Where particle physics intersects with ‘climate science’ — JunkScience.com

While particle physicists aren’t trying to destroy our standard of living (as are “climate scientists”), this New York Times op-ed inadvertently points out the commonality between particle physics and “climate science”. Here you go: Read the NYTimes op-ed.

via Where particle physics intersects with ‘climate science’ — JunkScience.com

Is the Universe Expanding or is it an illusion?

Is the universe expanding from a Big Bang or is it a misinterpretation of the redshift of light?

The Big Bang and the expanding universe probably are illusions that fit the progressive agenda of an ever evolving universe.

It also closes the door on the infinite series of cause and effect that requires a first cause outside the system to get it started, aka God/ creator/ overarching, pre-existing force.  If time itself began with the Big Bang, there can be no “before,” thus cutting off any consideration of a first cause.

The Big Bang theory is based on three things:

1.) An interpretation of the redshift of light from other galaxies as speed of recession,

2.) One of many solutions to Einstein’s field equations that favored an expanding universe. Einstein’s own solution included a cosmological constant that resulted in a non-expanding universe.

3.) The Cosmic Microwave Background (or CMB) interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang.

Redshift is really the shift of the dark absorption lines of elements to longer, redder, wavelengths. Hydrogen is usually used because of its abundance.

Before discussing redshift to distance let me set the stage. It’s the 1920s.

Before telescopes were powerful enough to see individual stars in other galaxies, our galaxy was assumed to be the entire universe and galaxies were assumed to be clouds of glowing gas called nebulae (meaning clouds) within our galaxy.

We now estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Cepheid variable stars with the same variability period had been determined to be the same brightness everywhere, which made them a “standard candle” to determine distance, first in our galaxy and then in other galaxies. When individual stars were first seen in other galaxies, using the most powerful telescope of the time, nebulae were identified as other “island universes,” aka galaxies.

Redshift of galaxy cluster (right) vs. solar spectrum

Redshift of stars in our galaxy were determined to be caused by their speed moving away from us. The faster, the greater the redshift by the Doppler Effect, where light is “stretched” by the speed of the source.

Redshifts in nebulae (nearby galaxies) were known to be greater than redshifts within our own galaxy.

Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift to distance relationship for nearby galaxies, based on Cepheid variable stars within them. By this he calculated that farther is redder.

Because the redshift from nearby stars in our galaxy had been recognized as indicating their speed away from us, this new redshift was assumed to mean speed of recession of galaxies.

Hubble noted that the redshift to distance relationship was only linear if he assumed fixed, not receding galaxies.

He was also uncomfortable with the extreme speeds calculated from redshift which were rapidly approaching the speed of light with increasing distance.

His redshift to distance calculations resulted in very small universe with a “Big Bang” point of origin only 2 billion years ago, which is less than the calculated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. Later adjustments extended it to 13.7 years ago, which is still only 3 times the age of the earth.

He spent the rest of his life trying to convince others that they were wrong about redshift meaning speed of recession.

Today’s redshift calculations exclude nearby galaxies as being affected by gravity of the Local Group of galaxies.

Cosmological and relativistic terms have been added to the calculations, so the relationship is no longer linear

A redshift of 1, as a simple ratio, is equal to the speed of light; we now have redshifts greater than 8.

This made it necessary for cosmologists to assume that space itself between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light, the upper limit of speed for ordinary matter.

 Fritz Zwicky, a contemporary of  Hubble, proposed that the red shift is from loss of energy by gravitational interaction over time that fits observations better than other non-speed related theories.

To be a valid theory, the redshift must occur uniformly for the entire spectrum and not blur or obscure distant objects by scattering light. All theories based on repeated collisions in space do not fit these requirements.

History rewritten: Modern cosmologists claim Zwicky’s theory was about collisions. His original paper[1] discussed collision related theories and eliminated them in favor of gravitational influence over time and distance.

