How even ‘scientific’ articles go fake on themselves

If you are interested in many different things, or even simply an astro-geek, you will likely have come across some articles of ‘ThinkBig’, like the following:

Now, when you start reading this article, it will seem like a genuine (albeit likely lengthy) breakdown of history regarding the cosmological model of the Rapid Inflation Model, also coined ‘The big bang’.

Two wrongs make no right

Now there are several things wrong with the article and not in the first place the drag of text just so readers will watch several advertisements. Many sites do this, even However, it becomes eerie, when arguments are internally (aka logically) contradict eachother in the text itself.

One step forward two steps back

For instance, in the second paragraph, the writer explains how extrapolating statistical data forward AND backwards in time work and how this will expalin that what science has done isn’t correct….(by using science to prove it…but not really).

‘It is tempting to go as far as possible’, well, no, it is actually required by science to question the answer, so you will ALWAYS go as far as you can go. Taking an equation and going into infinitesmal sizes and densities to get to a state that can then be questioned, is logical and correct.

Don’t trip

‘But physically, when we looked closely enough’, active past tense, but never mind that. The scientific consensus regarding the cosmic evolution, comes from looking as closely as possible. The writer seems to forget that scientific thesis, antithesis, hypothesis and theory are not simply accepted on ‘I think this is right/wrong’. Nor is any already established causal model revoked simply because new information can be found. The new information will first be held against the already existing theories and if they fail, that means the theory needs to be adjusted. Before doing so, the new information has to provide for a clear causal connection to that theory.

Is is not, but it is not that it is not

Now we get to the worst part. Though the summation of a scientific timeline COULD potentially help you get a view on what would be a good propability, it doesn’t add anything here.

The ‘big bang’ is seemingly rebuked by the writer, simply by claiming that the whole road there has been littered with contradictions. And then it comes. Instead of explaining why the Rapid Inflation Model is incorrect, the writer simply asserts that when using inflation alone, you will not need any starting point and will be able to deflate on and on into history….but wasn’t that what he proposed was wrong in the first place?

That is not a theory, that’s your opinion

Now, the writer claims to be scientifically savvy, but fails to actually use the term that titles the page: Think Big.

The way a SCIENTIFIC theory works, is that it must make at least one prediction of further inquiry (this has to do with the falsification clause). The writer claims that you should look at what would be the state of the universe at 0 seconds old, but then claims that with the altered view, you could go beyond that….Here it simply becomes potato potatoes. You either are going beyond the quantum physically possible state of the universe of the state of matter under extreme high density and temperature, or you keep to the premise you held yourself in the first part of your story: You should NOT go beyond what you can measure. Can’t do both.

The answer, surprisingly, is that there’s a tremendous amount of harm — if you’re like me in considering “making unfounded, incorrect assumptions about reality” to be harmful.

Yet that is what is done in the actual text. Not only does it question the supporting theory of the cosmological evolution (which is fine if you have good reason and argument), but it even questions its own validity while claiming that the proposed view is better…that is contradictory.

Potato Potatoes

Understanding that the Rapid Inflation Model IS the Big Bang theory, will help you understand that after claiming you debunk the ‘Big Bang’ theory, you should not use the (Rapid) Inflation Model as counterargument. The fact that your idea holds to the same data, except that it goes into extremes that can not be verified and are even unlikely to be possible due to the way matter and energy work under high pressure and temperature (ie. frequencies/friction).

If you claim ‘inflation’, you will have to explain from what did it inflate. Then you move back and what do we call that? Infinite regress, which is never a solution.

Filter jitter

So, if you are like me, an avid reader of different subjects or astrophysics specifically, make sure you keep a keen eye on internal consistency of information. Especially if you are planning to use the arguments proposed in a debate or argument of your own. Understand before you know.

What is the base of our reality?

Don’t be alarmed, the end of this article might be more shocking than Quantum Physics.

Reality is basically everything you can (at the hazard of dying) touch and observe. Yes, air you can (and hopefully do so every moment) touch every day. Rocks you can touch. Snakes (though they can bite) you can touch. Even the sun you could touch, IF you were not incinerated by the fusion process already miles from the star itself (like in a nuclear reaction (because that is basically what the sun/star is, not a fire ball in the sky).

