Anti-Theism Makes Cosmologists Go Crazy
Professing themselves to be wise, the professors became fools.
This headline is provocative, so let the evidence speak for itself.
Near-Earth objects could be used by extraterrestrials ‘to watch our world,’ stunning study suggests (Fox News Science). Sure, aliens could be using NEOs to spy on us. And cows could jump over the moon, a dish could run away with a spoon. If James Benford wants to play hey-diddle-diddle, he can fiddle any tune he wants.
“These near-Earth objects provide an ideal way to watch our world from a secure natural object,” the study’s abstract reads. “That provides resources an ETI [extraterrestrial intelligence] might need: materials, a firm anchor, and concealment. These have been little studied by astronomy and not at all by the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) or planetary radar observations.”
Notice that the reporter Chris Ciaccia is complicit in the nonsense, because he calls this a “stunning study.” Stunning, dashing, smashing indeed. Paul Davies justifies the search, saying that even if aliens aren’t there, we might find something interesting. How many vote for Benford going out to a NEO and taking a look for a few years? That would keep him out of the media for awhile.
Huge Cosmic Structures Already Existed When the Universe Was a Baby (Live Science). Cosmologists should get worried when huge cosmic structures are found to have already existed with the universe was a baby. They used to think such huge structures took a long time to form slowly and gradually. Like the Cambrian explosion in paleontology, such discoveries should call into question their beliefs. But these astronomers embrace their falsifying evidence, naming the cluster after a mythological Japanese queen, Himiko. Myth-ery loves company.
Theorists suggest ‘Higgs Troika’ may have been responsible for disappearance of antimatter (Phys.org). The commonly-accepted big bang theory has numerous problems. Among them is the antimatter problem. Cosmologists have been worried about it for almost a century now: the bang should have formed equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter, but antimatter is extremely rare. Earlier attempts focused on possibly tiny asymmetries between some particles, that may have led to annihilation of all the matter in the universe except for extremely tiny amounts of ordinary matter that remained, which became the universe we see. That seems preposterous (and no evidence has been found for such asymmetry).
When banging your head on one wall doesn’t alleviate the headache, try another wall. In this article, theorists “suggest” (i.e., make up a story) that maybe there were several kinds of Higgs boson in the early days of the universe. Three in particular might have had a preference for ordinary matter, which streamed out and annihilated the antimatter. They have to ramp up the perhapsimaybecouldness index sky-high to get this ‘scenario’ (myth) to work:
For the scenario to work, the researchers note, there would have to have been two as-yet undiscovered Higgs particles, plus the one that has been identified. And they would all have required high enough energies to generate matter when they decayed. Also, the time frame during which the antimatter was being lost would have been short, before the four forces split into their natural states.
It’s the old hobo lament, “If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.” If it’s crazy for hobos, it’s crazier for cosmologists. Hobos at least know that hams and eggs exist.
Giant planet around tiny star ‘should not exist’ (BBC News). Headlines like this are not new in astronomy. One famous astronomer quipped decades ago, ‘If stars did not exist, it would be easy to show that is exactly what we expect.’ Well, stars do exist, and so do large planets around small stars, like this one, GJ 3512b, a massive planet orbiting a small M-dwarf star. The paper in Science says, “A giant exoplanet orbiting a very-low-mass star challenges planet formation models.”
When challenged with falsifying data, an unbiased scientist is supposed to discard his theory. Don’t count on it. Crazy people continue doing what fails. The venerable ‘accretion’ theory, born from Laplace’s nebular model that had no need of the God hypothesis (as he famously told Napoleon), has been falsified by this planet. But astronomers are clever; they keep miracles in their back pockets.
We use simulations to demonstrate that the GJ 3512 planetary system challenges generally accepted formation theories, and that it puts constraints on the planet accretion and migration rates. Disk instabilities may be more efficient in forming planets than previously thought.
And what is disk instability, you ask? It’s basically a miracle. The one who came up with it called it heresy. Any secular heresy is better than the ‘God’ hypothesis, he figures. Disk instability is a myth that postulates that in a spinning disk of dust and gas, stuff may happen. A wad of stuff may suddenly become unstable, and collapse into a planet. Instant planets. Problem solved!
Atheists call theists crazy as a premise. Theists call atheists crazy as a conclusion.