More recently Steven Weinberg and others have raised speculation that mirrored Zwicky’s theory of gravitational influence over time causing red shifts, but they were not ready to abandon the expanding universe paradigm.

“The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light…in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.” Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler,  quoted in “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered,” by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, Sky &Telescope, February 1993 issue.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang. However, the temperature of thinly dispersed matter in space as a result of residual starlight was earlier calculated and predicted by Guillaume, (5 K < T < 6 K),26 Eddington, (T = 3.1 K), Regener and Nernst, (T = 2.8 K), McKellar and Herzberg, (T = 2.3 K), Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, (1.9 K < T < 6.0 K) based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion.[2]  Penzias and Wilson experimentally found the cosmic microwave background radiation to be consistent with a temperature of 2.7 K. Gamow, who had claimed to be the originator of the Big Bang Theory, also erroneously claimed he had been the first to predict the background temperature and claimed the result as evidence for the Big Bang. However, his estimate was not only not the first, but was 7 K with an upper limit of 50K.

Did Einstein really say his cosmological constant (for a non-expanding universe) was his biggest mistake? 

The so-called Einstein quote that his cosmological constant was the “biggest blunder” of his life was only claimed by George Gamow  in 1970, 15 years after Einstein died.

Einstein’s friends and research associates denied it but claimed that, if he said it, it was a joke. (the polite way to avoid calling Gamow a liar.)

Conclusion: If the universe is not expanding from a Big Bang, it can be far larger and much older than the Big Bang theory allows. The observable universe, observed back to approx. 13.5 billion years, may be a small corner of a much grander universe, which could allow more time for formation of galaxies and larger structures without the proposed dark matter influence. Exotic inventions such as expanding space, dark energy and dark matter may not be necessary.  Recent work using  near-infrared data from the Spitzer space telescope to more accurately estimate mass of numerous galaxies explains galaxy rotation speeds without resorting to exotic dark matter.[3]

 

[1] Original Report: “On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space,” By F. Zwicky, Norman Bridge Laboratory Of Physics, California Institute Of Technology,  August 26, 1929

[2] History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson” A. K. T. Assis, Instituto de Fisica “Gleb Wataghin” Universidade Estadual deCampinas 13083-970 Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil M. C. D. Neves Departamento de Fisica Universidade Estadual de Maringa 87020-900 Maringa, PR, Brasil

[3] “The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies,” by Stacy S. McGaugh and Federico Lelli, Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, James M. Schombert, Department of Physics, University of Oregon (Dated: September 21, 2016)    arXiv: 1609.05917v1 astro-physics. GA


Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Does the observer determine outcomes in quantum physics ?

Solvay Conference on Quantum Mechanics 1927
Solvay Conference on Quantum Mechanics 1927

Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory, which is based on complex mathematics, tries to describe and explain the odd behavior of particles and forces in the atomic and subatomic realm. In this theory, things don’t happen in a smooth (analog) manner but in a punctuated (digital) manner Electrons move around the nucleus at high speeds so that their exact location at any one moment is not known precisely without measurement. The likelihood of finding a given electron at a particular place in its orbital is described by a probability, thus defining the electron “cloud” or “shell.” An electron jumps from one allowed orbital to another by absorbing energy (a photon) at a specific energy (wavelength).

The absorbed photon at a specific energy level is called a quantum, thus quantum theory. The electron will also fall from this “excited” state back to its more stable “ground” state orbital by emitting a quantum of energy. Electrons exist or move between one allowed energy state (orbital) and another based on discrete quanta of energy that they absorb, emit or carry. Each element has unique orbital energies so that light interacting with an atom shows absorption and emission lines at specific wavelengths that can be used to identify the element.

Wave-Particle Duality:

In Quantum Theory, subatomic particles are described as both particles and waves simultaneously. This is referred to as wave-particle duality. All types of energy, including subatomic binding forces, are also defined as both particles and waves, so that matter and energy are treated as if they are the same thing. Both subatomic particles and photons sometimes act like waves and sometimes like particles, depending on how they are tested or detected. Two experiments are noted as evidence: the double slit interference patterns and the photoelectric effect in which electrons are emitted when light is shined on a metal surface. Einstein assumed this proved that energy waves were really made of particles that he called photons.

