Introduction

For 60 years, the field of cosmology has been basically held hostage by those who built their careers on ΛCDM. By blocking any publications challenging its foundations, they make sure it cannot be replaced. The reason for this cannot be anything other than the preservation of status, publication revenues, egos, careers, and funding.

What follows is the result of this forced consanguineous marriage where ideas, like blood, are not regularly renewed: a long list of paradoxes, flaws, logical falls, and patches that academic physicists have applied over the years, systematically failing to ask themselves whether each step was right.
The astonishing fact is the enforced silence of an entire field through threats to the careers of those who might dare to speak out. 

This allows the old guard to feel no shame when they, together with their sacrosanct mathematics, invent a singularity. Or when they invent matter-hungry black holes. Or when their imaginative minds put forward such a complicated explanation for the CMB, presenting it as a fossil. 

Moreover, the complexity of this interpretation seems to show a profound disregard for the principle of parsimony — a principle that should be a first consideration when dealing with a discovery of such importance.

The insiders feel no shame because they are supported by group authority, an old sociological concept that confirms the power of those who belong to the strongest coalition. And when the ideology of this group is wrong, it is simply turned into dogma. Like religion did for God. Like cosmology did for ΛCDM. Then a hierarchical pyramid can rise from the ground and reign over the immense revenues this belief generates. 

And from that moment on, the behaviour of the insiders becomes outrageous and contemptuous towards anyone who dares to criticize their doctrine. The reaction is systematic. Just as Russia does when it accuses dissidents of psychiatric disorders to justify their capture and isolation. Outsiders' ideas, proposals, and models are not examined, but simply ignored in the name of their supposed inferiority. 

When a baby cries, they can be offered a candy or a hug. They have always chosen the candy to create addiction,

A theory in science must be judged by independent judges. But who judges the so-called ΛCDM, the standard cosmology model?

The judges are the same people who have built their entire career on the standard model. For decades, they have published papers on dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. Their jobs, their funding, their students depend on it. If you send them a paper that says dark matter does not exist, you ask them to say their life's work is useless. It is like asking Coca-Cola to judge a study that says sugar is poison.

So the model is not protected because it is true or logical or universe-compatible, but because the referees are both judges and parties.

Moreover, a philosopher named Karl Popper said: for a theory to be scientific, you must be able to prove it wrong.

But what ΛCDM does is:

• A galaxy moves too fast? add dark matter.

• The universe expands too fast? add dark energy.

• The universe is too uniform? add inflation.

• The numbers do not fit? adjust the cosmological constant.

So what means a model that can never be proved false?

Cosmology today is a discipline in difficulty. Not because its observations are lacking — the opposite is true. The instruments have never been more powerful, the data more abundant, the collaborations more international. But because the model that organizes this abundance, ΛCDM, has accumulated a series of unresolved incongruities that no longer seem to trouble anyone.

Most of these following incongruities have the same structure. An observation is made. The model cannot account for it with its existing entities. Mathematical calculations are produced to elaborate predictions and a new entity, or a new mechanism, is added as a named patch. This is exactly how mathematics often replaces thought.

The Long Long list

1 - the Singularity

In the 1960s, when observational means were still limited, it was possible to invent the most fanciful scenarios — such as that of the Big Bang and its Singularity, positioned in the middle of nowhere.

This interpretation had the audacity to proclaim that the universe is all that exists, while placing its point of departure — the Singularity, origin of the Big Bang — in another space, about which nothing is known and whose essence is never explained. The reason given for this illogicality was that this point arose from sophisticated mathematical results whose ins and outs, one must believe, were known only to a few initiates.

The Big Bang is a deception because it cannot be called a simple error. 

The problem, however, is not mathematical but logical.

A baby cannot create its own mother in order to be born. The mother must exist before the birth of the child. Likewise, the Universe cannot create the singularity from which it is supposed to emerge if it is a prerequisite for its own emergence.

