You might not be aware, but there are many things that proponents of the Big Bang theory, including many scientists and 99% of college science professors, do not want you to know about the Big Bang theory.
The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.
So let’s see the top ten scientific flaws in the Big Bang theory and show you why it is just a theory. Some of these theories are extremely complex, so I will try to put it in layman terms as much as possible so almost anyone could understand.
10 The Magnetic Monopole Problem
Why it's a problem A magnetic monopole is, in short, a particle which contains an electrical charge, creating a net "magnetic charge" within the individual particle. If the Big Bang theory were true, it should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. However, instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, not even once.
This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory.
This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory.
9 The Flatness Problem, also known as the Oldness Problem
Why it's a problem Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, and the same holds for negative curvature. However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, and the same holds for negative curvature. However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
8 We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don't
Why it's a problem This is my own idea that I just came up with (all the other ideas listed are well known and documented). As a result, this is the first time this problem will ever be posed (although I recognize the possibility that someone at some point may have posed the same or similar problem).
Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.
A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)
However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.
Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening.
Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.
A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)
However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.
Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening.
7 Lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory
Why it's a problem This is because how the universe presently exists, galaxies are spread out in an uneven fashion, clumped together at certain points with big gaps and walls. However, due to the supposed age of 13.7 billion years, the universe has not yet had time for such walls and voids to form.
For a Big Bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory.
For a Big Bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory.
6 Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Why it's a problem Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, or observed in any way whatsoever, yet the Big Bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. Not only that, but in order for the Big Bang theory to even be valid, dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe.
The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". In other words, the proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen".
It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, pfft whatever man, yeah right.
The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". In other words, the proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen".
It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, pfft whatever man, yeah right.
5 The theory of Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity
Why it's a problem Big Bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called "inflation" to solve several of the obvious problems, including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem.
The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, essentially, that in some magical way everything travelled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang" .
In order for inflation to even begin to be a solution, all matter after the big bang would have to travel 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times faster than the speed of light. That is 1,650 zeros, or 101,649. There isn't a name for this number, but for some perspective, there are only 1089 total particles in the entire observable universe.
Obviously, Inflation is impossible, because it violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can't use a false solution to answer problems.
It would be like you asking me, "I have three oranges and I add another orange. How many oranges do I have?"
And then me saying in response: "you now have 100 oranges".
Then you ask, "how did you get 100 from 3 plus 1?"
And then I say, "well I wanted it to equal 100 oranges, so I made up this theory called Inflexion which means that due to a magical force that turns your fourth orange into 97 oranges, now you have 100 total oranges even though you only added one more."
Well, you can't argue that if I make up a magical term that turns one orange into 97 oranges then it doesn't equal 100 oranges, because yes, 3 plus 97 equals 100. But Inflexion doesn't exist, because I just made it up to get the result I wanted; so 3 oranges plus 1 orange always equals 4 oranges!
So then you tell me, "Ok ok smart guy, well now I have 5 oranges and I add 1 apple. How many oranges do I have?"
And then I reply: "100 oranges".
And you say, "WTF?! How did you get 100 again?!"
So I say, "Well I still wanted 100 oranges so I made up another magical force called Inflapplexon that that turns 1 apple into 95 oranges when you add it to 5 existing oranges."
Now you're getting mad because I keep making up terms. But this is the same way that "Inflation" was created to solve the impossible problems.
The theorists wanted the end result to be the Big Bang, so they made up this magical term called "Inflation" and said, "ok this magical force caused the laws of physics to be broken so now the Big Bang works".
Just like 5 oranges and 1 apple do not equal 100 oranges, General Relativity plus Inflation does not equal the Big Bang!
In summary, just like my magical forces "Inflexion" and "Inflapplexon", Inflation also does not exist, because it defies the fundamental laws of physics.
The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, essentially, that in some magical way everything travelled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang" .
In order for inflation to even begin to be a solution, all matter after the big bang would have to travel 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times faster than the speed of light. That is 1,650 zeros, or 101,649. There isn't a name for this number, but for some perspective, there are only 1089 total particles in the entire observable universe.
Obviously, Inflation is impossible, because it violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can't use a false solution to answer problems.
It would be like you asking me, "I have three oranges and I add another orange. How many oranges do I have?"
And then me saying in response: "you now have 100 oranges".
Then you ask, "how did you get 100 from 3 plus 1?"
And then I say, "well I wanted it to equal 100 oranges, so I made up this theory called Inflexion which means that due to a magical force that turns your fourth orange into 97 oranges, now you have 100 total oranges even though you only added one more."
Well, you can't argue that if I make up a magical term that turns one orange into 97 oranges then it doesn't equal 100 oranges, because yes, 3 plus 97 equals 100. But Inflexion doesn't exist, because I just made it up to get the result I wanted; so 3 oranges plus 1 orange always equals 4 oranges!
