Why Big Bang is Implausible

Why Big Bang is Implausible

Summary: Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted cosmological model. It has been widely claimed that it is well supported by evidence. However it is found that it is only a convenient explanation for several observations but the assumptions underlying Big Bang theory are neither supported by independent evidence nor meet the test of plausibility. Big Bang theory and observations explained by it are the only evidence in support of assumptions underlying Big Bang theory. Moreover alternative explanations to the same observations do exist but they have not been duly considered so far.
The big theory in brief is as under (Ref: Wikipedia):-
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.  According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, 3, 79,000 years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were supposed to have been synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
The Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory within the scientific community. Evidence in its support include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past.
Quite often straight line logical interpretation of available evidence gives rise to theories which are nothing more than a convenient summary of observations. However the only reasonable approach would be examining consistency of such theories with large number of well established facts and natural laws embracing the theory. Karl R. Popper has rightly said that theories can’t be proved on the basis of evidence alone. A single observation contradicting the theory is sufficient to disprove the theory. A theory has also to be tested on the basis of Plausibility Principle which means that for a theory to be true and correct, it has to be plausible with all laws and things embracing it. Hertz observed that Maxwell’s Equations have been accepted on the basis of Plausibility Principle, since the underlying logic was difficult to understand.
Further same set of facts can give rise to multiple theories and then all the competing theories have to be differentiated against each other on all possible parameters to arrive at the most acceptable theory.
Big Bang theory is implausible on the following among other grounds:-

1. No explanation is provided about source of dense matter.

2. There is no answer to the question “What exactly is/was dense matter?”

3. What is the independent evidence supporting existence of dense matter?

4. What precipitated Big Bang in the so called dense matter?

5. How was the pre Big Bang Universe filled with an incredibly high energy density,homogeneously and isotropically with huge temperatures  and pressures?

6. What is the source of this energy?

7. What exactly is high energy density and what independent evidence supports its existence?

8. In the pre Big Bang universe laws of physics did not apply. So was it a total chaos or some other set of laws applied. If later was the case than what were the laws applicable to pre Big Bang universe?

9. How can subatomic particles keep their independent existence for           3, 79,000 years when this is not normally known to happen?

10. How Big Bang led to a universe organized on the basis of laws of physics?

11. What is the source of laws of Physics in the absence of external interference?

12. Can’t the evidence in support of Big Bang theory be explained on the basis of the assumption that universe keeps getting created all the time and hence keeps expanding under the conditions even now prevalent. So no extraordinary conditions are required for creation and expansion of universe. The natural laws that operated in the beginning are operative even now and shall remain operative in future as well?

13. How could giant clouds of primordial elements coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies?

14. How is observed diversity in elemental composition of planets and stars consistent with Big Bang Theory?

In brief Big Bang Theory as an explanation of origin of universe is quite implausible when examined on the basis of Plausibility Principle.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. Consciousness is one of the aspects of and had to precede origin of universe. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

                                                                 Buy Now

Can any Law ever be Absolute

Can any Law ever be Absolute

Summary: Applicability of any law is limited by nature and context of things and events. Therefore no law can ever be absolute. 

Legal systems have their origin in dissatisfaction resulting from individualistic and subjective interpretation of facts and circumstances. Individualistic and subjective interpretation of facts and circumstances often led to irreconcilable and even mutually contradictory differences between different interpretations of same set of facts and circumstances by different individuals at the same time. Even interpretations by the same individual of similar set of facts and circumstances at different times were found inconsistent, irreconcilable and mutually contradictory. This can often be observed even in the contemporary society when things and events are judged without applying standardized yardsticks. Morally unscrupulous people often vary their yardstick from one set of circumstances to another. They can often be seen protecting things, events and people they are interested in and abusing the rest. They resent any call for use of appropriate standardized criterion. For them only criterion are their interest, comfort, convenience and their authority.

So naturally a need to evolve standardized criterion for evaluation of facts and circumstances and determining subsequent course of action was strongly felt. This eventually gave rise to law based system of governance in which laws were elevated to the level of gospel truth. Courts and legislatures were entrusted with the task of determining applicable laws. All this was done and has been practiced without any understanding of what is law. An approval by court of law or legislature was sufficient to elevate any condition to the status of its being a law. There was no need to explain rationale behind any particular law on the basis of natural course of events. For example during the last century relationship between a doctor and patient was reduced to a contractual relationship between a service provider and service recipient with a patient having all the rights and authority of a consumer. So by the stroke of a judicial pen the age old relationship of trust was reduced to a commercial relationship. No consideration was paid to intrinsic nature of relationship, dependence of patients on the skills and knowledge of their doctors for their welfare and ability of patients to appropriately use the legally conferred authority. Numerous instances of legally perpetuated social imbalances are on record. Even judicial interpretation of same set of laws is known to vary from time to time.

In formulation of laws governing any society, natural course of events has often been ignored. Terms, conditions, procedures etc. which should not have been defined as law have been defined as law. This has introduced legally perpetuated chaotic elements incidental to human living. Not only chaos, in many situations “might is the right” is the only law that prevails.

Even in nature a law is a mandatory condition that has to be satisfied to meet specified goals and objectives. For example to call a piece of matter as living matter it has to satisfy all mandatory conditions that are incidental to life. Therefore, howsoever diverse organisms may be and whatever may be their conditions of existence, an organism can exist as living being only if it is able to meet all the mandatory conditions necessary for being alive.

However, nature is hierarchically organized and applicable rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. Moreover different contexts or set of circumstances may also make it obligatory to meet specified goals and objectives in different ways. Therefore formulation and applicability of any law is limited by nature and context of things and events. Hence no law can ever be absolute.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. Chapter – 34 of the book defines law, describes chief characteristics of law and identifies some general laws of nature. 

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

 Buy Now

Human Relationships: Nature and Challenges

Human Relationships: Nature and Challenges

Summary: In the entire biosphere mankind observes most diverse range of relationships. Relationships are intrinsic to human needs. Relationships are governed by specific rules underlying particular relationships. On one hand relationships are a human need and on the other hand relationships are liable to abuse. Therefore for our emotional and physical well-being we need to wisely manage our relationships.

We humans live through a variety of relationships. Vast range of relationships we live through is unique to mankind. No other species needs or observes so many different relationships and in such diverse ways. Diversity of relationships is intrinsic to human nature. There are many other species known to live in groups but do not have relationships differentiated into mother, father, daughter, sister, brother, spouse, grandparents etc. For example lions are known to live in groups but the only relationship lions recognize is male female relationship with the dominant male lion having mating rights over females of the group irrespective of historical considerations.

Diversity of relationships is intrinsic to human nature, as can be seen in the most primitive tribal societies as well as the most advanced human societies. Relationships can be broadly divided into two groups i.e. congenital and acquired. Congenital relationships may also be designated as inherited or historical relationships being determined by birth. Acquired relationships can be further divided into social relationships and friendships. Social relationships may be determined by matrimonial relationship or place of residence, education and work. Friendships are the relationships of our own choice generally determined by companionship and mutual commitment. Friendship is more than meeting of interest or acquaintance. It implies emotional bonding and mutual concern.

All relationships are dynamic in character. Dynamism is more in the case of social relations and friendships. Scope and limits or nature and depth can profoundly vary from time to time. Relationships may also be viewed as non-negotiated unwritten contracts among people resting upon assurance of mutual help and concern in case of some need. But relationships are neither a trade nor barter. However all relationships are governed by some rules of relationship some of which may even be recognized by law. Relationships of the kind recognized by law may be called as legally determined relationships. If there is a mandatory legal procedure prescribed for constitution of a legally determined relationship, then the procedure must be complied with to constitute a legal and valid relationship.    

 What is common to all relationships is the rule that in any relationship, rules of relationship prevail over individual interest. One such rule is that in a partnership mutual interest prevails over individual interest. Companionship, love, respect etc. help sustain a relationship. But what really matters is compliance with rule of relationship whether by the sheer force of commitment or love or respect etc.

All relationships are liable to turn sour due to various reasons. One reason being that people tend to comply with relationships because of emotional reasons and ones emotional compulsions vanish or better sentimental alternatives become  available, the existing relationship turns sour.  Other important reasons are vagueness of assurance, promise or rule underlying any relationship; relationship being an undefined contract. So parties to any relationship are uncertain as to what to expect and what to deliver. Generally people don’t deal with their relationships prudently and pragmatically.

Therefore, either people are exploited in the name of relationship or lose faith in relationships. The end result is the psychological inability to establish appropriate relationship or fear of relationships. Even this is not an acceptable situation because need for relationships is an intrinsic need and one finds it difficult to lead life all alone.

Solution to the situation lies in understanding role of our relations in our emotional and physical existence, clearly understanding rules underlying different relationships and honest compliance with the rules. We should live our relationships prudently and pragmatically. Let our egocentricity or selfishness not spoil our relationships. At the same time if somebody is abusing a relationship, an exhaustive attempt should be made to make the abuser mend his ways but if the abuser is found to be incorrigible after exhaustive efforts, then a decision to end the particular relationship should be considered. Relationships should not be victims of our temper tantrums or whims and fancies. We need our relations as much as we need food, clothing and shelter, if not for material reasons, at least for our emotional wellbeing.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. The book contains two chapters devoted to law and justice respectively.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://curatio.in

   Buy Now

+ Mahesh Jain

Can Freedom of Speech be Absolute

Can Freedom of Speech be Absolute

Summary: There has often been a demand for absolute freedom of speech from various interest groups. However scope and limits of freedom of speech and expression are limited by its constraints. Hence absolute freedom of speech and expression is only a mirage.

Absolute freedom is what we all desire. Likewise we all want to enjoy absolute freedom of speech and self expression. Therefore it is not surprising that freedom of speech and expression has been granted to us even by law.

Freedom of speech and expression has been recognized as a fundamental right in Article 19(1) of constitution of India. Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the constitution or statutes of various states but also by various international conventions like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights etc. These declarations expressly talk about protection of freedom of speech and expression.

In the judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India  the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.

Why to protect freedom of speech? 

Freedom of speech offers human being opportunity to express their feelings to one another, but this is not the only reason; purpose to protect the freedom of speech. There are four other reasons for freedom of speech –

1)  Discovery of truth by open discussion - According to it restrictions on speech shall prevent the ascertainment and publication of accurate facts and valuable opinion. Therefore freedom of speech is essential for social well-being. 

2) Free speech as an aspect of self- fulfillment and development – freedom of speech is an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and self-fulfillment. Restriction on what we are allowed to say and write or to hear and read will hamper our personality and its growth. It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment.

3) For expressing belief and political attitudes - freedom of speech provides opportunity to express one’s belief and show political attitudes. It ultimately results in the welfare of the society and state. Thus, freedom of speech provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change.

4) For active participation in democracy – democracy is most important feature of today’s world. Freedom of speech is there to protect the right of all citizens to understand political issues so that they can participate in smooth working of democracy. That is to say, freedom of speech strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making.

Thus we find that protection of freedom of speech is very much essential. Protection of freedom of speech is important for the discovery of truth by open discussion, for self- fulfillment and development, for expressing belief and political attitudes, and for active participation in democracy.

However, there are several restrictions to freedom of speech and expression. In British law, freedom of speech and expression is limited by legally prescribed   prohibitions.

Supreme Court in a recent judgment has held that freedom of speech and expression is "not an absolute" and remarked that journalists "should know the lakshman rekha so that they don't cross the line of contempt."

Justice Kapadia also clarified that the postponement will be for a short period of time and will not affect the trial. The doctrine, he added, has been evolved as a "preventive measure" for "administration of justice and fairness of trial" and not as a prohibitive and punitive measure.

Clause (2) of Article 19 of Indian constitution contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed: - 

1) Security of State: Security of state is of vital importance and a government must have power to impose restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. However the term “security” is very crucial one. The term "security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection, criminal acts etc.

2) Friendly relations with foreign states: The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardize the maintenance of good relations between India, and that state. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries.

3) Public Order: Next restriction prescribed by constitution is to maintain public order. Public order is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established." 

4) Decency or morality: The way to express something or to say something should be decent one. It should not affect the morality of the society adversely. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality is contextual. 

5) Contempt of Court: Indian contempt law was amended in 2006 to make “truth” a defense but with qualification that deliberate efforts to scandalize court are not exempted.

6) Defamation

7) Incitement to an offence: Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force. 

8) Sovereignty and integrity of India- To maintain sovereignty and integrity of a state freedom of speech and expression can be restricted so as not to permit any one to challenge sovereignty or to permit any one to preach something which will result in threat to integrity of the country. 

From above analysis, it is evident that Grounds contained in Article 19(2) show that they are all concerned with the national interest or in the interest of the society. The first set of grounds i.e. the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States and public order are all grounds referable to national interest; whereas, the second set of grounds i.e. decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence are all concerned with the interest of the society.

Similar legal situation prevails in various countries i.e. on one hand law confers freedom of speech and expression and on the other hand undermines it by imposing restrictions due to various reasons. Hence legally freedom of speech is not absolute.

We exist as independent, discrete entities in dependent and interdependent relationship with other discrete entities. No one exists in vacuum. Absolute freedom of any kind is bound to often lead to conflict situations with other independent entities existing in our ecosystem. These conflicts are likely to be a threat to our peace and tranquility. These conflicts must be avoided all the time and therefore we can exercise our freedom of speech and expression with discretion only. Indiscriminate exercise of freedom can often be detrimental to our own interest.

We all have to live as a part of a social system and no system can grant complete independence to any of its parts.

A view has been advanced that let the individuals be granted absolute freedom of speech and expression and let individual members of the society decide for themselves, whether or not they want to get along. But no uncivil means should be adopted to protest against things and events which individual members of the society find objectionable. For example M.F.Hussain should not have been made to flee the country and live in exile. I am afraid this is not an acceptable position. If M.F. Hussain had his freedom, society and its members had their freedom to have a view about his work and select the mode of protest. If M.F. Hussain was unable to appropriately regulate his creative surge then he can’t expect society to regulate its retaliatory urge and confine strictly to protest before a court of law. Uncivilized people can’t claim protection from the civilized society for their uncivil acts, means and methods. They can’t ask society to use only civil means against them.  It is an unfortunate situation but unavoidable too. One can’t demand mature civil form of protest by others when one’s hands are not clean.

Misuse of freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of mass marketing is widely rampant. Journalist, authors, painters, feature film makers and others would deliberately create and publish material only to capture mass attention by creating a controversy because they know that controversies generally sell well. They are well aware of gullibility of people and know how to exploit it to further their commercial interest. So first they commit acts injurious to interest of the society and state and then seek protection under the right to freedom of speech and expression. No civilized society can ever afford such misuse of its ideals and law.

Summing up freedom of speech and expression can’t be absolute. It is subject to several constraints. Any society is well within its rights to preemptively employ various means to enforce constraints to freedom of speech and expression.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. 

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

Buy Now