This is the fundamental contradiction to be challenged. Before asking how the Universe emerged from a singularity, we must first explain how that singularity could exist in the first place, and in what sense it could exist if the Universe is all that exists.

One is entitled to ask what mathematics has to do with the origin of the universe, and how scientists could allow themselves, as in the Bible, to invent the birth of the universe. One is also entitled to ask what became of that point outside the universe once the universe was deployed. And one is entitled to ask why, among the thousands of scientists of that era, no one rose up against this absurdity to have this completely fanciful hypothesis annulled.

At first sight, this may seem to reveal a fundamental flaw. But the greater problem is what followed: decades of defending the model, spending public money, introducing additional components to account for discrepancies, invoking new forms of energy, and adding matter, as though the Universe did not already contain enough.

This is why this criticism extends beyond the model itself to the way it has been developed, defended, and presented as the dominant account of the Universe, rather than reconsidered from its very first millisecond. 

I do not need to answer this question. Logic must prevail.

Either the old guard recognised the fundamental flaw and knowingly misled the public, or they failed to recognise it, in which case their competence must be called into question. The possibility that those responsible misled the public cannot simply be dismissed.

But the consequences go far beyond the question of personal responsibility. If the foundations of a model are fundamentally flawed, everything built upon them becomes questionable. Decades of research, increasingly elaborate explanations, and billions in public expenditure cannot turn an unsound foundation into a sound one.

One cannot build a castle on shifting sands and expect the upper floors to stand firm.

This is why the initial logic matters so much. If it fails, the entire construction must be reconsidered, however impressive it may appear. And if the flaw has been overlooked or ignored from the very beginning, then the failure is not merely a detail of the model. It reaches the very heart of the scientific enterprise.

This is not how science should function, and that is why, in all supplementary texts and in the main UG.NUG article, ΛCDM will not be regarded at all as a valid cosmological model but rather as a deceit. 

2 - the Time

This topic is covered in a separate document 

3 - the Mass Imbroglio

This topic is covered in a separate document 

4 - the CMB

This topic is covered in a separate document 

5 - the Black Holes

This topic is covered in a separate document

6- Dark Matter

The term appears in the very name of the model: ΛCDM — Lambda Cold Dark Matter. It is the most eminent patch added to the model and is presented as a substance that accounts for about 26% of the universe. It does not emit, absorb, or reflect light. It has never been detected directly, in fifty years of research. 

But the most telling point is that its distribution must be adjusted for each galaxy. A substance whose quantity and shape change from one object to the next is not a substance, but a variable, introduced to make the equations fit. And the model treats it as if it were a physical entity.

The language used — dark matter, halo, density profile — gives the impression that something has been identified, when nothing has.

7 - Dark Energy

This is another patch that is said to account for about 69% of the universe, and to drive an accelerated expansion. Its nature has never been identified. Its most natural theoretical value — the energy of the vacuum — is calculated to be 10¹²⁰ times larger than the observed value. This is the largest discrepancy between theory and measurement in the history of physics.

But here again, the problem is what the term hides. What is called dark energy is not a substance that has been observed and then named. It is a difference between a measurement and an expectation. Instead of questioning the model, the gap was given a name to make it sound like a discovery.

8 - Model and Reality

ΛCDM is primarily a mathematical model. As mentioned in one of the comments above, using mathematics in a philosophical cosmology served to make it a way to show superiority and to secure taxpayers' money. But in doing so, it also pushed the model to a point where it does not really correspond to reality. 

And that led to a mathematical model no longer treated as a description of reality, but as reality itself. When an equation predicts a singularity, a black hole, or an inflaton field, these entities are discussed as if they existed — even though no observation has ever confirmed them. The map has become the territory.

But once the course is run, backing becomes impossible.

This shift has a direct consequence for the way the unknown is treated. In the perceptual mode, the unknown is a starting point. In the formal mode, the unknown is a failure. It is something to be filled, patched, or denied... The unknown is not called "the unknown", but a parameter, a field, a constant, an energy. Each of these names gives the false impression that it has been identified. 

9 - Ghosts to Geometry

Here again, the model is confronted with its ghosts. The ones it wants to put shoes on in order to make them more "human" and less frightening.

Quantum particles are ghosts. And like ghosts, they have no perceptible geometry, or even a perceptible aspect at all. Nobody has ever seen a particle. We know they exist because, in some situations, they interact with our reality for a milli-millisecond. And if, by chance, they hit one of the detectors of a laboratory, then we just understand their passage and can measure only a limited set of parameters.

Yet, in quantum field theory, particles are described as excitations of fields and treated as objects — given positions, trajectories, individual identities. This is a leftover from classical mechanics, applied to a regime where it has no meaning and where everything measured  in such geometric terms is purely imaginary.

10 - Gravity Quantization

Gravity has never been observed at the quantum scale.  This is why, in 1935 Matvei Bronstein thought it should be done. But the lack of observation, somehow, did not suggest to him, as it would have occurred to any logical scientist, that it was not necessary. No, of course. It was much better, once again, to force gravity to be part of quantum just because he decided it.

One can wonder why all scientists treated this wish as a revelation. 

11 - Symmetries Versus Reality

The scientific tradition that produced the major conceptual ruptures was not, in its origins, a tradition of calculation. It was a tradition of perception. Its practitioners observed, intuited, and proposed new frameworks — often before they could formalize them, and most of the times without the mathematical tools to do so at all. Their strength was not precision. It was the ability to see what did not fit.

Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus was not a great mathematician. He was a canon, an administrator, and an astronomer by avocation. What he saw was not a new calculation, but an incoherence. The Ptolemaic system had become unmanageable: epicycles upon epicycles, deferents, equants, corrections added to corrections to keep the appearances consistent with a geocentric cosmos. Copernicus proposed to place the Sun at the centre — not because he could prove it, but because it produced a simpler and more coherent reading of the same observations (Copernicus, 1543). 

His book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, was published in 1543, the year of his death. The mathematical apparatus it contained was not new, and not entirely correct. But the shift of perspective it introduced was decisive. It did not calculate a new universe. It read the same universe differently.

Kepler

Johannes Kepler is often presented as the mathematician who completed Copernicus. But his work began with a perception that was almost mystical: that the planets must follow harmonious paths, that the geometry of the cosmos must reflect a divine order. He spent years trying to fit the planetary orbits into nested Platonic solids — an effort that failed, but that led him, by persistence, to discover the elliptical orbits (Kepler, 1609).

His three laws are mathematical. But they were not found by mathematics. They were found by a man who refused to accept circular orbits because circles did not fit what he perceived in the data.

Galileo

Galileo Galilei is remembered as the first modern scientist — the one who turned the telescope to the sky and observed what no one had seen. He saw the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, the mountains on the Moon (Galilei, 1610). What he did with these observations was not calculation. It was an argument: that the Earth was not the centre of everything, and that the heavens were not perfect.

His conflict with the Church is often presented as a conflict between science and religion. It was also a conflict between two modes: the mode that observes and reports, and the mode that holds to the established framework.

Newton

Isaac Newton is the hinge. He is the one who formalized — who gave the mathematical apparatus that would dominate physics for two centuries. But Newton himself was not only a mathematician. He spent more time on alchemy and theology than on physics. His intuition of a universal gravitation acting at a distance was, in his own time, considered almost occult. He did not derive it from equations. He saw that the same force that makes an apple fall might hold the Moon in its orbit (Newton, 1687) .

Newton marks the beginning of the formal mode. But he belongs to both. His Principia is a mathematical monument. His mind was that of a man who perceived before he calculated.

Faraday

Michael Faraday is the clearest case. He had almost no mathematical training. He was a bookbinder's apprentice who became one of the greatest experimentalists in history. He discovered electromagnetic induction, formulated the concept of the field, and produced the lines of force that would later be formalized by Maxwell.

Faraday could not write the equations of his own discoveries. He described them in words and in images. And yet his concepts were so accurate, so well perceived, that Maxwell built on them the mathematical edifice of electromagnetism.

Faraday is the proof that the perceptual mode is not a lesser mode. It is a different mode, capable of producing concepts that mathematics then formalizes. And it should be added that the mathematics used in physics is not pure mathematics. It is a language — a way of describing the world with symbols, judged by its capacity to account for observation, not by its internal rigor. When this distinction is forgotten, when the language is taken for the thing itself, the model becomes an edifice of invented entities. This is what happened to cosmology. 

Einstein

Albert Einstein is the last of the tradition. He was a physicist of perception: the thought experiment of riding a beam of light, the falling elevator, the intuition that time and space must bend. He did not have the mathematical tools himself — Marcel Grossmann provided them, and the geometry of Riemann and Minkowski did the rest. 

Einstein marks the end of a lineage. After him, physics would be dominated by formal production. The great conceptual ruptures would come less often, and they would come from within a framework of equations, not before it.

What do these ruptures have in common?

Each of these thinkers, in his own way, did the same thing. They saw something that did not fit. They refused to accept the established reading. They proposed a new one — often before they could prove it, often without the tools to formalize it.

None of them began with equations. All of them began with perception.

This is not a claim that mathematics is useless. It is a claim that the source of conceptual rupture is not mathematical, but perceptual. And it is that mode — the mode of perception, of reading the world before calculating it — that the twentieth century would progressively exclude.

Since Galileo, physics has been built on a belief: that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. This belief has been fruitful — it has guided Newton, Maxwell, Einstein. But it has also become a dogma: the idea that a beautiful equation must be true.

Over time, this dogma has led physicists to prefer elegance over observation. When an elegant equation fails to match reality, the equation is kept, and reality is patched.

• The Higgs mechanism was added to save gauge symmetry. 

• Inflation was added to save the uniformity of the CMB. 

• Dark matter and dark energy were added to save the equations of gravity.

These are not discoveries, but patches — mechanisms invented to preserve the beauty of mathematics.

But an equation has the right to be elegant. The universe has the right not to be. Comparing them is a category error. The universe is not a mathematical object. It is what it is — and it asks only to be read.

The transition did not happen everywhere at once. It happened in a specific place, at a specific time, and among a specific group of people. That place was Brussels. That time was October 1927. Those people were the participants of the Fifth Solvay Conference.

12 - the Horizon Problem

According to the standard model itself, 

• the universe is 13.8 billion years old and light travels at a finite speed. 

• The radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years. 

• Therefore, light could not have travelled more than 13.8 billion light-years since the Big Bang. 

Yet regions on opposite sides of the observable sky are separated by more than 90 billion light-years. They could never have communicated. This is the horizon problem — a problem the standard model itself creates and never explains.

13 - the Flatness Problem

For the universe to be as flat as it is today, it must have been flat to within one part in 10⁶⁰ in the first instants. This is an extraordinary fine-tuning, with no justification in the model itself. It is treated as a coincidence, and then explained by inflation — which is another patch.

14 - Homogeneity and Isotropy

The model assumes that the universe was homogeneous and isotropic at the beginning. It does not explain why. It then explains the small deviations from this homogeneity by quantum fluctuations — which are themselves assumed. The chain of assumptions is never examined.

15 - the Origin of Geometry

In 1915, with general relativity, Einstein proposed that space and time are not separate, but united into a single active entity: spacetime, which curves, expands, and ripples. Gravity is no longer a force, but a deformation of this geometry.

This idea works very well to describe planets, stars, and galaxies. But it rests on a postulate: geometry exists from the very beginning.