So then you tell me, "Ok ok smart guy, well now I have 5 oranges and I add 1 apple. How many oranges do I have?"
And then I reply: "100 oranges".
And you say, "WTF?! How did you get 100 again?!"
So I say, "Well I still wanted 100 oranges so I made up another magical force called Inflapplexon that that turns 1 apple into 95 oranges when you add it to 5 existing oranges."
Now you're getting mad because I keep making up terms. But this is the same way that "Inflation" was created to solve the impossible problems.
The theorists wanted the end result to be the Big Bang, so they made up this magical term called "Inflation" and said, "ok this magical force caused the laws of physics to be broken so now the Big Bang works".
Just like 5 oranges and 1 apple do not equal 100 oranges, General Relativity plus Inflation does not equal the Big Bang!
In summary, just like my magical forces "Inflexion" and "Inflapplexon", Inflation also does not exist, because it defies the fundamental laws of physics.
4 The Big Bang theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Why it's a problem The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Entropy, states generally that all matter has a natural tendency to move to disorder.
However, for the Big Bang to have happened and created the whole universe as we know it, the opposite thing would have happened: all matter would have moved toward order. This is impossible.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if a Big Bang did happen, then even today all that would exist would be particles of all matter strewn evenly throughout the universe. It couldn't have formed planets and complex laws of physics all out of nothing. To say it did you would have to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false (which it isn't so you can't).
However, for the Big Bang to have happened and created the whole universe as we know it, the opposite thing would have happened: all matter would have moved toward order. This is impossible.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if a Big Bang did happen, then even today all that would exist would be particles of all matter strewn evenly throughout the universe. It couldn't have formed planets and complex laws of physics all out of nothing. To say it did you would have to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false (which it isn't so you can't).
3 The Big Bang theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
Why it's a problem The First Law of Thermodynamics states generally that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a fundamental law of science which says that matter can only be converted into other matter or energy, but it cannot be created from nothing.
However, proponents of the Big Bang theory try to say that the universe was created out of nothing. Obviously this is scientifically impossible.
However, proponents of the Big Bang theory try to say that the universe was created out of nothing. Obviously this is scientifically impossible.
2 Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models
Why it's a problem Occam’s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters should be chosen. However, the Big Bang theory opposes Occam’s Razor, because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters.
Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, according to Occam’s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang's Expanding Universe model.
Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, according to Occam’s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang's Expanding Universe model.
1 The Horizon Problem
Why it's a problem The universe is too big to have formed in only 10-20 billion years as the Big Bang theory suggests, since the Big Bang is theorized to have happened only about 13.7 billion years ago. This is because the speed of matter is limited by the speed of light.
The problem here is that if the Big Bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
The problem here is that if the Big Bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
You might be asking yourself, “well, is everybody wrong then?” Well yes, it’s entirely plausible that everyone can be wrong – at least, the few people in the educational establishment behind pushing these false and unfounded theories.
Today, ideas like The Big Bang are pushed so vehemently, especially among higher education, that anyone who questions its validity, even in light of the countless flaws of the Big Bang Theory, can be subject to intense criticism, be ostracized and face social rejection, be given failing grades, and even face expulsion from universities. Professional licenses can be revoked, you can be rejected from associations, lose your job, and worse. All because you went against the prevailing notions.
It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions.
This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive. Most people believe what they are told without even bothering to research it for themselves; and the ones who are informed enough and think for themselves enough to question it are too afraid to say anything.
If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination. By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint.
By ignorance because the only way to be certain in your mind that the Big Bang theory could work is because you don’t have all the facts. Or if you have been so far indoctrinated you haven’t made a logical conclusion with your own rational mind, you may have never even tried to question what you have been told.
However you must decide for yourself what you will believe. If you decide to believe in the Big Bang theory, that’s fine, just realize that since it is not supported by science, you have to believe it as a philosophical viewpoint, not as a scientific fact.
Share this:
ADD A COMMENT
145 comments
145 thoughts on “Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory”
Related News
Movie Review: San Andreas (2015) | Jaw-Dropping Disaster Movie Came Out Of Nowhere Hitting 9.6 on the Richter Scale
in Movie Reviews • Movies
Banjo Kazooie is a popular choice in Nintendo’s poll to add a new character to Super Smash Brothers Brawl
in Games
Welcome my friend, Helper Cat says you need to register for that! :)
I agree that the cosmology of the Big Bang is so obviously wrong, that I wonder why this theory is still defended by mainstream scientist. We have seen what has happened with Halton Arp, what was disgusting and these kinds of attitudes will harm any progress in cosmology for a long time.
