Nebula: NGC 7635
Quite a lot of modern astronomy and cosmology is pure, unscientific, speculation and there has been a tendency in recent decades for this speculation to be taught as "fact".
Thus, we now have the belief - among students of science, astronomers, cosmologists and much of the general public - that such things as "black holes" actually exist. However, there is no actual, factual, evidence for such things. Such things as "black holes" are just speculation: or rather, abstract theories posited in an attempt to explain, in a surreal way, what is observed.
There are no actual physical observations which confirm the existence of such things, and which confirm the speculative theories on which these things are based.
The truth is that the evidence - the astronomical observations - which are produced and which have been produced in an attempt to "prove" these ideas and theories can be interpreted in other ways, if they can be rationally and scientifically interpreted at all.
It should be stressed again and again that there is no direct evidence, no direct observations, which confirm the existence of these things and which therefore may be said to confirm the speculative theories behind them.
True science - as opposed to the surreal science which has come to dominate the world of cosmology and physics - is based upon direct observations of phenomena, with these phenomena being either in the "natural world" or in the "laboratory", that is, a consequence of some experiment.
What has happened over the past fifty or so years is that speculative theory has come to dominate to the extent that actual astronomical observations are interpreted on the basis of abstract, speculative, theories. That is, there is an overwhelming dependence upon an abstract interpretation: a certain theory, or several theories, are presupposed to explain observations or events, without such a theory or theory have any true scientific basis, and in particular without it being the most simple, the most natural, explanation.
Thus, the actual observations are viewed in the context of preconceived ideas, preconceived assumptions, many of which (in fact most of which) have little or no direct observational support. Take, for instance, a recent photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). This was said to show a "black hole" six times the size of our Sun, passing in front of a star, as a result of analysis of ground-based images of the same star-field. Yet what the ground-based (poorly defined) images showed was simply a variation in brightness of one star which was near another star. The images from the HST resolved the two stars and showed what looked like ordinary star-images. Here, the unexplained observation was a change of brightness of one star, and the assumptions made were not only that some sort of "gravitational micro-lensing" was at work, but also that the object responsible was a "black hole": an invisible star six times the size of our Sun.
And yet, there are far more simple explanations for this apparent change in brightness. For example, it might be caused by some as yet unknown property of the star itself: that is, by some natural process of the star. [See below for more explanations about why the idea of "black holes" is surreal, unrealistic and unscientific.]
The truth is that until we can, at close range, examine this particular phenomena, all explanations are and will remain just speculation: nothing has been proven; nothing truely and scientifically explained.
But in this case we have the so-called "scientific community" bleating once again about "black holes" as if they actually have been proven to exist, when they are not only a speculative idea proposed to explain unexplained observations, but also (and most importantly) not the most rational, natural or simple explanations that could be advanced to explain such observations.
Thus, we arrive at the present situation where people - and scientists - believe the unscientific idea that the cosmos is populated with "black holes"; that the cosmos evolved from some kind of "big bang", and that if we can obtain images superior to those of the HST we will see our "universe being born". The truth is that to really even begin to understand the cosmos, we need to travel beyond our own Solar System and make practical, direct, observations of the things we have so far seen through telescopes.
Until we reach the stage of our development, our evolution, when we travel among the stars, then all we will have is speculation, not facts.
It is important to understand that until there is an abundance of clear, direct, observations (and the important concept here is direct) then no idea, no theory, can be said to be confirmed.
To show the surreal nature of modern speculative science, three recent speculations will be considered.
Speculation I: Black Holes
I repeat: there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such things, and the theory of "black holes" is just a surreal, speculative, theory.
Consider one image from the HST which purports to show the effects [note: the effects] of something invisible, that is, a "black hole". This image is one of several which has been said to "prove" the existence of such surreal things.
The image is of Galaxy NGC 4438 and shows an unusual, unexplained, mass of galactic gas rising in a way which appears to be against the direction of rotation of this galaxy. This section of the original image has also been computer-enhanced, with false colour used to show more detail. This shows - or appears to show - the upward gas surrounded by a roughly circular, empty, region.
This phenomena has been "explained" as the effect of a "black hole" within the galaxy itself.
Of course, the simpler explanation is that this is a natural result of some process, not fully understood at present, within the galaxy itself, perhaps due to its rotation and/or some stellar event or events.
An analogy would be a cumulus cloud here on Earth. This cloud forms, expands, and changes shape, all in a natural way due to natural processes (humidity; wind; atmospheric pressure; air and ground temperature, and so on). At a certain moment, this cloud has a well-defined shape, but it is constantly changing, as a result of all the processes involved, and many times this one cloud, when seen from the ground, or in the air at different levels (from an aircraft) can exhibit features which seem "strange" or "perplexing": for example, strangely shaped filaments; even a circular-type "hole" with another filament of cloud seeming to arch up from its centre. But no one suggests there is some sort of "dark-matter, unseen" object causing such odd cloud phenomena: or as one surreal Press Release said in relation to the HST image, due to the "eating habits of a black hole".
Further to the cloud analogy, one only has to look at some of the photographs of clouds taken from Space (Space Shuttle images; Apollo mission images; weather satellites) to see the great variety of cloud shapes which are produced.
