khuram

What is Evidence of the Big Bang Theory and how solid is that Evidence?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on March 18, 2018

A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

The only so-called evidence of the Big Bang Theory is that Georges Lemaître had derived Hubble type redshift-distance relationship in light coming from far off galaxies from relativistic (GR) equations in year 1927 whereas Hubble could experimentally find this relationship in year 1929. In this way, it is claimed that (GR based) mathematics had already successfully predicted that important relationship two years before its actual discovery.

But this so-called evidence of the Big Bang Theory is not acceptable because Georges Lemaître had not derived that relationship from (GR) equations. In year 1927, he had derived that relationship not from GR equations but from a method which he took from Hubble himself.

Georges Lemaître’s 1927 French article remained unnoticed until he, with the help of his former teacher Arthur Eddington – Wikipedia, published English translation of his 1927 article. That English Translation was published in year 1931 i.e…

View original post 178 more words

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”. An analysis of this Argument

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on March 18, 2018

A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

argument

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”

Supporters of the Big Bang Theory often give reply to criticism of their theory in the form of above quoted argument.

Well … This is a misleading argument. This argument is correct but applies only to realities that are unknown. For example there may be an incomprehensible reality regarding how life started on earth. This is a reality but makes no sense simply because it is unknown. If a reality is known then it was comprehensible in the first place that’s why it has been ‘known’. But if there is a claim that a reality is known under an incomprehensible (counter intuitive) mode or category then either that ‘claimed reality’ is mere fiction or at the most, a distorted form of truth. Known realities are known because they could be known. They were comprehensible in the first place. They were compatible with…

View original post 17 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Edwin Hubble did not say in 1929 that ‘Universe is Expanding’. Here is the original 1929 paper:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on March 17, 2018

A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

Edwin Hubble DID NOT say that Universe is expanding.

Still from Hubblecast episode 89: Edwin Hubble Credit: NASA & ESA

Let us see what he actually said in year 1929. Following is link to his original 1929 paper:

A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae

Title of the paper is: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.”

Here “radial velocity” means “redshift”.

From 1912 onwards, scientists had been noticing redshifts in far off galaxies (then thought of spiral nebulae). Naturally by that time those redshifts were interpreted in terms of Doppler’s Effect. Due to Doppler’s interpretation, those redshifts were also called “radial velocities”.

Here in the title of his paper, Hubble has used common term “radial velocity” for “redshift”.

But to determine what he actually wants to say, we must very carefully study the first paragraph of 1929 paper. Following is the first paragraph:

“Determinations of the motion of the…

View original post 877 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Is Steady State Theory the real competitor of the Big Bang Theory?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on March 14, 2018

A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

Steady State Theory is not the real competitor of the Big Bang Model as Steady State also submits to the notion of ‘Expanding Universe’. In case universe is not expanding then both Big Bang and Steady State theories are equally wrong.

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Is an object doing work by falling?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 13, 2017

Is an object doing work by falling? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

Precisely and technically … NOT.

Term ‘work’ should be applied only against resistance force … like moving in air or friction or upward in gravity.

Otherwise there is no meaning in concept of work. According to first law, any moving object should keep on doing work for ever!

Is an object doing work by falling?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

What would happen If there was no equal and opposite reaction?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 2, 2017

What would happen If there was no equal and opposite reaction? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

There would be no inertia. Everything could be made to move any time with any little force.

Any moving object could be forced to stop regardless of size or mass of that moving object.

What would happen If there was no equal and opposite reaction?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

What is Einstein’s actual contribution to science and humanity?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 2, 2017

What is Einstein’s actual contribution to science and humanity? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

Science was perplexed at his time. He gave science (right or wrong whatever) direction.

Classical ideas of relative motion were defied by the electromagnetic dynamics. So science was in state of confusion on this issue.

Science was also confused regarding existence or non-existence of aether as experiments had failed to detect any aether.

Then Einstein came and asserted that light speed is constant and this speed is independent of motion of reference frame.

And there was no need of aether.

He gave right or wrong justifications and supported them with clever mathematics.

Science, at least, found a clear direction for itself.

What is Einstein’s actual contribution to science and humanity?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on December 14, 2016

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

For Aristotle, there are four objects (i) earth, (ii) water, (iii) air and; (iv) fire.

First two are heavier objects and last two are lighter objects.

Natural tendency for heavier objects is to move downside due to ‘gravity’.