I read the book of Eric J. Lerner “The Big Bang Never Happened”, so I am familiar with his research, which shows the logic of his reasoning.
I have made myself a study on a steady state theory based on aether flow. I know that since Einstein nobody dares to use the word aether anymore and scientist talk now about quantum foam or zero point field, but I still call the substance of space is aether. In my aether flow model I do not talk about nonsense like “bending of space-time” but on aether flow.
I am aware of the DSSU theory of Conrad Ranzan and followed several presentations of Wallace Turnhill of the Electric Universe.
The article which I wrote on the subject of the Aether Flow Model has as an original thought, that the universe does not have more matter than anti-matter, but equal quantities.
I explain in my short article, 5 DIN A4 pages including two drawings, which I can send to you if you provide me your e-mail.
I do not go into details of electro magnetic origins, but show that aether flow can explain easily what the Big Bang cannot, including the reason of red shift of quasars.
I would like to hear from you and give your comments on my article and hope it gives a little step to get rid of this silly Big Bang.
Best regards,
Taco Smit
Very very very much thanks and my hearty greetings to you for placing the truth before readers.
the big bang didnt happen at all. our universe being a black hole within a parent universe with its own origin or perhaps no origin at all and just having existed forever, explains pretty much everything if you think about it, why is space expanding? because black holes expand as they consume matter, (perhaps the parent universe uniformly abundant in matter for reasons we could never discover) thus pulling more space into itsself, expanding our space. why is the tempurature uniform throughout the universe? because its uniform within a black hole. why cant we see beyond a certain point? thats the event horizon. our parent universe could be witin yet another black hole for all we know. existence itsself did not begin 13.7 billion years ago thats nothing and ridiculous. time and space are infinite and we lie within a black hole. eventually, over an inconceivably long time with more zeros than the number you mentioned, it will evaporate and humanity living until the end of the universe is important because thats when we see the real universe ( if we could even survive the evaporation of our observable universe into the parent universe which we probably cant)
also our only hope for living to see that as humanity, is if we spread throughout our universe and populate it ENTIRELY with humanity maybe planets and matter cant exist. also this suggests that if we want a new place to look for life, we better find a way to survive entering a black hole
i meant to type that maybe planets and matter cant exist the same way they do in our universe.
https://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
I favor Tired Light. It provides an outside energy source for vacuum-effect. Light speed decreases within a gravitational field but is locally the same according to covariance. Measure of the Hubble constant has varied over the years. It’s more according to an average mass-energy density. Divide the gravitational constant G by c and you get nearly its present measure. Although the numerical value varies according to chosen unit of measure, they cancel out in terms of centripetal force per light speed, reducing to frequency. A more exact equality is equating the product per light speed of the Hubble constant multiplied by the diameter of the hydrogen atom equaling its ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic force between the electron and proton. More to theory is that of the product of the Hubble constant per multiplied by the radius of the universe per light speed being unity. Another unity is the ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic force between two particles of mass of a particular quantity.
Though a radio stations electromagnetic wave transmission has a latency delay in space it doesn’t change the time in which the broadcast event was recorded. Like people, Galaxies stars and planets cannot be in multiple places at the same time :-). With Einstein’s fantasy physics galaxies stars and planets can have multiple coordinates all at the same time :-). Time continues to move forward, measuring time with the speed of light then calling it space-time is a ilogical. A singularity-Big Bang creation of the universe cannot have multiple starting points just for Einstein’s disciples. You can’t measure time in one direction if time is moving forward in another because you’d run out of time 🙂 Like sound, if the speed of light is finite (limited) it could never reach it’s destination unless photons ghosts are adding data from the future into the objects we see, re-converging geometry with motion, coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast. The human eye retains light and images for 15 milisecods limited to 30 frames per second, if the speed of light was not instantaneous in time images would be out of sync. Relativity and big bang debunked. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s before the images reach their destination future data must be added into the objects we see, then re-converge geometry with motion, adjust coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast. It’s illogical to say that light “travels” If light were reflected back in a mirror from opposite sides of the universe, according to Einstein’s relativity (moving clocks run slow) the light from the mirror would move backwards in time. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s light could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets have moved from their coordinates, proving light is instantaneous in time, therefore has no speed limit in time. Light waves travels instantaneously in all directions, measuring it’s speed inside a glass vacuum tube creates light shattering (interference) breaking its state of superposition. Light waves propagate through space in parallel rays behaving as the source at a given point, while measured light appears to have a limitation of speed yet its images appear instantaneous in time.