The double slit experiment is said to demonstrate the wave nature of particles and photons. The photoelectric effect is said to demonstrate the particle nature of particles and photons. Wave-particle duality rests on the assumption that single photons or particles are being measured. Since all detectors have threshold sensitivities below which nothing is detected, it could mean that multiple, not single, photons or particles are really being tested[1]. This would explain the interference patterns seen when either photons or electrons are tested in the double slit experiment. Photoelectric experiments may also be misinterpreted. It is possible that absorbed energy, not photon particles, causes emission of loosely held electrons on the metal surface. Granted, this is speculation at this time, but calls for more study.

Copenhagen Interpretation:

In the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a particle is said to not have a fixed state but exist in a smeared out multiplicity of states at once until a measurement is taken when it “collapses” into one state. The observer (or detector) becomes a part of the quantum system. This is the principle of superposition. Because an electron can be found in any of the probability-allowed “shell” locations, this interpretation assumes that the electron really is at all the locations or states at once and only assumes a fixed state when measured. This assumption extends to all of the characteristics of the electron such as position, spin or momentum. This assumption also extends to all other subatomic particles and photons (energy particles).

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory also says the electron exists in one or the other allowed orbital level but does not exist anywhere between.   When a quantum of energy is absorbed the electron is said to pop out of existence in the original shell and simultaneously pop into existence in the new shell. But, since the electron shell defines a probability, and most of the time the electron exists in one of these shells, the probability of finding it anywhere between is statistically infinitesimal.   It is said not to exist there, and it is thus called “forbidden.” Is it only an extremely small probability or are we talking about its actual existence? The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory says it is the latter. Other interpretations of Quantum Theory differ as to what actually happens. See list below.

Uncertainty Principle: Ontology or Epistomology?

 In trying to measure these discrete orbitals and their electron locations and momenta, it became apparent that measurement of any kind disturbed the system so that only one of two coupled parameters could be determined at any one time, e.g. position and momentum (or speed). This led to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of any one subatomic particle at the same time. The system is disturbed by measurement because measuring subatomic particle parameters is like administering eye drops with a fire hose. Because the subatomic particles are so small compared to any means of measuring their parameters, what is measured is in a disturbed condition.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was meant to be a statement of experimental limitations, not that location and momentum (or other coupled parameters) did not exist in a fixed state at the same time. However, Bohr and other Copenhagen interpretation proponents interpreted it that way, assuming that atoms or atomic particles were never in a fixed state until measured, and that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of subatomic particles, not just an experimental limitation. Thus they have substituted ontology (being) for epistemology (ability to know). Heisenberg never accepted the principle of superposition or non-locality claimed in the Copenhagen interpretation.

Superposition:

 Edwin Schrodinger provided the mathematical equations for the behavior of electromagnetic waves that are used in quantum mechanics[2]. These probabilistic differential wave equations are linear (first order), that is, they can be plotted as straight lines on a graph. Superposition is a concept in mathematics stating that in linear equations all of the contributing factors must add up to the net effect of each factor individually. Since Schrodinger’s equations for waves are linear, it is assumed that their application to subatomic particles is also linear. From there it is a leap of faith to assume that particles don’t just have the capability of being in different states, but that they are simultaneously in all possible states at once. Instead of just being a mathematical concept, superposition now was applied directly to subatomic particles in a real physical sense.