Yet the standard model itself says that the universe began in an extremely hot and dense state, where there were no atoms, no stable nuclei, no structures. Before even nucleosynthesis.

So how can there be a geometry of space at a time when the objects filling it have none?

The model does not explain it. It treats it as a given.

16 - the Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is a number Einstein added to his equations in 1917. He needed it to keep the universe static — he thought it didn't move. 

When Hubble showed the universe was expanding, Einstein removed it. But in 1998, astronomers discovered that the expansion was accelerating. So the constant was brought back — this time to explain the acceleration.

The problem? The value needed to explain the acceleration is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than what quantum physics predicts. It is the worst prediction in the history of physics.

In practice, the constant is adjusted by hand to fit the observations. It is not derived from any theory. It is a patch — a number chosen to make the equations work.

17 - Cosmic Inflation

In 1979-1980, several physicists — Starobinsky, Guth, Linde, Albrecht, Steinhardt — propose a solution to solve three problems at once: the flatness and the horizon problems, cited above, plus a third, the monopole problem, whose explanation is not essential here.

What must be understood is that they wanted to solve three paradoxes of a wobbly model with a very wobbly solution they named inflation.

The idea is as simple as it is far-fetched: just after the Big Bang, the universe would have undergone a phase of extraordinarily rapid expansion during which it would have gone from an infinitesimal point which was the singularity to a completely disproportionate size in a fraction of a second.

This expansion would have diluted the monopoles, flattened the universe, and homogenized everything that was in contact before the expansion.

To produce this expansion, you need the engine of inflation, a hypothetical field, a sort of energy that would have pushed space to expand.

Inflation is not a discovery, but an invention which, in trying to solve three problems, created another series:

• What is inflation? 

• Why did this mechanism start?

• Why did it stop? 

This inflation is taught as a fact and presented as a certainty. This is, again, how cosmology still spits on the labor of taxpayers by extorting indecently earned funds for research.

18 - the Measurement Problem

This quantum problem is abundantly described online. In short, it means elementary particles are not precisely locatable.

But instead of criticizing quantum mechanics or the impossibility of locating a particle, it would be smarter to ask what quantum mechanics is. Because in the response, you find exactly why a particle is not locatable.

Quantum mechanics is a regime of ghosts. It is a place our eyes do not see. We know it exists because chance led us to encounter it while reflecting on thermodynamics.

Then what happened? It is all described in the chapter "The Fear of the Unexplainable," which describes how scientists decided to consider it a property of matter instead of a strange phenomenon.

19 - Quantum and Relativity

The "two worlds" expression is also very well known and described online but here again the problem is approached wrongly: it does not talk about reality but only about what physicists cannot understand. 

By physicists, let us be clear: the majority.

To say they cannot understand is not an insult. It is a statement about their understanding of what science is. 

Science should be curiosity, should be no dead angles, no shadowed zones. When a scientist does not dig deep enough into his knowledge he cannot be called a scientist, but merely a technician — especially if he sleeps well. 

Now, quantum and local relativity — since Einstein's cosmic relativity is false — are part of the same world. If someone sees them as separate, it is because they are influenced by the 1900s trend that considers quantum as a physical object that does not respond or behave like the other real  physical objects of the universe. 

The truth is, and no doubt about it, that the quantum regime is the universe's system without which it would collapse. And the evidence is under our eyes: it is invisible, incomprehensible, impenetrable, indestructible, inalterable. It means, in other words, that this regime is a no man's land.

Now, one could object that a no man's land would not be able to interact with our reality like at CERN when a particle hits a detector. The response is that what interacts with us is not a quantum particle as such, but its energetic expression. A detector is a geometric object, an object of our world. 

When the particle is trapped and forced to encounter our world, the universe translates it into energy because this is the only language that the geometric world is able to understand, feel, perceive. Without this energy, the universe would not have been able to build the world we know, the planets, the stars, and then the flora and fauna. Since we, humans, are part of this fauna, we too are animated by this energy. All is totally normal and thinking anything else is undoubtedly false.