Like a video camera, if the traveling distance (speed of light) is finite (limited) to 186,000 miles per second it’s images captured-viewed would be (limited) to one second having a maximum distance of 186,000 miles. Conclusion, relativity needs more film. If light and moving images were (limited) in speed for even a microsecond light waves would break its state of superposition, the sequence of video frames would immediately stop, like pulling the plug on your TV or video recorder. Einstein’s relativity has the same similarity as religious and political cults, rejecting all evidence that disproves their ideology the psychological term is Mass Formation Psychosis, similar to cognitive dissonance only worse :-). The Earth is constantly moving-orbiting the sun revolving on its axis, if light and images weren’t instantaneous in time celestial objects would be blurred out of focus as the human eye is limited to 30 frames per second. If the James Webb space telescope captured live video with unlimited power you would see planets orbiting their sun, looking closer you might see aliens walking on the streets where they live laughing at Albert Einstein’s time dilation ?
Einstein removed the ether medium coordinates of objects in space, replacing real gravity with mathematical gravitational wave clocks that defy the laws of physics. Einstein’s space-time relativity is a mathematical model of the universe having no physical realities, so of course mathematical gravitational waves can stretch time back-and-forth like a rubber band :-). Like the movie Rainman, autistics are great at math but lack emotional intelligence. If space was curved gravitational waves would throw planets out of orbit, altering time as galaxies and planets ascend and descend gravity waves, warp-curve, bend images in the James Webb space telescopes, the emptiness of space has near zero gravity duh. If gravity curved, warped empty space it would also curve-warp images in the James Webb space telescope. The center of the sun is not the gravitational center of solar systems, neither are the center of black holes or galaxies the gravitational center for stars. If gravity curved, warped empty space, planets could not orbit in a flat plane around their suns-stars. Einstein’s gravitational waves do not exist. The Magnetron gravity model debunks Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, space-time, Big Bang, black holes, and our current understanding of celestial mechanics illustrating how light travels instantaneously in all directions independent of time, space and gravity.
If the universe is expanding from a Big Bang by 360°x360° at an increasingly faster rate then the earliest post big bang galaxies at the singularity 13.8 billions years in Earth’s past are now in Earth’s future passing the singularity yet the size of galaxies remain the same? If the universe is expanding at an increasingly faster rate (faster than light) explain how you can measure distance if the speed of light is constant :-). Since gravity bends-curves light and space-time, explain how time and distance can be measured if light and space are being bent-curved passing through billions of years of Einstein’s gravitational waves. Doublethink is simultaneously accepting two conflicting beliefs as truth. Explain how light particles record moving images of past cosmological objects, add image content from the future then re-converge and play back the final moving image in what we perceive as real time. Galaxies coordinates change with movement, even if it were possible to view images from Earth’s past we would also see (all prior past images from each coordinates change of the past.
If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s light could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets would have moved from their coordinates with time, proving light (and it’s images) are instantaneous in time, therefore have no speed limit in time. If an Earth based observer and time traveler used synchronized mechanical watches their time would be the same throughout the universe, debunking Einstein’s relativity, space-time and big bang using common sense. Time and space are independently of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time and space like a rubber band into space-time dimensions with (near zero gravity waves). If space was curved gravitational waves would throw planets out of orbit, altering time as galaxies and planets ascend and descend Einstein’s hypothetical gravitational waves, stretch-warp images in the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes.
A particle would need a series of particles to bend in superposition like a wave. Imagine your vehicle being a particle, its onboard computer would need to instruct all the vehicles in your lane to make a left turn, but according to relativity the street no longer exists. Since Einstein’s projectile light particles are separated by distance in space-time their distance would increase by the same factor obviously violating the laws of conservation of energy. If space curved the path of light through space-time an increased velocity and light source energy would be required to travel the increased distances, again violating the laws of conservation of energy. If galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth’s past) than neither are Einstein’s gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies. Magnetron. As a television electronics tech-theoretical physicist I laugh at the stupidity of scientists. Knowledge without God is dangerous to a fool 🙂
If black holes reside is a region of Einstein’s space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass, particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape, then the unimaginable mass of the proposed Big Bang couldn’t escape either. The force of gravity in a black hole cannot create twin vortex dynamo convective motions (spiral centrifugal-centripetal vortex velocities) (two distinct directions of travel). A black hole is simply a plasma driven vortex, the rotating electron-positron dipole of an electromagnetic field, expanding electromagnetic light waves at the event horizon while moving electromagnetic light waves away from its core.
