the Big Bang, not subject to interpretation; and looking at it, scientists in the know see the origins of the universe. Hmmm…. All we see when we commoners look at it is a gooey mash-up of irregular forms. We are assured by the storytellers that each of the tiny configurations in this picture contains hard evidence of the Big Bang. Is their heartfelt assurance worthy of our belief? When I look at that picture I see a brightly decorated and slightly deflated beach ball.

This is part one of a series. As the series progresses we’ll look at more supposed proofs of the veracity of the cosmological scientists. Particular emphasis will be given to the known qualities of light. Then I will propose one or more alternate descriptions of the universe outside our solar system, descriptions which are just as likely as those of the current creation scientists.

Much of this analysis is based on original research done by my daughter Michelle Kathryn McGee. You can visit her site at  She does not vouch for the accuracy of what I am writing; any mistakes or misstatements are entirely my own.

One Response to “Cosmology: Is it True? Part One”

  1. StefanoZ November 24, 2013 at 8:48 am #

    I noticed that it’s hard to find your blog in google, i found it on 18th spot, you should get some quality backlinks to rank it in google and increase traffic. I had the same problem with my blog, your should search in google for – insane google ranking boost – it helped me a lot

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: