Abstract

It is often claimed that cosmology became a true scientific inquiry with the advent of the General Theory of Relativity. A few subsequent putative observations have been misconstrued in such a way as to support the prevailing Big Bang model by which the Universe is alleged to have burst into existence from an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Yet it can be shown that the General Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang model are in conflict with well-established experimental facts.

Black holes are not without cosmological significance in view of the many claims routinely made for them, and so they are treated here in some detail. But the theory of black holes is riddled with contradictions and has no valid basis in observation. Nobody has ever found a black hole, even though claims for their discovery are now made on an almost daily basis. Nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon, the tell-tale signatures of the black hole, and so nobody has ever found a black hole. In actuality, astrophysical scientists merely claim that there are phenomena observed about a region that they cannot see and so they illogically conclude that the unseen region must be a black hole, simply because they believe in black holes. In this way they can and do claim the presence of a black hole as they please. But that is not how science is properly done. Moreover, all black hole solutions pertain to one alleged mass in the Universe, whereas there are no known solutions to Einstein?s field equations for two or more masses, such as two black holes. In other words, the astrophysics community has no solution to Einstein?s field equations that can account for the presence of two or more bodies, yet they claim the existence of black holes in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter.

Owing to the very serious problems with the Big Bang hypothesis and the theory of black holes, it is fair to say that neither meets the requirements of a valid physical theory. They are products of a peer review system that has gone awry, having all the characteristics of a closed academic club of mutual admiration and benefit into which new members are strictly by invitation only. The upshot of this is that the majority of the current astrophysics community is imbued with the dogmas of the academic club and the voice of dissent conveniently ignored or ridiculed, contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. This method has protected funding interests but has done much harm to science.