The depth of things

Now, we know that what we observe isn’t everything we can touch, and what we can touch isn’t everything we observe. Many fields of science and research direct themselves onto the ‘underlying’ part of what makes up things. For instance, we know that gold is a metal, just like lead. In the days before science became leading method of inquiry, there was a field between religious/fantasy thinking and what we call science.

Fall of the apple

Many well known scientists, like Newton for instance, was an avid practitioner of Alchemy. Alchemy is named to be the ‘the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir.’. The practitioners of this type of magical science, run all the way back to 200-300 CE (Common Era), but as far as today still.

Imagine, turning Lead into Gold. Looking at what we know now about the atomic structure of both:

Value of change

It is understandable that people would want to turn the cheapest type of metal into the (in the eyes of European humans) most valuable (at that time). As you can see, they don’t differ too much on the scale of electrons, protons and neutrons. But though the limited eye would say: Well, with such a limited difference, there surely should be a way to transfer protons and electrons from one to another… Well, no. Because of the strong interaction force makes the atomic bond nearly unbreakable, except by infusing extreme amounts of energy or force. This is all great, but the effects of infusing such energy and force, is unpredictable too. So you could end up with Steel, Gold, rock or air (these are unlikely, because most would be combined elements, but still).

Alchemy lead in new bags?

The idea of alchemists was that elements that were closely related, should be in some way ‘evolved’ from each other. As we are (even back then) able to ‘breed’ livestock to our wishes, so should we be able to influence the anorganic matter. And we can. We do. But not in the way alchemists wanted.

Mold theory, germ theory, grave theory

Since the time of Alchemy (and I dare say, even due to the fantastice imaginations OF Alchemy) we as humans have evolved our understanding and recognition of reality, the universe as to say. But…..we still fall for the same mistake as alchemists did. We project onto reality our expectations and find answers we look for. This is great! This gives us options to develop. BUT, it also causes us to mold our theories based on genetically evolved insights. We don’t use control moments, where we re-evaluate our insights and say: Okay, we came this far, did we at some point, limit ourselves by our knowledge and might come to different conclusions if we use our current understanding in earlier steps.

May the force be with you

For instance, we know we have identified four ‘forces’ or ‘interactions’ in reality.
– Weak interaction (Effect in the Electroweak theory)
– Strong interaction (Effect in the Quantum chromodynamics theory)
– Electromagnetic interaction (Effect in the Quantum electrodynamics theory)
– Grativational interaction (Effect in Einstein’s General Relativity Theory)

(Do understand that these theories are so thoroughly researched that they are solid. There is little question regarding their legitimacy.)

We came to most of these, after gravity was recognized as a universal force by Isaac Newton (As mentioned someone who also practitioned Alchemy and was like most people in his time, Religious). Einstein added the observational variation to it and from there on many scientists evolved our understanding of matter and energy adding Quantum Physics/Mechanics to the Standard Model (of Physics) and Theoretical Physics.


Our reality severely changed by understanding what Copernicus said about the non-heliocentric universe we lived in. Many people know how amazing things can be when you are raised in a small countryside village and suddenly at 18 years old, you go to the big city. Imagine that you are Columbus and you sail through dangers and such for weeks and find that the world isn’t just Europe and Africa and Asia (which as you know are three continents, but one landmass), but America too. The world became bigger for him and slowly for those in other societies as well. The theory of Copernicus was great, but it didn’t hit home yet because of Columbus found a new continent.

Global recognition

The idea that the world was really a globe, like the Greeks already had deducted, was still a stretch for most. Copernicus had given a vision of more than just our world. Only when we finally got the technological advancement to test it, we came to realisation (as humanity), that the universe was bigger than Earth. Only decades ago, we came to the conclusion the universe is bigger than our solar system and even that our solar system isn’t the only one. All ‘zodiac signs’ were merely bigger stars that we had made patterns over, but in reality all were ‘solar systems’ of their own, in galaxy parts not even close to each other.

