A possible huge bug of our science

equivocation fallacy

essentialsaltes said:

equivocation fallacy

Click to expand...

It failed alright.

In spades.

The seven points I made in Post #62 were a layperson or science-lite explanation, I let ChatGPT-5.5 beef up the explanation to include more science and mathematics for each of the points I made requiring very little or no 'imagination' and definitely no guesswork.

1. Galaxy recession​

Your explanation

"In the early part of the 20th century it was found that distant galaxies recede from each other. The further the galaxies were from the observer, the faster they receded."

Science and mathematics expansion

This is described by the Hubble–Lemaître law:
v = H₀d

where:
v = recession velocity
H₀ = Hubble constant
d = distance to the galaxy

For relatively nearby galaxies, redshift is related to velocity by:
v ≈ cz

where:
c = speed of light
z = redshift

So observationally:
z ∝ d

This means the greater the distance to a galaxy, the greater its redshift and recession velocity. This is not a guess about the distant past. It is a measured relationship between galaxy distances and galaxy spectra.

The important point is that this pattern strongly suggests that space itself is expanding. If the universe is expanding now, then mathematically running the expansion backward implies that the universe was once denser and hotter.

---

2. Expanding universe metric​

Your explanation

"From this data, four very smart dudes independently came up with the theory that the universe is expanding and could be described by a piece of mathematics known as a metric."

Science and mathematics expansion

The metric used in modern cosmology is the FLRW metric, named after Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.
It describes a universe which, on large scales, is approximately homogeneous and isotropic.
Homogeneous means the universe is approximately the same everywhere on large scales.
Isotropic means the universe looks approximately the same in every direction on large scales.

The FLRW metric is:
ds² = −c²dt² + a²(t) [ dr² / (1 − kr²) + r²dΩ² ]

where:
a(t) = scale factor of the universe
k = spatial curvature parameter
dΩ² = angular part of the metric

The scale factor a(t) tells us how the size of the universe changes with time.
If two galaxies have fixed comoving separation Δr, their physical distance is:

D(t) = a(t)Δr

Differentiating this with respect to time gives:

Ḋ(t) = ȧ(t)Δr

Since:
D(t) = a(t)Δr

we can write:
Ḋ(t) = [ȧ(t) / a(t)]D

Define:
H(t) = ȧ(t) / a(t)

Therefore:
v = HD

This is the mathematical origin of Hubble’s law in an expanding universe.
So the recession of galaxies is not just an isolated observation. It fits naturally into a geometric description of spacetime.

---

3. Einstein’s field equations and the Friedmann equations​

Your explanation

"When this metric was plugged into Einstein’s theory of general relativity field equations, mathematical equations were generated which could define the rate of expansion of the universe."

Science and mathematics expansion

Einstein’s field equations are:

Gμν + Λgμν = (8πG / c⁴)Tμν

These equations relate the geometry of spacetime to the matter and energy inside it.

When the FLRW metric is inserted into Einstein’s field equations, the result is the Friedmann equations.
The first Friedmann equation is:
H² = (ȧ / a)² = (8πGρ / 3) − (kc² / a²) + (Λc² / 3)

The second Friedmann equation is:
ä / a = −(4πG / 3)(ρ + 3p / c²) + Λc² / 3

where:
ρ = density of the universe
p = pressure
Λ = cosmological constant
a = scale factor
ȧ = rate of change of the scale factor
ä = acceleration of the scale factor

These equations describe how the universe expands or contracts depending on its matter, radiation, curvature and dark-energy content.
This is a crucial point. The Big Bang model is not merely a verbal story. It comes from applying Einstein’s field equations to the observed large-scale structure of the universe.

---

4. Thermodynamics and the hot early universe​

Your explanation

"Applying thermodynamics, the early universe must have been extremely hot and expansion cooled the universe."