However, Schrodinger did not agree with this Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He came up with an example within everyone’s sphere of experience that illustrated the absurdity of their assumed superposition. This was the famous Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. He set up the experiment so that a cat in a closed box could be either alive or dead, depending on whether a radioactive particle spontaneously decayed setting off a mechanism that released a deadly poison gas. In this thought experiment, using the Copenhagen interpretation of superposition, since we don’t know what state the cat is in until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive until it is opened at which time the cat becomes either dead or alive. The act of observing somehow must cause the cat to assume either a dead or alive state. In all other realms, this would be called Magical Thinking. Meant to point out the weakness or absurdity of superposition, it has been used to illustrate the opposite through convoluted “reasoning” to make it fit the Copenhagen or similar interpretations.

 Communication at a distance:

 The idea of instantaneous communication and action at a distance is a consequence of this assumed superposition where particles did not assume a fixed state until observed. By Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in the same orbital can be in the same quantum state. Each must differ in some way, for example they must have opposite spins. The two particles are said to be entangled since each must be in the opposite state to the other.   If one of the electrons is emitted and travels relatively far away, when one of the electrons is measured (observed), it collapses into a fixed state and simultaneously the other one collapses into the opposite state that can be confirmed when it is measured. This implies speed of communication faster than the speed of light, the assumed upper limit of speed[3].

Einstein thought that quantum action at a distance was an illusion based on the assumption of superposition, aka non-locality. If particles are assumed to have fixed states, although unknown to an observer, the action at a distance is no mystery. It only implies that entangled states, e.g. opposite spins, persist after separation. When one of the particles is measured, you automatically know the state of the other since they must be the opposite of each other, whether together of separated. Einstein spent the latter part of his career trying to prove this.

Other Interpretations:

There are more than a dozen other interpretations. The most popular, among a long list, (see table following), are the Copenhagen interpretation and its variants, the Many Worlds interpretation and the Ensemble interpretation. Variants of the Copenhagen interpretation involve either the observer or the cat (as observer and participant) as being parts of the quantum system. Another, the Many Worlds interpretation is even more speculative. In this scenario, each time a subatomic particle collapses and “chooses” a fixed state, reality splits in two and both possible realities still exist, but in different undetectable dimensions. Think of this as a time series of pictures or a strip of movie film. At the decision point, the one series becomes two, and at the next decision point, becomes four, etc. ad infinitum.

The Ensemble interpretation states that Quantum Mechanics can only be applied to statistically significant numbers of particles, not to individual particles. Since the wave equations describe probabilities, it would be meaningless to apply probabilities or statistics to single particles. This is the interpretation favored by Einstein but is discounted by leading QM physicists. Similar realistic interpretations such as those proposed by de Broglie-Bohm and science philosopher Karl Popper assume real particles with real positions and real wave functions that do not need to “collapse” upon measurement. I tend to prefer these theories because of their realism.

“The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete      description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.”

—A. Einstein in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist

Is the universe really indeterminant?

As a consequence of the probabilistic view of the subatomic world, Quantum Theory leads to a conclusion that events are not deterministic, but rather are indeterminate; that they just happen without actual connections between cause and effect. If deterministic, then events in the past must predict future events as causal antecedents. In the macro or “real” world, everything has a cause or causes, whether known or not. Determinism is the accepted view or apparent state of the real universe because, knowing the mass, position and the momentum of a (larger) body, plus all of the influences on it and the mathematical equations governing its movement, one can (in theory) calculate its position and speed at any other time in the future or the past. This is the basis of celestial mechanics by which planets, etc. are tracked.

The question is: since we don’t know for sure what the outcome according to QM will be, is it really indeterminate or are there certain things we don’t or can’t know about the system that only makes it look indeterminate? If it were possible to know all of the parameters and influences without disturbing the system could we, with certainty, predict outcomes? According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the universe is really indeterminant at the atomic level and only LOOKS determinant at the macroscopic level. This eliminates the infinite series of cause and effect, and therefore the question of a first cause.

 

[1] See also Andrew Ancel Gray at http://modelofreality.org/cgi-bin/iet.cgi

[2] Side note: These equations assume massless particles and waves. Since real particles have mass, particle physicists assume there is a particle that gives all other particles mass. The Higgs boson is the assumed particle that creates mass when a particle is in a Higgs field.