The earths magnetic fields blocks dangerous radiation from space in the same way electromagnetic fields of black holes block visible light, you do the math :-). Electromagnetic waves curve light in a centrifugal-centripetal vortex, exactly what we see in an induction coil. The energy streaming out of the Sun counteracts its gravity pull because the Sun has no gravity and is not the gravitational center of solar systems, neither is a theorized Big Bang the center of black holes or galaxies the gravitational center for stars. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
Proving matter cannot collapse to “near infinite density” as a result of gravity because gravity is a repelling force (a centrifugal deceleration, density against the ether, the gravity of space. The Magnetron gravity model debunks Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, space-time, Big Bang, black holes, and our current understanding of celestial mechanics illustrating how light travels instantaneously in all directions independent of time, space and gravity. Magnetron
A particle would need a series of particles to bend in superposition like a wave. Imagine your vehicle being a particle, its onboard computer would need to instruct all the vehicles in your lane to make a left turn, but according to relativity the street no longer exists. Since Einstein’s projectile light particles are separated by distance in space-time their distance would increase by the same factor obviously violating the laws of conservation of energy. If space curved the path of light through space-time an increased velocity and light source energy would be required to travel the increased distances, again violating the laws of conservation of energy. If galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth’s past) than neither are Einstein’s gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies.
According to Einstein’s relativity, projectile particle photons transport moving images from galaxies past into the future, re-converging geometry, gamma, contrast and color with every microsecond change in coordinates. Sorry, there are no video recorders in space. The moon is above Earth’s horizon for 12 hours, if the curvature of space bends-curves light space and time then measuring the moons distance from Earth as light travels in a curve at 2,288 miles per hour the moon is then 27.456 miles further from Earth during daylight hours. Since the light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth according to Einstein using a telescope to magnify time with a 20 times magnification power you should still see the Sun even after it’s below Earth’s horizon. Please use a Sun filter before trying this experiment :-).
If the images you see in the universe were really in Earth’s past, you wouldn’t be able to see them because the past no longer exists :-). Delusion is characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs that contradict reality. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s before the images reach their destination future data from ghosts with knowlage of the future must be added into the objects we see, then re-converge geometry with motion, adjust coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast aka fantasy physics lol. If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope were really in Earth’s past, the coordinates of everything in space would be in the past as well making it impossible to see them because the past no longer exists lol. Delusions are characterized as false beliefs that contradict reality.
If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth’s past) than neither are Einstein’s gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies aka doublethink. If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are in real time, not in Earths past lol. If the speed of light is (limited) in speed it’s time is limited in time and can never reach its destination. As a television electronics tech-theoretical physicist I laugh at the stupidity of scientists. Time continues to move forward, measuring time with the speed of light then calling it space-time is a ilogical. Light waves are discrete packets of energy produced from an energy source, you can’t simply reverse its polarity with a DC rectifier to travel back in time :-). Narcissists are highly autistic only in a stupid way, lacking wisdom-emotional intelligence they believe feelings are facts and become brainwashed by their own ignorance. Since gravity is the effect of mass before the universe was created gravity couldn’t have existed. Neither time, gravity nor mass can create itself from nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing since nothing has no properties. The gravity of the ether-space is a force against density-mass, the center of mass-gravity is not the gravitational center for planets stars and galaxies. Either the universe was always here or all the fundamental forces were created simultaneously. Magnetron.
Interesting, and a lot of what you said makes sense. I disagree with your assertion about the speed of light is not possible to be constant – not that I agree about it being constant, because Einstein was likely wrong; but because being limited is not another force limiting it but rather the speed at which it travels.
Einstein was not a savant, he was stupid and terrible at mathematics, did not invent the famous E=MC^2 but stole it from an earlier paper published years before him; and his wife wrote many of his works, not him. Einstein was a bumbling idiot who was elevated by the establishment just like another current prominent politician who is not really in the position he is in. Just like many “heroes” today, he was nothing but a fraud, made famous by the media and the establishment.
I also disagree with your analogy about light not being possible to “record” as you say, past events; as if light is a particle, then it would be possible, but light is neither a particle nor a wave. As for the idea that light is instantaneous across any distance, I think this can be disproved, but it is an interesting theory.
There are definitely major problems with the proposition about the nature of our universe presented by “science”, and that our current models are neither accurate nor logical. How does the light of stars pass through the moon in photographs. How do wireless signals send data in every direction simultaneously if every molecule is not all filled with that data.
How does the quantum realm defy the laws of physics, and how is nothing here yet here, and how is it possible for a particle to be two places at once, and so on. None of these have answers. Physics is children playing with theories invented by other people who stole it from other people and no one really knows anything; engineering is a set of basic principles that work but no one really knows how or why, and it is only discovered by trial and error, not because it is really understood.
If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s light could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets would have moved from their coordinates with time, proving light (and it’s images) are instantaneous in time, therefore have no speed limit in time.
If galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth’s past) than neither are Einstein’s gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies.
