Video Transcription: Part 1 of Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

This is the first part of the transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw. It's a LONG video, and hence is going to be a long transcription, so I'm posting it in parts as I work on it. This first part covers about the first 1/3 of the video. 

Video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/U7oP1OfJ4_I

Video on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinTheCenterOfTheObservableUniverseFlaw

Again, this is unedited. Also, there's a lot going on in the video that doesn't translate to text, so some of the transcription might not make sense without the video, but I'm doing it anyway.

Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

I did a Google here on “the observable universe.” The first result is Wikipedia: “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time.”

How big is the observable universe? 46.5 billion light years. How far is the edge? Something wrong with these figures here.

Anyway, there’s the observable universe. How big is the universe? The diameter of the observable universe is a sphere around 92 billion light years. Has a radius of 46 billion light years.

The observable universe is basically everything we can see. Let me pull up Wikipedia here just to have something to read.

 “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects have had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of expansion.”

So look, this diagram here is a bunch of stars enclosed in a sphere.

So there’s the observable universe. It’s the universe that we can observe. Going on down the Google results, just looking at the summaries: “The observable universe only contains the light that has had time to reach us. A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe.” Let me repeat that.  “A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe.”

Do you realize what a bullshit statement that is? Excuse my French. That is a completely unscientific statement. “A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe.” How can you possibly know that?

If you can only observe what is contained within the observable universe, how can you possibly know that there is anything beyond the observable universe? Science is about observation. How can you possibly observe something outside the observable universe? If it is outside the observable universe, it is de facto in the unobservable universe, is it not? It’s unobservable. If you cannot observe it...

Look at Wikipedia: “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time.” The observable universe is everything in the universe that can be observed. So how can you possibly make the statement that “A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe” and consider yourself to be making a scientific statement? That is complete bullshit. You cannot possibly observe anything outside the observable universe. That should be completely obvious. So to say that there is anything beyond the observable universe... You cannot possibly know that.

And yes, the size of the observable universe is obviously changing day by day, because allegedly the universe is expanding. But you can’t observe anything beyond that. So to say “a lot more exists” — how do you know “a lot” more exists? Maybe there’s only a tiny bit more that exists. It gets to the question, is the universe infinite? Is it closed? What is the universe expanding into? Is it expanding into nothing?

It’s all pure speculation. “A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe.” You can’t possibly know that.

Here’s this. “However, our understanding of the actual universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe.” Here they’re distinguishing between the “actual” universe and the observable universe. Again, PBS is assuming that there is more to the universe. There’s the observable universe, and then there’s the entire universe. They’re claiming that the observable universe is not the entirety of the universe that exists. There is more to the universe beyond the observable universe. But you cannot possibly know that. It’s unobservable, hence it is a pseudoscientific concept and pure speculation to say that anything lies beyond the observable universe. Science only deals with what is observable.

And note that it isn’t called the “indirectly observable universe.” There is no distinction made between directly observable and indirectly observable. It’s the observable universe, period. It doesn’t imply that there are other ways you can infer the existence of something beyond the edge of the observable universe. Because you can’t. You can’t infer the existence of anything beyond the edge of the observable universe. How could you possibly infer such a thing? Because that would mean it’s observable. You would see the behavior of something at the edge of the observable universe and infer that there’s something beyond the edge of the observable universe that is affecting something within the observable universe. In which case, the thing beyond the edge is observable by its effects on the something within the observable universe. But in such a case, how would you know what is affecting the object being observed? Is it a leprechaun? A fairy? An asteroid? Homer Simpson? A black hole? What? What is it? There’s nothing but pure speculation as to its identity. And how do you even know that the unobservable entity actually exists? Because the observable entity is behaving in a way that violates your current theories, therefore something in the unobservable universe must be affecting it? Something inherently beyond the realm of science? Wouldn’t a more reasonable explanation be that your theories as to how the observable object should behave are flawed?

You can’t possibly observe anything outside the observable universe. That’s completely stupid. So the whole idea that “a lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe” is about as whacked out as you can get. If you can’t observe the unobservable universe, how do you even know that it exists to be there but unobservable?

From PBS.org, in an article by Paul Halpern. Who is Paul Halpern? Professor of Physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship, Fulbright scholarship. So he’s a credible source. He says, “Although you might speculate about what lies beyond the edge, you’d lack tangible evidence to support your hypothesis.”

Yes. Exactly.

He says that, and yet he still makes the distinction that there’s the actual universe and there’s the observable universe. He still makes the allegation that there is something beyond the edge of the observable universe. He basically says that although we lack tangible evidence to support our speculation as to what lies beyond the edge of the observable universe, but there is a “rest of the universe” out there beyond the edge of the observable universe.

But you cannot even say that with even the slightest degree of scientific credibility. You can’t credibly say, “We don’t know what’s in the rest of the universe because we can’t observe it, but there is more to the universe than what we can observe.” It’s a completely ridiculous assertion. You cannot even say that there is actually more of the universe beyond the edge of the observable universe, never mind what is actually contained within the rest of the universe beyond the edge of the observable universe. You cannot say that there is anything beyond the edge to even speculate about. It’s pure speculation that there is an “actual” universe, as if the observable universe is embedded within a larger universe. That’s pure speculation.

Here’s that diagram again. It’s 93 billion light years. Here’s the edge of the observable universe. Here we are at the center. We are at the center of the observable universe, which is what I’m going to get to in a moment. Yes, this is going to be another discussion about Geocentrism.

“Naturally not everything within the observable universe has been identified. It represents the spherical realm that contains all things that could potentially be known through their light signals.”

“Beyond the observable universe lie unknown unknowns.”

