Dogma vs. Science

[Michael Mozina]

If there was any doubt at all about whether the big bang model is "dogma" or "science", the observations and experiments over the past few decades make it *extremely* clear that the big bang model is pure dogma, and it's absolutely not 'science'.

Scientific hypotheses have the ability to be falsified in some manner. For instance, obviously the sun cannot act as both an anode and like a cathode with respect to space, so at least one of those two EU solar models has to be wrong. We might conduct experiments for both models in the lab, chart the particle flow patterns from those various experiments, and compare them to satellite data and thereby falsify one or the other or both EU solar models. Right or wrong, both solar models *work in the lab* and both models have the ability to be falsified so they are both "scientific" models.

Compare and contrast that ability to falsify one or both EU solar models to the big bang cosmology model. In 1999 when the BB model failed to correctly predict the SN1A data sets, rather than falsify the belief that redshift was caused by expansion, the mainstream simply added yet *another* metaphysical component to the big bang model, a component that blatantly violates the conservation of energy laws for a *second* time. The expansion model of cosmology is therefore *not* falsifiable in any logical manner. Even direct conflicts with *laws* of physics are simply ignored.

When dark matter failed every 'test' it was put to in the lab over the past two decades, again, the concept of "cold dark matter" wasn't falsified by those so called "tests", rather astronomers simply moved the goalposts with respect to energy states and essentially went from peddling and promoting WIMP dark matter to peddling "axions". Again, there's simply no logical way to falsify the concept of exotic forms of non-standard matter or the LHC results would have sufficed, not to mention every failed experimental test and every failed observational test.

When "mature" and massive galaxies were found in the distant universe, in defiance of the BB model, the BB model wasn't questioned or falsified by that observation. Instead astronomers simply kicked the can, blamed their galaxy evolutionary models and ignored the obvious lack of evidence of galaxy evolution over time. That same thing happened a second time with respect to massive quasars. Same result. It happened a third time recently with respect to a complete lack of first generation stars in the early universe, and again with the same result. Not once was the BB model questioned or falsified by it's failed "predictions".

In the last two years it's been shown that the LCDM model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant with over five sigma confidence. Even with a 95 percent fudge factor, the SN1A 'predictions" related to the Hubble constant fail to match up with the estimates related to supposedly earlier in time Planck data. Again however, the *assumption* that redshift is caused by expansion has never been questioned, no explanation for that self conflict has been forthcoming, and the big bang model continues to be promoted in spite of the fact that it's self conflicted.

There is simply no logical way to falsify the LCDM model. It's failed every prediction it's ever made. There's absolutely no evidence of galaxy evolution, quasar evolution or stellar evolution over time as required in the BB model. It's even internally *self conflicted*.

The BB model is therefore pure metaphysical *dogma* on a stick, it's not actually "science" at all. Any *other* scientific model rises and falls on the accuracy of it's predictions and it's internal consistency. That is simply not the case with the big bang model however. Nothing about the expansion model and/or the LCDM model can be falsified by observation or experimentation, and nothing can falsify it. The big bang model of cosmology has devolved into pure dogma. It doesn't matter how many predictive failures it has, or how badly it jives with observation, or even it's internal inconsistency. All that matters is perpetuating the big bang dogma at all costs.