Natural tendency for lighter objects is to move upside due to ‘lavity’.

Law of Motion: Natural tendency for the moving objects is to stop. If motion is to be continued, force is required.

Aristotle knows that objects move in resistant or viscous medium that’s why they eventually stop.

But Aristotle also thinks that objects cannot move in vacuum. For Aristotle, resistant medium is required for the motion to occur.

For example, a projectile is thrown with hand … after the contact of hand is removed then how motion is continued? Aristotle’s answer is that projectile is moving through resistant medium which is air. When it is moving forward, there will be sudden vacuum at the back side of object and then this vacuum will be suddenly filled by the surrounding air. This sudden vacuum filling by the surrounding air will generate a forward thrust and object will be able to move forward even at time when contact of throwing hand is removed.

However the resistance force of resistant medium will eventually overcome the forward thrust and at the end object will stop.

For Aristotle, first of all any motion in vacuum is not possible due to missing thrust. Secondly, if we accept any motion in vacuum then it would lead to absurdities that object will acquire infinite motion due to absence of resistant medium.

So what was absurd in view of Aristotle, that thing was finally shown as natural by Newton.

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Simple Thought Experiment to Disprove Relative Constant Speed of Light.

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on October 5, 2016

Light Speed is said to be constant irrespective of relative motion of observer.

Moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from us. Suppose moon is looking like a clock such that moon clock is behind your watch by 1.3 seconds.

Now you start moving towards moon with a normal speed of 100 km/hr. Moon is 384400 KM away so your journey will take about 160 days.

Normal speed is assumed so that there should be no alleged effect of time dilation due to ultra high speed.

So after 160 days you will be on moon and what will be the difference in time of your watch and moon clock…???

There will be no difference. Means that due to your relative motion, light of moon clock has traveled up to you at speed c+100 km/hr i.e. with speed c+v.

If you are still reading moon clock as 1.3 seconds behind your watch then it means that from an ordinary distance, light is taking 1.3 seconds to reach you so again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

Above is only a thought experiment. Now we do a real experiment. So now moon is looking like normal moon and not like a clock. And from earth we see moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age.

Now we do not suppose, we actually start moving towards moon at normal speed of 100 km/hr. And after 160 days we reach at the surface of moon.

By standing on surface of moon we are looking at moon which is not younger by 1.3 seconds but are looking at moon that exists right now. It means that during whole of our journey we had been receiving light of moon with c+v formula.

If by standing on surface of moon we are watching moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age, it means that light is taking extra 1.3 seconds to reach our eyes and again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

 

 

Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | Leave a Comment »

“Independence of Judiciary” or “Judicial Activism of the Worst Kind”:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on October 19, 2010

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
“Independence of Judiciary” or “Judicial Activism of the Worst Kind”:

Story began when former President General Musharraf endorsed a corruption oriented reference against Chief Justice. Apparently Chief Justice was involved in corruption.

President’s intention was quite irrelevant. If there was a corruption charge against Chief Justice then President should have endorsed it. And he did it.

Then Chief Justice acquired overwhelming sympathies of the opposite camp of General Musharraf, the then President. A full-fledged movement/struggle mainly led by lawyers was launched to restore what they called “Independence of Judiciary”.

As a result, that government has gone and Chief Justice got victory over President. Now situation is that Judiciary is dictating and interfering in the functions of Executives (Present President and Prime Minister). It appears that President and Prime Minister are sub-ordinate to Judges.

Anyways, was struggle of lawyers right? In my opinion … No!

In my opinion, lawyers struggle was not right. Their general argument which they published in various street banners was something like:

“In the World History Judge never has been punished.”

This argument was wrong and misleading. In the ancient Iran, punishment of corrupt Judge was that his body skin used to be torn away and then used to be placed on his (Judge’s) chair. Then son of that Judge used to be asked to perform the role of judge while sitting on that chair.

We are all idiots. We took corruption of judges so lightly. Corruption by Judge is in fact the worst kind of crime!

Reference:

Wikipedia describes about a Judge named Sisamnes in article named “Sisamnes” in following words:

According to Herodotus, Sisamnes was a corrupt judge under Cambyses II of Persia. He accepted a bribe and delivered an unjust verdict. As a result, the king had him arrested and flayed (i.e. process of removal of skin alive) alive. His skin was then used to cover the seat in which his son would sit in judgement.

Posted in -Home-, Pakistan, Pakistan Internal Affairs | 2 Comments »