Until we can observe this particular galaxy closer - or even better - descend into it and observe the cause of the phenomena, we will simply not know. Until then, every explanation is just speculation, with some explanations being simply more rational, more scientific, than others.
In my view, the explanation of a "black hole" - in this and all other such cases - is just too unscientific, too surreal, when there are probably far more simpler, more natural, explanations. We understand very little about galaxy formation, and indeed very little about star formation and the properties and life-cycle of stars. We certainly know very little about galaxies: about the processes they undergo or are subject to.
In fact, we have hardly even begun to really study our own star, the Sun. And this is just one type of many different types of star that exists.
Instead of priding ourselves on "understanding" the cosmos in terms of surreal concepts such as "black holes" we should have the honesty to admit that we really know hardly anything at all about the cosmos, just as we need to admit that until we do venture out into the cosmos, our understanding will remain blinkered, limited, and subject to radical change.
And it certainly does not help genuine, rational, scientific understanding to believe in surreal ideas, or always put forward such ideas as "explanations".
As Issac Newton wrote, in his Principia [Rules of Reasoning]:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance..... for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes."
And a "black hole" is certainly a superfluous, surreal, cause.
Speculation II: Gravitational Lenses
What applies to the surreal concept of "black holes" applies to "gravitational lenses".
Consider the HST images of these "lenses". The images are not very clear, but some of them do appear to show similar type images on either side of other objects (or in one case, four such images).
However, two questions arise. First, close inspection of the HST images reveal slight differences in position between the "similar images": that is, the images do not appear to be equidistant. Or course this can be explained away - and has been - as due to various "distorting" factors in Space. Second, given the vastness of the cosmos, a more simple explanation is that these are mere coincidences: something which would be expected given the vast numbers of objects in the cosmos.
Of course, this simple explanation of coincidence can also be - and has been - "explained away" by making even more assumptions.
Once again, the actual observations - the HST images - prove nothing. They have to be interpreted, explained, and one either puts forward and accepts a simple, rational, explanation (coincidence) or one puts forward a theoretical, complicated, explanation (gravitational lenses: i.e. a theory of abstract Space-Time with light being bent due to the curvature of space-time caused by a large gravitating body).
A few fuzzy images are no proof of anything.
Speculation III: The Big Bang
The most surreal idea considered last. There is no actual evidence, no direct observations, to support this mega-surreal idea. What has been given "in evidence" to support this idea can be interpreted in other, more simple, ways (yet again).
Furthermore, the idea itself is totally irrational since it fails to explain:
1) Where the proto-matter for this "big bang" came from, and what was the cause, the origin, of the "explosion" which caused this early matter to "expand" and increase.
Furthermore, how did, and does, this matter increase? Where does the material for such an increase come from: how does it arise? How is it created? From nothing?
2) What was before the creation of Space and Time in this "big bang"? To say that nothing existed is no rational answer, for what is Time itself? How could Time never exist? What is existence? On fundamental questions such as these, the theory is silent.
Furthermore, the nature of this theory assumes that Time is only causal, and that before point Zero there was nothing: no negative causal Time, for instance. Some theorists have tried to argue that before the beginning, there was another beginning (a sort of cosmic cycle of expansion, contraction and so on) but that merely dodges the questions, because how did the first cycle begin?
3) Just how a small, finite, proto-cosmos could "expand" into something (Space: and larger than the space containing this proto-cosmos) with that Space outside not existing.
Once again, the very nature of Space is never defined. The only answers given, as with the problem of Time, are irrational, dodging, answers which basically amount to saying: "Such questions have no meaning because before the beginning Space, Time did not exist."
A more simple and rational explanation of the origin of the cosmos is that the cosmos is infinite, and eternal, with the matter/energy in this cosmos constantly changing, and there being both a causal Space and a causal Time, and an acausal Space and an acausal Time.
This is a more simple, more rational, explanation because "eternity" and "infinity" are concepts which do explain - for the present - the prime cause, the origin, and Space and Time themselves.
Beyond this, we simply do not know; thus how this infinity, and Space and Time, came into being, into existence, is still unknown.
One way - perhaps the only way - to scientifically prove which of the rival theories about the origin of the cosmos is correct is to travel to the ends of the cosmos. Of course, we cannot hope to do this, and so must rely on telescopic images which (if our assumptions about red-shift and other things are correct) will give a glimpse back "in time" and into the depths of the cosmos. Perhaps, once day, we will see nothing; as perhaps, one day, one of our Spaceships will find out.
Until then, both theories remains a belief - speculative theories - not scientific facts.
Yet again, a surreal idea - far less simple an explanation than other explanations - has come to be accepted as the correct or most likely "explanation", when the truth is that such a surreal idea is a hindrance to true understanding - to the true search for answers, the true search for knowledge, and a sign of how real science has been displaced by surreal science.
Conclusion:
I am sure that, centuries from now (assuming civilization and science survive and continue) people will look back to our times and marvel at how stupid people were to accept such surreal ideas as "scientific" explanations.
These ideas are just like passing fads, and we can only hope that real astronomy and cosmology - based upon reason, exploration and actual close observation - will flourish in a future where we have learned to travel among the stars.
David Myatt
JD2451874.283