20 - Curvature of Spacetime

We are told gravity is the curvature of spacetime. Imagine a rubber sheet. You put a heavy ball on it, the sheet bends. That bending is gravity.

But the rubber sheet exists. You can touch it.

Spacetime is not a material object. It is only a formula, numbers on a blackboard. Whether one speaks of local or cosmic spacetime makes no difference. 

Nothing can bend mathematics. This contradiction is never discussed.

on Mathematics

Mathematics is an extraordinarily powerful tool, but it is also a product of the human brain: a system developed to describe, organise, and calculate relationships that we perceive or conceive. It has no power to dictate what Man is or how he must behave. The same applies to Man, a product of the Universe, who has no power to dictate what the Universe is or how it must behave.

The power of mathematics has limits.

Mathematics can establish what follows from a set of assumptions. It cannot, by itself, establish that those assumptions correctly describe the nature of reality. A mathematically consistent model may be an excellent representation of certain observations without necessarily providing a correct account of what the Universe actually is.

The distinction is fundamental, and this is why, in my view,ΛCDM has failed: the ability to calculate how something behaves is not the same as understanding what it is.

In technology, mathematical relationships help us design, construct, and operate devices such as lasers, scanners, and digital audio players. Yet equations alone do not conceive these devices or determine what they should be. Human beings must first identify a problem, develop a concept, and decide what they intend to achieve. Mathematics then helps turn that concept into a working system.

The same distinction matters in cosmology. Astronomical predictions are derived from physical models, mathematical relationships, and assumptions about the Universe. When a prediction agrees with observation, this is meaningful evidence that the model captures something real. But it does not automatically establish that every assumption is correct, or that the model's interpretation reveals the true nature of what is observed.

A calculation can be correct while the interpretation built around it remains questionable.

The danger arises when the success of the mathematical formalism is taken as proof of the physical picture it describes. Difficulties may then be addressed by adding new assumptions or components, while the original conceptual foundations receive insufficient scrutiny. Mathematical sophistication can make a model increasingly elaborate without necessarily bringing us closer to understanding the reality it is intended to represent.

The Universe does not depend on our equations to exist. Our equations depend on our attempts to understand the Universe. Whatever mathematical tools we use, the starting point must remain the physical reality we seek to explain, not the formalism through which we have chosen to describe it.

Mathematics should serve our understanding of the Universe, guided by observation, not decide what the Universe is.

the Divorce

Criticizing ΛCDM is not criticizing anyone — it is criticizing a reading of the universe. Despite its venerable name, ΛCDM is nothing more than an interpretation. And since the universe itself remains silent and sparing in its revelations, it is remarkably easy to be right — or wrong. What distinguishes one reading from another is, consequently, its coherence, its agreement with observation, and its capacity to be tested. Coherence alone is not enough — a perfectly coherent system can be false, and history has shown this more than once.

As in a police investigation or a computer program, if coherence is missing, the culprit is never found, the program does not run, and the equations meant to describe the universe fail to match observation. It is not dramatic; it is only theory. The current theory — the BBP as it stands — does not account for the universe in a way that satisfies its own criteria. It accumulates unresolved problems and adds new entities to mask them. This may sound extreme, but once you add: and yet the world still works, the statement becomes far less shocking.

This is made possible by the existence of two distinct physics. This is what I discovered through my research. Yes, it is surprising. No, it is never mentioned. These two physics are:

• A theoretical physics, currently the Big Bang paradigm (BBP), which accumulates conceptual flaws.

• An applied physics, through which we build lasers, MP3s, smartphones, antennas, MRIs, and satellites — and in this case, everything works perfectly.