Like a video camera, if the traveling distance (speed of light) is finite (limited) to 186,000 miles per second it’s images captured-viewed would be (limited) to one second having a maximum distance of 186,000 miles. Conclusion, relativity needs more film 🙂
Like sound, if the speed of light is finite (limited) it could never reach it’s destination unless photons ghosts are adding data from the future into the objects we see, re-converging geometry with motion, coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast 🙂 Space-time debunked
I heard you when you posted that previously but I’m saying I do not agree with the assertion. Otherwise, interesting points
I find it stupid that you cant just say “oh thats a good point” and leave it at that. I might not be a science geek, (no offense i love the show Scorpion) but i do know you have a high ego who cnt be proven wrong. oh and btw your “tech grand duke” no one cares about your rank fyi. why do you think your article only has 130 comments. im on here for a school project.
130 comments wow this article got a lot of comments
If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s it’s latency delay could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets have moved from their coordinates, unless you believe galaxies stars and planets can be in multiple places all at the same :-). Radio communications in space have a latency delay (a gap in transmissions time) The human eye retains light and images for 15 milisecods, if there were any space-time relativity gaps in transmission time the galaxies viewed with the James Webb space telescope wouldn’t be possible.
If the images from the James Webb space telescope were in Earth’s past you wouldn’t be able to see them because the past no longer exists :-). Scientists are mostly autistic which is why they are unable to see the joke in their field of study. A person can be very smart in one field but downright ignorant in another. 1 in 44 identify with autism spectrum disorder, you do the math, Einstein was either an imbecile or fraud
By your logic:
An explosion happens on earth
Minutes later the sound is heard miles away
Since the sound happened in the past and the past no longer exists, then the sound cannot be heard
— obviously this is not the case, because the sound can be heard
So your assertion is wrong, because if light is photons then it can definitely continue to travel even though the origin no longer exists.
I am not saying the speed of light is fixed, only pointing out your theory is incorrect.
How exactly can you measure the age of the universe and time with the speed of light if the Big Bang did not exist? Why defend Einstein’s space-time relativity? What’s the point lol
It’s not Einstein’s ideas. Einstein plagiarized most of his work from others and didn’t even invent E-MC^2. We are merely discussing the basic component of the fabric of reality, and physics does exist.
By theory, light is locally constant due to slower clocks and shorter measuring rods. Otherwise, it is slower within a gravitational field. Covariance is an essential part of relativity theory. Your clock is slower if you turn around and return to me. Mine is slower if I accelerate to catch up with you.
Time continues to move forward, measuring time with the speed of light then calling it space-time is a ilogical. A singularity-Big Bang creation of the universe cannot have multiple starting points just for Einstein’s disciples. The religion of relativity debunked. You can’t measure time in one direction if time is moving forward in another because you’d run out of time 🙂 The galaxies viewed with the James Webb space telescope are moving forward in time through space, time did not stop billions of years in Earths past duh. Radio communications in space have a latency delay (a gap in transmissions time) The human eye retains light and images for 15 miliseconds, if there were any space-time relativity gaps in transmission time the galaxies viewed with the James Webb space telescope wouldn’t be possible. To believe galaxies stars and planets can be in multiple places-multiple coordinates is fantasy physics.
Great to hear compelling evidence against the Big Bang Theory.
I think even Edwin Hubble voiced concern that the red shift may not be due to expansion but rather there were other possible explanations.
Momentum transfer of light during many years of travel though non-empty space, such as suggested by scientists in Finland (Aalto Univ), allows it to change frequency without blurring. Many other scientists have supporting views. It is amazing how the funded astronomical community virtually never considers other explanations of the redshift – Occam’s razor principle has been completely ignored by the funding agencies!
I liked the paper but there was a few problems for example you were mentoning how the universe can’t be exapanding faster than the speed of light becuse nothing can go faster that the speed of light. Wich is true but this isnt the most acurate way of explaining it. Nothing can go farther than light in the same amount of time but the universe isnt just getting bigger, space time itslef is growing the distance is growing. So the distance can grow faster than the speed of light can travel. Its kinda hard to explain but you can get better and more detailed explinations if you google it.
Thank you. It’s amazing how some people are so stubborn and ignorant. God created everything is the obvious answer and Occam’s Razor supports it.
I was quite impressed to read your in-depth analysis and scientific explanations of the some of the finer points as to how incongruous Hawking’s BB theory is. Still, I have two major questions which may seem uninformed at first, but please here me out. My first question is what did Hawking hope to gain by all of this; and second why should we care?
