Heat Death of the Universe? I wouldn't bet on it.

I just read the New Scientist article "When will the universe end? Not for at least 2.8 billion years".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078851-when-will-the-universe-end-not-for-at-least-2-8-billion-years/?cmpid=NLC%7CNSNS%7C2016-0303-GLOB&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNSAL

The article is a "Reader's Digest" adaptation (I like to say "short-attention-span version") of a paper that can be found in the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology section of the Cornell University Library, "Observational support for approaching cosmic doomsday".

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06211v1

I encourage everyone to take a quick scan of that paper. It shows how many of these popular woo-woo science articles come from conclusions drawn from a study of groups of models. Groups of models that are based on mathematical conjectures built upon the assumptions of The Big Bang narrative; a reality born of an immense explosion caused by "random fluctuations", followed by an "Inflationary Period", continuing with an "Expanding Universe" which consists of a 4-or-more-dimensional space/time "fabric", populated mostly by dark matter and dark energy, along with a little baryonic matter which is no more than a sub-atomic particles that pop in and out of existence at the quantum level, held together by fields of attractive force. Isn't that the overall picture we are asked to accept?

Drawing heavily on Bayesian probability theory, this paper brings together a group of cosmological models and draws conclusions after assigning probability values to each specific model. But, but, ... 

The very idea of "heat death" contradicts the law of conservation of matter and just about every other "law of nature" that we can articulate.

That's why scientists who discuss black holes, big bangs, quantum randomness, dark matter & dark energy, string theories, multi-universes, etc. always have to say "this is where the laws of physics break down". Oh really?

The ridiculousness of this kind of thinking is paralleled in many parts of modern cosmology (and religion of course). Einstein explained gravity with the idea of "gravity wells" created by the curvature of space. A more massive object attracts a smaller object because it bends the space/time "fabric" downward to create a 3-dimensional "well" that the smaller object is sucked "down" into. How is that not explaining gravity with gravity? Your doctor might be very smart, but if you hear him say, "your skin is inflamed because you have Inflamed Skin Syndrome", you better ask some more questions.  

You haven't explained anything if you use a word or concept to define itself. It's the old "tortoises all the way down" fantasy. You think you are being logical because of all your beautiful mathematical formulae scribbled across multiple chalkboards, but you are kidding yourself. Just because you can make great observations and calculations, that doesn't mean you have a grasp of reality. Ptolemy proved that you can have a beautifully complex and even largely workable model of reality that is completely wrong. His beautiful conceptualization was just a house of cards waiting to fall as soon as reality tapped him on the shoulder.

Mathematics (along with its study of statistical logic and probability theory) only becomes useful when your terms can be correlated to matter or the motion of matter. When you use a "random" variable in your equation, that doesn't translate to a "causeless" event in reality. When your equation puts out negative numbers or irrational numbers, it's a good hint that you are no longer correlating to real matter or motion. For example, when I have 40 apples in a basket, and I subtract 40 apples, the answer to that simple arithmetic is Zero. But, just because the 40 apples were real and the motion of removing the 40 apples was real, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "zero apples". Zero is a very useful concept, but it is not a real thing or action.

When physicists take real observations of matter and motion, and put them together to create a mathematical model that results in "heat death", that doesn't mean "heat death" has to be a real thing or a possible event.

What ingredients go into these "Heat Death" computer models? Models that predict events that will happen billions and billions of years from now, and that will encompass the entire Big Bang universe? 

Each model recipe includes:

• 2 cups Empirical Data (finely diced with plus and minus margins of errors)

• 1 bunch of statistical probability formulae (to taste)

• 1/2 cup crumbled assumptions (the more inner contradictions, the better)

• 2 Tablespoons (heaping) of random fluctuations

• Grease the pan with "a family of cosmological models featuring future singularities".

• Lightly flour the pan with your choice of statistical probability philosophy.

• Serve cold to friends hungry for reinforcement of their assumptions of indeterminism and finity.

"Does probability measure the real, physical tendency of something to occur or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur?"

Cosmology, the Lab, the Church, the State

Last year (2014) the headlines in every hodunk town paper and website blared headlines about scientists finding "the most definitive proof ever" that their Big Bang theories are on the right track. Turns out the "evidence" was nothing but mis-readings from interstellar dust.

Funny that there aren't any headlines with a retraction of last year's B.S.

One little article has snuck out there because someone leaked the news that scientists wanted to keep secret. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26883-leak-suggests-big-bang-find-was-a-dusty-mistake.html#.VMzXJt3AOiF

States keep taking our dollars and pumping billions into useless research to support the "Standard Model" of the very large and the very small. They spend our money propping up "The Big Bang" with mathematical models but zero good evidence. They also blow billions on the "Standard Model" of the extremely small. Particle Colliders are searching for the "Higgs Boson", a.k.a., "God Particle" which again is supported by imaginative mathematics, but no good evidence. In fact, the evidence (and common sense, ... and logic) flies in the face of everything modern mythologists have to say about the extremes of small and large in this universe.

All of this confused thinking by very intelligent minds is caused by the belief in a finite universe. In other words, a universe that has a beginning and an ending, in both time and space. Because humans are justifiably uncomfortable not seeing the end of something, academic "leaders" claim to find the edge of the universe or the smallest particle. But every time we build a better telescope or electron microscope, we find that the universe extends beyond the claimed limits found by our old technology. 

That's gone on for so long that now they need a newer fuzzier idea to claim that the universe dances to the latest human ideas; They say that the Big Bang "created" not just matter, but time and space, and there was no time or space before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding not so much like an explosion, but like a balloon. And our 3D universe is comparable to the 2D universe of the balloon's surface as it expands. In the small realm, they now have Quantum Physics that also goes beyond matter, with "random field fluctuations" said to "create" particles as they pop in and out of existence. All of this violates the first law of Physics; Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So then they say, "in our very large and very small observations, the laws of physics break down". WTF? Well then don't pretend to be following any f-ing rules. When you find a paradox, it's nature's way of telling you to go back and check your premises.

It's an idea worthy of the strangest religious fantasy. Just as in the religious churches, anyone standing outside of the church of science is told that they can't understand the complex and "beautiful mathematics" that prove all of these ideas. "It's a beautiful mystery." Just believe us and send money. 

Just like the state does not follow it's own rules, the Constitution, and the church has to constantly reinterpret it's own rulebook, the Bible, scientists who hypothesize about the very nature of the universe have to keep rewriting their rule book. A sane person quits the game when the rules are constantly changed by those who want our money.

Something smells fishy, and it needs to be ridiculed with humor more than argument.

▶ George Carlin on God and Politics - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSS5oTM_YGQ

As an old saying goes, "the wounded deer jumps highest". 

Likewise in the plant world; the sickly or damaged plant goes to seed earlier than the healthy plants.

Sometimes when something is dying it has a burst of energy as a last-ditch attempt at life.

I say that what we are seeing in the burst of activity of states, churches, and cosmology is actually their death throes.

Our great-great-grandchildren are gonna see a fantastic New Enlightenment of peace, creativity, sanity, technology, natural health and prosperity,

... as long as these myths don't take the human race with them as they flail about dying.