[3] It should be noted that many thought experiments and most actual experiments have been done using light, not subatomic particles. The results of these actual experiments depend on your interpretation of Quantum Theory. See other interpretations that follow.

Major QM Interpretations  (click to follow link)

Is Cosmology Science?




 

Cosmologists tell the following story: 

When the universe began, it all fit into a very tiny volume that then violently “exploded” and began to expand, ultimately creating all of the energy, matter, space and time.  Immediately after the Big Bang when there was only very hot energy, there was an Inflationary Period caused by to a false vacuum with repulsive gravity that expanded faster than the speed of light, but then inflation ended.  After that the universe continued to expand until it cooled enough for subatomic particles to condense out of energy.  Both matter and antimatter particles were created, so that most of the particles annihilated each other leaving only a small amount of leftover matter.  When the universe expanded and cooled further, subatomic particles were formed into the lightest atoms, mostly hydrogen and helium with a tiny amount of lithium.

Only when atoms of Hydrogen dominated the universe did the universe become transparent to radiation, e.g. light, X-Rays.  The very uniform Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is the cooled, redshifted remnant of the light from the Surface of Last Scattering, just before the universe became transparent to energy.  When objects such as stars were formed that could produce ions, the neutral universe became a reionized plasma[1].  Much later, as bodies moved farther apart, expansion began to accelerate due to Dark Energy, which is a repulsive force, counteracting Gravity.

Ordinary matter and energy make up less than 10% of the universe.  Dark Energy and Dark Matter, neither of which has been directly detected yet, make up the other 90-plus percent.  Dark Matter, which interacts only through gravity, is responsible for     1.) the formation of large scale structures, 2.) galaxy rotation rates that do not decrease with distance from the center and 3.) “closing” the universe to a finite size rather than an “open” universe that is infinite.


But is it science? What is the evidence for this scenario and are there other possible explanations that have been ignored?


Evidence for the Big Bang, Expanding Universe, Inflation, Acceleration, Dark Energy and Dark Matter: 

  • Solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations by Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedman in the 1920s that predicted expansion (or contraction) of the universe.  Alternative Possibility: There are many possible solutions to Einstein’s field equations, so choosing this one only fits a preconceived or preferred idea. It was seemingly confirmed by the redshift data. See below. The field equations are mere mathematical models of mathematically possible universes. Einstein’s own calculations included a Cosmological Constant that resulted in a static, non-expanding, universe, which did not fit with the desired progressive picture of others. At one point he supposedly renounced the Cosmological Constant when he told George Gamow that the “…the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life,” although some others who knew him contended that, if true, it must have been a joke. Note that this so-called Einstein quote was only related by Gamow in 1970, not directly by Einstein who died in 1955. Long after rejecting Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, cosmologists have included a new Cosmological Constant, attributed to Dark Energy, to explain an apparent acceleration of expansion.

 

  • Redshift of light increases with distance indicating, by the Doppler Effect, that objects are receding and space between is expanding.  Alternative Possibility: Redshift could be due to other factors than the Doppler Effect. Longer wavelength(redshifted) light has lower energy so redshift could be from loss of power rather than from being stretched by receding sources. We know that light is affected by gravity and other fields and forces. We also know that farther is older, so forces acting on light have been acting longer the farther the object is from us, causing ever increasing redshift with distance. Fritz Zwicky proposed that gravitational forces sap energy from light as it passes.  His detractors called it “Tired Light” and wrongly attributed it to collisions in the Compton Effect, which Zwicky expressly excluded as causing too much scattering. See Hubble post.