Science and mathematics expansion

As the universe expands, the wavelengths of photons are stretched.
The wavelength scales as:
λ ∝ a(t)

The energy of a photon is:
E = hc / λ

Therefore, as the universe expands:
E ∝ 1 / a(t)

For blackbody radiation, photon energy is related to temperature by:
E ≈ kBT

where:
kB = Boltzmann constant

Therefore:
T ∝ 1 / a(t)

So:
T(t)a(t) = constant

This means that if the universe is expanding and cooling today, then in the past, when the scale factor a(t) was smaller, the temperature T was higher.

Therefore:
smaller universe → hotter universe
This is not imagination. It follows from thermodynamics, blackbody radiation and the expansion of space.

---

5. Atomic physics and the ionised early universe​

Your explanation

"Around the same time frame for the development of the Big Bang expansion theory, scientists were uncovering the nature of the atom being composed of a positively charged nucleus and negatively charged electrons. The high temperatures of the early universe would result in free electrons and nuclei."

Science and mathematics expansion

Atoms are made of nuclei and electrons. A hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron:
p⁺ + e⁻ → H

However, at very high temperatures, atoms cannot remain stable because the thermal energy is high enough to ionise them.
The ionisation energy of hydrogen is:
13.6 eV

Thermal energy is approximately:
Ethermal ≈ kBT

If the temperature is high enough, electrons are stripped from atoms:
H → p⁺ + e⁻

Therefore, the early universe was not made mostly of neutral atoms. It was an ionised plasma containing:
p⁺, e⁻ and γ

That is:
protons, electrons and photons
In this state, light could not travel freely because photons were constantly interacting with free electrons.
So atomic physics leads directly to the conclusion that the early universe was an opaque plasma.

---

6. Prediction of background radiation​

Your explanation

"The existence of a background radiation was predicted: as the universe cooled, free electrons became bonded to proton nuclei to form the primeval hydrogen. Prior to this, photons were being scattered by electrons and the universe was opaque. The radiation background was the last stage before the universe became transparent to light."

Science and mathematics expansion

Before neutral atoms formed, photons repeatedly scattered from free electrons:
γ + e⁻ → γ + e⁻
This is called Thomson scattering.
Because free electrons were everywhere, the early universe was opaque. Photons could not travel long distances without being scattered.

As the universe expanded and cooled, electrons and protons combined to form neutral hydrogen:
p⁺ + e⁻ → H

This process is called recombination, although it was really the first major formation of neutral hydrogen.
Once neutral hydrogen formed, the number of free electrons dropped dramatically. With far fewer free electrons available, photons could travel freely through space.
This moment is called photon decoupling or last scattering.
The radiation released at this stage is the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The logic is:
hot plasma → cooling universe → neutral hydrogen → transparent universe → freely travelling relic radiation

Therefore, the background radiation was not invented as an after-the-fact explanation. It was a physical consequence of combining expansion, thermodynamics and atomic physics.

---

7. Expansion factor and the present CMB temperature​

Your explanation

"This last stage was predicted when the universe had expanded by a factor of around 1100 times, and since the temperature is inversely proportional to this expansion factor, the temperature of the background radiation as it is today was predicted to be 5 K compared to the observed value of 2.7 K."

Science and mathematics expansion

The temperature of radiation scales inversely with the expansion of the universe:
T ∝ 1 / a

Redshift is related to the scale factor by:
1 + z = a₀ / athen

At the time of last scattering:
z ≈ 1100

Therefore:
a₀ / athen ≈ 1100

Since:
T ∝ 1 / a

we have:
Tthen = T₀(1 + z)

Rearranging:
T₀ = Tthen / (1 + z)

The temperature at recombination was roughly:
Tthen ≈ 3000 K

Therefore:
T₀ ≈ 3000 / 1100

So:
T₀ ≈ 2.7 K

This agrees closely with the observed cosmic microwave background temperature:

T₀ ≈ 2.725 K

The earlier prediction of about 5 K was not exact, because the values of the cosmological parameters were not yet accurately known. But it was still a highly successful scientific prediction because it correctly predicted that there should be a cold, all-sky, relic blackbody radiation left over from the hot early universe.