Without this distinction, it is impossible to understand how the world can function despite a conceptual physics largely disconnected from reality — where many proposed theories have failed to deliver what they promised:

• string theory (no experimental evidence, unverifiable extra dimensions),

• M-theory (no testable predictions),

• supergravity (never observed),

• supersymmetry (no superpartners detected at the LHC),

• GUTs (no proton decay),

• canonical quantum gravity (non-renormalizable),

• loop quantum gravity (no testable predictions).

Some of these are genuinely ruled out by experiment:

• local hidden variables (ruled out by Bell tests),

• steady-state cosmology (contradicted by the CMB),

• naïve dark-matter-free cosmologies (invalidated),

• naïve emergent gravity (incomplete and non-predictive).

Applied physics therefore relies primarily on operational equations of its own making — the ones capable of building machines. But it must be said clearly: applied physics is not a separate physics. It uses quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and relativity — the same theories that foundational research develops. A transistor is quantum mechanics. A GPS is general relativity. The point is not that the theories differ. It is that cosmological constructs such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and the cosmological constant play no role in the design of any instrument. Not one component, not one calculation, not one correction.

Physicists concerned with practical reality rarely interact with conceptual physicists who, judging by the distance separating the two communities, no longer seem to read the universe as it truly is.

Applied physics coexists with these conceptual models without actually relying on them. Those models remain largely confined to academic settings, and their influence seldom extends beyond the walls of universities.

Gradually, this became impossible to ignore. The divergence can be traced back almost to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, when he introduced into his most famous equation — as we shall examine in detail in the chapter on mass — a profoundly ambiguous factor, *m*, thereby freezing into place a fundamental confusion that has led, over the course of a century, to an ongoing conceptual drift. A tiny ambiguity, yet enough to divert an entire branch of physics from its natural course.

Yes, this is precisely the kind of information that is rarely shared with the general public and that, without doubt, many physicists themselves have never even suspected.

When a rocket must be sent to the Moon, engineers use Newtonian mechanics, orbital dynamics, and relativity. They do not consult cosmology. This separation is real, but it is not a separation between two physics. It is a separation between the physics that builds things and the physics that speculates about origins. Two cultures coexist, they speak the same language, but they no longer read the same universe — and no one seems particularly concerned by it. Well, perhaps taxpayers should be, although most of them are unaware of it. I certainly was.

Anthropocentrism

The universe provides no anchor, no reference. Without GPS, it is impossible to know a position. Thus, we do not know where Earth is located — especially given its minuscule size in the cosmic expanse, comparable to a pinhead on a trillion football fields.

All the measurements we know are therefore anthropocentric or purely terrestrial. Their close connection to humanity and its existence is undeniable. If position does not exist in space, then distance does not exist either, nor acceleration, velocity, weight, mass, or time.

When we send a rocket to the Moon, it navigates using GPS stations orbiting Earth, which provide a reference up to a certain distance — the range of communication. Beyond that distance, the rocket is lost. In the case of a space probe like Hubble, which travels millions of kilometers away, it is a radio signal sent back to Earth that informs us of its distance. If communication is lost, the probe is also lost. Nothing can occur in space without a terrestrial reference — or, in the future, a reference from another planet if humanity were to inhabit one.

the Quantum Makeup

The lack of scientific rigour is nowhere more visible than in quantum mechanics — this mysterious regime present in every atom of matter, which the Big Bang paradigm (BBP) insists on reducing to mere mathematics out of fear of the unknown. It represents the unique, singular, and indelible signature of the universe. The BBP has constructed mathematical spaces, geometries, and states that no observation has ever confirmed. They work — they predict the right numbers. But they do not describe what exists. Elementary particles are invisible to the naked eye and to the scanning tunneling microscope. No one has ever observed a wave function. This means that any representation of this regime is purely conjectural. 

These representations are all the more useless because only certain non-geometric parameters allow the use of quantum mechanics in research:

• Energy levels via spectrometry,

• Transition probabilities in lasers,

• Electronic structures via STM,

• Conduction bands in solid-state physics,

• Bound states in quantum chemistry.