As to the first question, it was always my understanding that Hawking’s benefactor for purporting this nonsense was some sort of religious fanatic who wanted to prove his understanding of the Judeo-Christian Creation story through science. As to the second, there is no “absolute way” of proving any of this. While I agree that according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, the whole BB theory is laughable, but that’s not to say that at whatever apparently non-repeatable point in the past that Inflation would have taken place is as plausible as saying Hawking himself made it happen. I think the grant-driven pseudo-intellectual dogmatists that pass themselves off as scientists on television and our universities use this as a means of promoting whatever fringe snake-oil they can peddle to the “hip” and “now” since the hucksters know that these banal and boorish idiots only what something they can talk about at parties to sound important. Since we’ll never really know, and since it would by definition be a seemingly sui generis event how can anyone purport this to be science rather than philosophy or more accurately theology. The faithful do not need science to find God (Rom. 5:1)
Here is my problem with a “something from nothing” theory. Even if one can accept or at least grant that at one time all the matter in the Universe was unified at stationary point and suddenly expanded outward, why would it cool? There is obviously nothing to create friction. Additionally, since there is nothing to create friction, there is no reason for matter to not just expand out uniformly in all directions until by sheer limitlessness of opposition it wouldn’t just return to asymptotic nothingness. Was Hawking try to describe this universe where there are planets and stars and electricity bills and the internet, or some magical wonderland?
Just a bit of advice, I wouldn’t rely too heavily on particle physics. This will soon be the downfall of many of the dogmatists. Field theory goes a great deal further to explain a lot of the holes, black or otherwise, left by QM. Entropy has already been proven wrong by actually experiments in space – things gravitate toward each other, not apart which is a function of gravity and wave mechanics.
Very good article, I regret finding it so late. I have written two articles going on a deep dive into less commonly appreciated reasons why there are fatal flaws with the major evidence cited in support of a big bang.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/09/assumptions-in-science-3-redshift.html
If the “red shift” phenomenon shows that the universe is expanding in all directions from from a single central point, then shouldn’t we be able to easily locate that central point?
First, it does not show an expanding universe, and second, yes we can identify the central point. But you aren’t going to like it.
Big Bang disciples, please explain how a universe can create itself in nothing, reside in nothing then expand into nothing? Nothing has no properties in which to hold or expand time, energy and matter. Ignorance is not knowing and doing, stupidity is knowing and doing anyway.
Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions.
If black holes reside is a region of Einstein’s theorized space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass-particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape then how could it be possible for the entire mass of our universe to escape the unimaginable density of the proposed Big Bang? According to general relativity sufficient compact mass-density will deform space-time to form a black hole which obviously debunks both Big Bang theory and relativity!
Big Bang theorists rely on red shift to support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, the very process that’s easily debunked. Light like all electromagnetic radiation and electricity is the result of moving electrons, they bend-curve in the plasma-ether giving the appearance of Einstein’s time dilation-longer wavelengths in red shift much like sound waves.
When light passes through a medium like a boat in the ocean or an airplane in our atmosphere, they slowdown from the resistance they encounter duh. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, it’s delusional to believe you can travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Big Bang theory is like trying to force the number 1 into 0. If gravity is the result of mass, then before the universe came into being gravity couldn’t have existed simply because mass was not yet created!
Galaxies with massive gravity from the early Big Bang would have been gravitationally bound like the Andromeda galaxy is to the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, moon and planets in all solar systems in the universe yet these early galaxies were able to somehow escape these massive gravitational forces continuing to expand at an increasingly faster rate. Into what, nothing? Nothing has no properties! Neither the atom, universe nor time can be created or destroyed. Albert Einstein an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix. God Is energy-the universe and has always been here. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” Revelation 22:13.
What do you get when you mix Einstein’s gravitational waves with time dilation? A universe of chaos where time and gravity fluctuate with waves, planets in solar systems are thrown off course in a collision course towards their sun. The speed of light is determined by how fast it travels through what Tesla called the ether-space. Time and space are not material bodies or fantasy unions that can magically create force upon another, yet Einstein joined them together with all the fundamental forces of the universe stretching time and space like a rubber band then using the speed of light to measure the age of the universe. Time and space are independent of each other, debunking Big Bang-evolution and the age of the universe.
According to general relativity ie gravitational lensing (a warped field of vision in telescopes) is due to (mass) between a distant light source and the observer. If that were true earths huge mass would distort the light of the observer as well making telescopes unusable. So only other planets in the universe are affected by gravitational waves? In 1916 before it was known that man could travel in space Albert Einstein based his gravitational wave theory on relativity. In 2021 most of us realize if gravitational waves existed in space astronauts would be crushed like an underwater diver traveling to the bottom of the sea.
Einstein’s disciples defend relativity by saying gravity is a weak force, yeah so weak it effects planets and galaxies just not astronauts or droplets of water in space? The concept of gravitational lensing is wrongly conflated with mass-gravity. Gravitational lensing occurs in all wavelengths of light. As moving electrons-light approach a bend-curve centrifugal forces slow them down. This slowing down of electrons would account for the appearance of black holes, longer wavelengths in red shift and the supposed curvature of spacetime, what I refer to as centrifugal deceleration of electrons.
