There’s a general belief mathematicians are scientists and that maths is the highest form of scientific erudition.
Mathematics isn’t science, it’s a language using symbols instead of words to describe an idea; mathematicians are therefore linguists. It is, however, used in science as a tool to describe and aid the understanding of physical phenomena.
We get into trouble when mathematics becomes disconnected from physical reality, as it appears to have these days in physics and astrophysics, and is placed as the zenith of scientific effort, much in the way that Latin was used as the exclusive means to understand the Christian God’s work. (Until Tindale translated the Christian Bible into the vulgar, creating the King James Authorised version, that is).
Take the point called centre-of-gravity. It’s a mathematical convenience to assume that all the mass of an object is applied at a fictitious location so that calculations are more easily done, but under no circumstances is it a real physical object. Yet in order to explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies, (they rotate too fast for the amount of matter observed), astrophysicists placed a black-hole at the centre-of-gravity of the galaxy to add mass to the system in order to provide sufficient mass to explain the observed rotation.
But a centre-of-gravity and hence a black-hole are not 3D objects but mathematical fictions used to make the maths equations balance out.
The error made was the assumption that the maths accurately described physical reality. It didn’t and doesn’t. The error is made when mathematics becomes the primary manner of studying physical phenomena. Language is a human construct and hence is always a poor approximation of reality. Mathematics can also become a dogmatic belief system from mindless repetition. Such beliefs can be easily recognised by this list compiled by the astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe, posted on Facebook recently:
How to recognise a belief from a mile off:
1. It is expressed with zeal, passion, emotion.
2. It preaches from a moral high ground.
3. It claims the privilege of truth.
4. It doesn’t like changing its mind (belief is inherently dogmatic).
In a nutshell, it is not objective. It sings subjectivity like a national anthem.
Centre-of-gravity, black holes and the Big Bang singularity are mathematical constructs used to simplify the description of physical observations – the problem is that these mathematical constructions, while existing in the imagination, do not exist in the objective physical world. It is the belief they do that is the problem, and hence why much of science is actually pseudoscience.
Then there’s another common error made when using the term “mass”. Objects have mass and mass is the force an object experiences in the presence of another object. Mass actually isn’t an object, so you should not say ‘I threw a mass at someone’. It is also important to understand that one object, in isolation, cannot have a mass by definition. It also follows that points can’t have mass either, and more importantly, according to the Big Bang theory, if all the universe was continued in an initial point, which then exploded, then that single point also could not have had any mass, since mass requires at minimum two objects; points are not physical objects so two points can’t experience mass either, of course. So this is a double whammy falsification of the Big Bang Theory.
So in the beginning there was no singular point of mass. So the Big Bang Theory, invented by the Jesuit physicist Georges Lemaitre, was simply Lemaitre reconciling his physics with his theology, as he admitted to Hannes Alfven decades ago, during a private conversation.
And galaxies are better explained using the physics of the plasma universe, but if you don’t believe that charge separation is possible in space, then you also will have a problem explaining the solar wind that is comprised of electrical charged particles, mainly protons, travelling through space. Cosmic radiation, mainly alpha particles, are also electrically charged ions, travelling through space. Moving electrically charged particles is more colloquially known as “electricity”.
So if the Big Bang Theory is profoundly wrong, what else might explain the cosmology of the universe? I would have a look at the idea of ‘The Holographic Universe‘, and Amit Goswami’s ideas described in his book The Self Aware Universe. It goes without saying that one should also study the ideas contained in the theories of the electric or plasma universe as well.