Though this is what we observe, this is not where the stars are in the galaxy. They aren’t on a flat distance from us.

Paternal or patternal

Humanity learned that patterns were not random and patterns weren’t based on intention (Though humans learned that their own influence on patterns were often intentional). Gods started to lose their meaning.

We skip ahead and see humanity evolve their knowledge of the universe and even matter and energy. The ideas of Aether left and Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide and other elements replaced it as ‘air’.

But as our understanding of the universe grew, so did we want to pass on this information and knowledge to other generations. We ‘schematized’ all findings to a level that people that where smarter would have to ‘jump the bandwagon’ and people who weren’t would consider the ‘bandwagon’ a fata morgana.

Breath, breath!

If you learn that this is Oxygen:

Oxygen model

How do you then jump to this:

To this:

For some of you who have read this now, will say: WHAT?! (for two different reasons).

Some will start examining the first two images and learn how crude the first schematics is to the second schematics, however still a schematics (like a cave drawing of an mammoth to a Van Gogh or Rembrandt). The third is how we are able to actually detect the ‘form’ of the actual element.

Eventhough we now KNOW that what we observe in the latter is an ‘excited’ state of a field, we still refer from the ‘particle’ perspective. Even while we know that the particle as such ‘doesn’t exist’.

Two steps forward, one step back

I propose to look back and imagine how we would calculate the forces and models, if we started with what we know now.

We are pretty certain that what we observe as a particle, is the observed excited state of a field. This seems unintuitive, but it is not.

Imagine the universe being a expanding bubble field group:

Not to burst your bubble.

They aren’t these kind of bubbles exactly. These are fields, fields of energy frequencies. They started with a high amplitude and high frequency, but slowly start to stretch. Because they are ‘pushed’ by their original force, the space called the ‘period’ causes some of the forces to exist. The wave is a one dimensional observation of movement for the frequency. When two field-waves touch, they cause an excited state we observe as a particle. Because the frequency if stable and constant, the particle remains stable. This also explains why at point of observation of particles we recognize energy increase. Which direction on the field the wave moves and hits another field/wave, determines what we observe as spin.

Bubble fields, really?

This results in the idea (yes, just an idea), that reality, however real, is a bubble universe of fields. This is also why a particle can have different states at the same time, because, the particle doesn’t really exist. The particle is merely an effect of the frequency of the universe/reality. This means that there is much to find out still. But as always, very possibly, reality is stranger than fiction. The frequency of the universes fields and corresponding waves. How it will result into a bigger universe still and whether at some point reality will change if the field/wave frequencies collapse or start to misallign. Will physics change?

So, why would advanced civilisations not understand or even notice us (assuming they exist)

We have a strange sense of humor (no that is not the reason…is it?). We see back and recognize our own evolution, our language, physics, technology, everything. But what we don’t see, is that evolution isn’t just ongoing, but (as far as I can see) we will not use language anymore within the next 1500 years. We will have evolved, in which our communication now will look like bird songs to us then. Or like grunts….perhaps even like ant signals.

See, it isn’t about words, concepts. Concepts are a way of visualisation, of controlling information and processes. We are growing in numbers (though the current state of humanity will cause some decline in the next 50 to 100 years.) and the way we process the future, is requiring faster and faster communication. We will eventually not use words anymore, because our cognition will surpass the emotional limitations that evolution has given us (well…they are leftovers). We will continue to increase brain activity and cognitive awareness. Imagine an individual that needs to transgressing time and space (if that is to be transgressed, when intelligence reaches a threshold that understands the actual quantum entanglement and what is at the levels below. It requires a neurological speed that isn’t possible for humanity yet. It doesn’t allow for one brain to cope with the amount of modelling and layering of data. Perhaps a person who has been on LSD and is autistic (missing large part of the emotional layer) can understand the abstract imaginary that would be required.

In all, at such level, our signals, how advanced they may seem, are less than rocks that tick together as the stream of water pushes them. They sound like something, but it is part of nature.

Imagine to finding out water is actually living individuals?