Conclusion​

This example shows why science can investigate the distant past without relying on imagination or pure guesswork.
The reasoning chain is:

galaxy redshifts
→ expanding universe
→ FLRW metric
→ Einstein field equations
→ Friedmann equations
→ hot dense early universe
→ ionised plasma
→ recombination
→ transparent universe
→ cosmic microwave background
→ observed 2.7 K radiation

This is how historical science works. It uses present evidence, tested physical laws and mathematical models to reconstruct past events. The success of the cosmic microwave background prediction shows that scientific reconstruction of the past is not guesswork; it is evidence-based inference.

In the science of geology looking at the distance past. I asked AI about the northward movement of Western Oregon. It's been established that million of years ago is was situated further south, like near the equator. But I wanted to see what AI had to say. Even today Western Oregon is moving north in a clockwise motion.



ChatGPT: Geologists don’t rely on a single clue—there are several independent lines of evidence that all point to western Oregon having moved (and rotated) northward over millions of years.

---

1) Paleomagnetism (the strongest evidence)​

4

When lava cools, tiny الحديد-bearing minerals (like magnetite) lock in the direction of Earth’s magnetic field at that time. This is called paleomagnetism.

• The angle of the magnetic field (inclination) depends on latitude.
• Rocks in western Oregon show magnetic signatures that match formation farther south than their current position.
• Comparing these fossilized magnetic directions to today’s field shows the land has shifted northward and rotated.

---

2) Accreted terranes (pieces of crust that traveled)​

5

Western Oregon isn’t originally part of ancient North America—it’s made of crustal blocks called terrane that formed elsewhere and later attached.

• A key example is Siletzia terrane, likely formed near the equator or farther south.
• These terranes were carried by tectonic plates and “sutured” onto the continent.
• Their rock types, fossils, and chemistry don’t match inland North America but do match distant origins.

---

3) Fossils and climate clues​

Fossils in western Oregon indicate warmer, more southern climates in the past.

• Plant fossils (like subtropical species) suggest formation at lower latitudes.
• Marine fossils match ecosystems typical of regions farther south.
• This aligns with the idea that the landmass moved north over time.

---

4) Plate tectonics and direct measurement​

5

Modern measurements confirm ongoing movement.

• The Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath North America at the Cascadia Subduction Zone.
• GPS instruments show the region is still slowly deforming and shifting.
• Reconstructing plate motions backward explains how those terranes traveled northward.

---

Putting it together​

All these lines of evidence—magnetic signatures, mismatched crustal blocks, fossil climates, and plate motion—tell a consistent story:


Western Oregon didn’t just “slide north” as one piece. Instead, chunks of crust formed farther south (even near the tropics), traveled on oceanic plates, and were gradually added onto North America, ending up where Oregon is today.

Hawkins said:

I'd like to see your opinions on my speculation on the huge bug of science.

Science is experiment-based, humans are however incapable of stepping outside of our own space to do experiments. That is to say, science is incapable of detecting even the simplest existences as long as they don't lie within our own space/realm.

On the other hand, spirituality as an advocate from the very beginning of humanity is never about existences lying within our own realm/space. Rather it's always about things lying outside of our realm/space, which science is not futile about but also completely irrelevant. This inability of humankind may lead to the hugest bug our human science may have introduced.

Due to our inability to detect existences outside of our space, which our 5 senses can detect, we somehow have to (by ability) assume that our universe is made of a simple 3D space. In truth however, this simpleton assumption may be wrong (very wrong). Our universe can be made of multiple 3D spaces acting upon each other. Genesis 1:1, in the beginning God created heavens... The plural form of Heaven may well represent that God created multiple spaces in order to achieve the formation of our universe and to facilitate the Earth we are now seeing and knowing.

Subsequently our naive assumption tells us that dark matters and dark energy shall lie within this universe which we may wrongly assume it a simple 3D space. We don't have the ability to calculate inter-space forces if there are any. We can't find dark matters and dark energy possibly because they are results of matters in multiple spaces interacting with each other, in order to form the universe we superficially perceive.

Quantum physics seems to say the same, it cannot be modeled by a simple 3D space/time concept.

What would you say, especially fellow Christian scientists.

Click to expand...

Science can’t detect what it doesn’t know what to look for?
Sure, that’s fine.