 

  • Cosmic Background Radiation interpreted as extremely redshifted light from Surface of Last Scattering.  Alternative Possibility: The Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) may just be the residual temperature of the universe from stars within it. It may even be a local feature of our galaxy. The 2.7K temperature of the CMB was accurately predicted by scientists as residual temperature from starlight long before it was discovered. Although CMB is the strongest, other wavelengths are also present in the cosmic background. See list and relative power of each wavelength region below. (figure from Wikimedia, public domain by user: pkisscs)  Ref: “History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson” A. K. T. Assis, Instituto de Física “Gleb Wataghin” Universidade Estadual deCampinas 13083-970 Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil M. C. D. Neves Departamento de Física Universidade Estadual de Maringá 87020-900 Maringá, PR, Brazil

Extragalactic-background-power-density

CGB = Cosmic Gamma Ray Background

CXB = Cosmic X-Ray Background

CUVOB = Cosmic UV-Visible Background

CIB = Cosmic Infrared Background

CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background

CRB = Cosmic Radio Wave Background

 

  • Large scale uniformity of the universe as evidence of early inflation.  Alternative Possibility: This is a red herring. The CMB is not that uniform, nearby galaxies are excluded and the visible universe may be a tiny part of an infinite universe that is not expanding, so no need to explain the supposed uniformity.

 

  • Mismatch of type 1A Supernovae standard candle redshift, interpreted as an acceleration of expansion and as evidence of Dark Energy, a repulsive force.  Alternative Possibility: This is a no-brainer. No real intergalactic distances have ever been measured.  They are calculated using a series of standard candles, so they may not be the actual distances and error likely increases with distance.  The standard candle mismatch does not necessarily mean there is a change in speed, only that there are forces we don’t understand that may affect standard candles or redshift.

 

  • Dark Matter, which has never been detected, is proposed on the basis that, by the Big Bang timeline, (13.7 billion years) there has not been time enough to form the large structures composed of galaxies without some unseen influence drawing galaxies together.  Galaxy rotation is still a mystery but if a Dark Matter halo is causing it, there must be an extraordinary balance in each galaxy to account for observations.  Unlike the solar system, where outer planets move slower than inner planets according to standard gravitational calculations, galactic outer bodies appear to revolve in near unison with the inner bodies.  Dark matter is proposed to account for this unsolved mystery.  Alternative Possibilities: If the universe is not expanding and is both infinite and very, very old, large scale structures are not a problem. Galaxy rotation, while still a mystery, may have more to do with the galactic plasma magnetic fields than gravity alone.  Work is needed in this area but is not funded by leading cosmologists who prefer to believe in magic foo-foo dust.  It turns out that the universe is nearly flat, not severely curved and finite as first proposed.  There is no need to “close” the universe if it is not expanding.

“Mathematicians deal with possible worlds, with an infinite number of logically consistent systems.  Observers explore the one particular world we inhabit.  Between the two stands the theorist.  He studies possible worlds but only those which are compatible with the information furnished by the observers.  In other words, theory attempts to segregate the minimum number of possible worlds which must include the actual world we inhabit. Then the observer, with new factual information, attempts to reduce the list still further.  And so it goes, observation and theory advancing together toward a common goal of science, knowledge of the structure and behavior of the physical universe.”

                 —Edwin Hubble, “The Problem of the Expanding Universe,” 1942


Unfortunately, this is not what we see in cosmology, which has become mired in dogma and has not allowed further progress that does not fit with their nested set of assumptions.  Redshift interpreted as recessional speed and a preferred mathematical model that predicted expansion are the basis of modern cosmology. Other views or data are not considered, funded or published. Conclusion:  Cosmology as we know it is not science.  It is a religiously held philosophy that supports the progressive anti-god agenda.


“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos.  There has to be some organizing principle.  God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

                                                                    —Alan Sandage, Cosmologist


“However, the most unhealthy aspect of cosmology is its unspoken parallel with religion. Both deal with big but probably unanswerable questions. The rapt audience, the media exposure, the big book-sale, tempt priests and rogues, as well as the gullible, like no other subject in science.”

 —Michael Disney, “The Case Against Cosmology” Published in General Relativity and Gravtitation, Vol. 32, Issue 6, p. 1125, 2000