Steve Wallis’ socialist website: Scientific Theories

Tortured by police handcuffs		revolutionarysocialiststeve@yahoo.co.uk
Telephone: 07725 735255

Note: Some platforms warn you about “active content” that could access your computer. If you don’t trust me not to give your computer a virus, you can browse this website without allowing the active content. The only difference is that the buttons below would not be highlighted when the cursor moves over them.

Scientific Theories

Much “established scientific fact” including the Big Bang and evolution is gobbledegook, but I am agnostic as to whether there is a god as I stated on my religion page.

If God does exist today, then the question remains as to why astronomers cannot find him anywhere in the universe. When people think they are communicating with God I think that they may really be communicating with an advanced socialist society in outer space.

On the other hand, you cannot get complexity from simplicity, which is what the Big Bang (getting a very complex universe from a tiny concentration of matter) and evolution (getting very complex beings from single-celled organisms) would entail. This applies to computer programming as well; Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques that use very simple techiques (in particular, neural networks which try to emulate the brain, and genetic algorithms which try to replicate evolution using genes) never scale up to more than toy problems. Even the more successful methods (such as genetic programming where hierachical symbolic structures are manipulated – my former colleague Bruce Edmonds at Manchester Metropolitan University did serious AI research into genetic programming using my language SDML) do not and cannot result in more complex intelligences being developed than human minds.

Even Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species admitted that his theory of evolution would not hold true if a whole subsytem could arise at once. How then did an eye arise, for example? Earlier species had no eyes at all and later species had eyes; there are loads of so-called “missing links” which have not been found and it would not make evolutionary sense to develop steps towards an eye if it did not have any of an eye’s functionality in any case.

The only situation in which evolution achieves significant changes is where many beings in the same species encounter the same set of circumstances at once and have to adapt in the same way through random mutations to survive. This happened with the giant turtles on the Galapagos Islands that Darwin studied, and happens most often today with mutations of pests to gain resistance to pesticides sprayed on fields and mutations of bacteria to overcome antibiotics.

I went to a lecture given by the Astronomer Royal (who holds the most prestigious post in astronomy in the UK) who talked partly about the Big Bang and partly about the end of the universe.

The different laws of the universe that were supposed to have existed in the miniscule fractions of a second after the Big Bang were themselves evidence that the theory is full of holes! Many supposedly serious scientists are swallowing this gobbledegook and doing research on it. There are clearly other scientific theories upon which this research is being based that are also nonsense.

The fact that it has also been derived that some tiny sub-atomic particles can travel backwards in time as well as that others can be in two places at once (quantum physics) are further evidence that there is something seriously wrong with the “laws” of physics! I remember an experiment we did in A-level physics which supposedly proved that a particle was in two places at once, and I have not yet sufficiently researched this subject enough (yet) to offer an alternative explanation, but in my view there must be something more to matter than is explained by established physics. Attempts to build super-fast computers using quantum physics, which were predicted by some to overcome the speed of light limitation of conventional computers, have been an unmitigated disaster, which is further evidence that something is wrong with the theory.

I have an original theory about the start of the universe, in which there was once a single organism encompassing the entire universe; you could call this living universe God if you like. Then that single God may have created sub-gods, one for each galaxy, perhaps destroying itself in the process. Similarly, these sub-gods may have divided themselves up into smaller sub-sub-gods until there was one for each solar system or perhaps habitable planet, and destroyed themselves in the process. Finally, each of these sub-sub-gods may have created all the beings on a planet at a particular point in time, and once more destroyed itself. The Earth’s god must have planted some fossils in the Earth to pretend that evolution was the reason for us being here, but not too many so that many believe in a creator.

Both of the theories for the end of the universe put forward by astrophsyicists end in catastrophe, and which catastrophe happens depends on the amount of “dark matter” which cannot be measured. Either there will be a big crunch where all matter collapses to a single point, or the universe will continually expand so that we get further and further away from other planets and the universe eventually runs out of energy. If the Big Bang theory is rejected, then it is possible to adopt a self-sustaining view of the universe, which continually expands and contracts like a human heart – this is a view I hold (not because I have only proof, just because it seems more rational than any other that I have heard).

The main problem with the astrophysicists’ view of the universe (apart from it being wrong) is that it encourages people not to care about the future of humanity. If the universe will end in doom and gloom sooner or later, then it is a short step to make not to care about what happens on the Earth. There is a certain correlation with people being atheists and being evil (but George W Bush claims to be a Christian and that does not make him good!) In my view, being an agnostic, but open to the idea of an afterlife, is preferable to unquestioningly accepting atheism or any religion. I have always thought that an ethical God would prefer somebody who questioned the ideas of established religions (bearing in mind the fact that they have been often been used by people with dubious motives) as long as they were good people. The ending of the idea by Christian leaders that God would be cruel enough to inflict eternal damnation in hell to anybody is to be welcomed; they agree with my view and that of atheists that evil people would have no further existence once they died.

I plan to add to this page and that on religion in the near future. Stay tuned...