“Beyond the observable universe.” That in itself is an unknown. You don’t even know that there is anything beyond the observable universe. You can’t observe anything beyond it. He’s doubly digging himself in here. “Beyond the observable universe.” First, he’s assuming that there is indeed a beyond. That’s assumption one, that there is a “beyond the observable universe.” And then he’s adds on another layer of speculation and assumption: “Beyond the observable universe lie unknown unknowns, the subject of speculation rather than direct observation.”

“Beyond the observable universe.” The “beyond” portion of that sentence is itself a subject of speculation rather than direct observation.

The author is doubly suspect here. He’s going doubly into the realm of pseudoscience.

Who else is saying this? We’ve got a few reliable sources here [naming websites] Physics of the Universe, Science Blogs, Physics Forum. The Observable Universe vs. the Entire Universe. “This lesson will tie in the concepts of our observable universe to explain why we cannot see the entire universe.”

So again, there’s a distinction everywhere you look between the observable universe and the universe as a whole, as if the observable universe is merely embedded within a larger, unobservable universe. My contention is — and there shouldn’t be any debate about what I’m saying — that you cannot possibly know that there is an unobservable universe. You can’t make the distinction, “Okay, we’ve got the observable universe embedded within a larger unobservable universe” because you cannot possibly know that. It’s pure speculation to say there is a larger, unobservable universe. That’s pure speculation. And yet all these people are drawing a distinction between the observable universe and the actual universe.

“A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to see.” We can label that the unobservable universe. “However, our understanding of the actual universe...” Change that to read, “However, our understanding of the unobservable universe...” Just rephrase that and see how ridiculous it sounds. “Our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe.”

[laughing]

Let me go back to that PBS thing. Let me go back to the top, find the full statement there.

“However, our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe. We cannot know for sure what lies beyond the observable...” [laughing]

You see how ridiculous it sounds. You can call the “actual” universe the “unobservable” universe. You’ve got the observable universe embedded within a larger, unobservable universe. So this “actual” universe should be called the “unobservable” universe. Just swap all these instances of “the actual universe” with “the unobservable universe” and see how ridiculous it becomes. That’s the perfect summation of what I want to say.

“Our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe.” That’s completely stupid. It’s true, but it’s completely stupid. No duh the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe. It’s because we can’t see beyond the edge of the observable universe. So we don’t even know that there is an unobservable universe.

Now I’m back to the Wikipedia entry here, on The Observable Universe. I just wanted to reiterate this again. They’ve got the Universe versus the observable universe. You know, the Universe, with a capital U, versus the observable universe.

“Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe.” Once again: “...these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe.”

That’s a completely unscientific statement. If you cannot observe it, you cannot be certain it even exists! Is it just me? This is completely unscientific! And yet it’s presented as science. If it’s outside the realm in which you can observe it... Science is based upon observations of Nature. If something is outside the observable universe, you cannot observe it. So you don’t even know if it exists! You don’t even know if there are “some parts of the universe [that] are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth.” You don’t know that! They’re unobservable! These parts of the universe are unobservable. They are beyond the reach of science. You cannot observably confirm that these parts of the universe exist. So why, then, are these people saying that these parts of the universe exist?

They’re basically saying, “They exist, we just can’t see them. We can’t confirm their existence, but they exist. Trust us, they exist.”

No, I’m not going to trust you. You’re making an unscientific statement there. This is pseudoscience because you’re presenting this as science, yet it cannot be tested by the scientific method because it’s outside the observable universe. This should be completely obvious. “Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted...” You cannot possibly know that. It’s unobservable. It’s unscientific. That is your belief. It is pure speculation. Pure, utter speculation with absolutely no shred of evidence for it.

If you could prove this, then it would be within the observable universe. If you had anything other than just your belief that these distant places exist, then you should have some kind of scientific measurement that they exist. And hence, you would be able to observe them. If science were able to observe these alleged parts of the universe that are too far away for light to have reached us... If science could observe them, they would be within the observable universe, would they not? You can’t say that there’s the observable universe, and then there’s the capital-U Universe. That capital-U Universe is complete speculation. There’s absolutely not a shred of empirical evidence for its existence.

Wikipedia continues: “Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term ‘universe’ to mean ‘observable universe.’ This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us. Although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.” And that’s the whole point I’m going to be getting at here. “Many credible theories” — i.e. relativity — “require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.”

I ask you, how can it be a credible theory if it requires something that is unobservable? This is insanity! This is completely unscientific! “Although many credible theories...” And I’m reading that to mean relativity and other theories, but many relativity, because I’m against relativity, and that’s what I’m ranting against here. “Many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.” It says “citation needed,” but I don’t need a citation, because I know that’s an absolutely true statement.  “Although may credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.”

Many credible theories. They are credible theories. But they require something that is not scientifically verifiable. So how can it be a credible theory if it requires something that is completely unobservable and beyond the realm of empirical science? Science cannot test for the existence of this larger universe beyond the observable universe. So how can it be a credible theory if it requires the existence of something that cannot be empirically verified? That is insanity. That is completely against science. That is pseudoscience. That is complete ridiculousness. It just irritates me to read this, because this is completely unscientific, and yet it’s touted as a “credible theory.” There’s nothing credible about it!

[Scrolling on down web page] Here’s the End of Greatness. I did another video on this. Oh, that reminds me. Should I bring that in right now, or later?

Back to that many credible theories thing. How do I know they’re talking about relativity there? How do I know that relativity is included in that “many credible theories” category they’re discussing? I’m going to get to that in a minute, because it’s my assertion that relativity requires a “total Universe much larger than the observable universe.” And that’s basically the subject of this video, which I haven’t actually gotten to yet.

So let me go back to Google here.

To be continued...