Plasma Birkeland currents of galaxies also increase wavelength from the photoelectric effect.
If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein’s curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would effect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves.
So according to Einstein’s gravity wave theory the curved warped space of the universe with no gravity traveling through a non curved warped space medium with no properties creates a falling effect of gravity against an already curved warped space universe with no gravity, where gravity is created from gravity and 1+1=3. Big Bang disciples, please explain how a universe can create itself in nothing, reside in nothing then expand into nothing? Nothing has no properties in which to hold or expand time, energy and matter. Ignorance is not knowing and doing, stupidity is knowing and doing anyway.
The further light travels through what Tesla called the ether-space, the more it slows down. This mirror experiment in Einstein’s time dilation illustrates two things. (1) When light passes through a medium like electrons, a boat in the ocean or an airplane in our atmosphere they slowdown from the resistance they encounter. (2) The power of suggestion to make people believe that light is a Time Machine. Time and space are independent of each other, debunking Big Bang-evolution and the age of the universe. Einstein’s time dilation and gravity wave theory is just what you would expect from an autistic, using water to make water, turning his faucets on and watching as it runs down the drain. Albert Einstein, a violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix.- Magnetron
Excellent and well-informed comment. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you so much, love your page! I copied this from my latest paper on academia.edu. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We’re either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein’s past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? The speed of light according to Einstein’s relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring :-). Big Bang, Einstein’s relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked.
Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot be both a particle and wave. There are no space-time fantasy unions or gravity waves that can join a particle, wave and time together then bend, curve and stretch them like a rubber band. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other.
The speed of light can be slowed from 186,000 miles per second down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms acting as “optical molasses” If the universe were suddenly destroyed, collapsed or fell into a black hole do you honestly think slowing down the speed of light with sodium atoms would save the earth from being destroyed, giving people on earth time to find another planet to colonize and destroy :-). Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
If black holes reside in a region of Einstein’s theorized space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass-particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape then how could it be possible for the entire mass of our universe to escape the unimaginable density of the proposed Big Bang? According to general relativity sufficient compact mass-density will deform space-time to form a black hole which obviously debunks both Big Bang theory and relativity! Big Bang theorists rely on red shift to support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, the very phenomena that supports the hypothesis of a (non-expanding static universe). You can duplicate the ion thruster jets of a black hole in a vacuum using a Tesla coil or build one using high voltage-an array of magnets-a CRT-TV yoke or inductor coil. Black holes are nothing but plasma driven vortex electromagnetic fields expanding electromagnetic waves in space. Since the vortex of black holes are thought to be at the center of all galaxies they might be the very force that created them.
Gravitational lensing occurs in all wavelengths of light including (red shift-microwave background radiation). Gravity from huge celestial objects of galaxies bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time-debunking the big bang. Mass from galaxies, planets and black hole electromagnetic fields bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time dimensions. Light like all electromagnetic radiation and electricity is the result of moving electrons, as moving electrons of charged electromagnetic waves-light travel through the plasma of the universe each lump (or “quanta”) of energy in the electromagnetic waves are charged then discharged to the next lump, eventually the energy dissipates causing the delay in radio communications giving the appearance of time dilation – the appearance of longer wavelengths in red shift. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other.
If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein’s curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would affect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
If gravity is the result of mass then before the universe came into being gravity couldn’t have existed simply because mass was not yet created! Galaxies with massive gravity from the early Big Bang would have been gravitationally bound like the Andromeda galaxy is to the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, moon and planets in all solar systems in the universe yet these early galaxies were able to somehow escape these massive gravitational forces continuing to expand at an increasingly faster rate. Into what, nothing? Nothing has no properties! Neither the atom, universe nor time can be created or destroyed. Albert Einstein an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time, and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end.
If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein’s curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would affect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix-Magnetron.
Interesting hypothesis. It makes sense about light simply being warped instead of “gravitational lensing” bending the so-called “space-time”; this is what I perceived as well. And your theory about how light is instantaneous is an interesting hypothesis, do you have any experiments or evidence to substantiate this or is it simply a theory? And yes, the science points to a static universe, not an expanding one. Like you described, the Big Bang is nonsensical, that it came from nothing, that it could escape its mass, and that a so-called “black hole” can be created by a dying star but not from the mass of the entire universe. Good points.
The only thing I wasn’t clear about was what you were inferring from your point about how a mechanical watch proves light is instantaneous – I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, maybe you can elaborate further. A couple of holes in that statement, not only is it a leap in logic, but also you are suggesting that a mechanical watch would stay the same if it were to move at light speed, but that is not a conclusion but rather a hypothesis, because for all you know, maybe the mechanical watch would change the time and not match the unmoving watch, perhaps due to quantum effects or effects we don’t yet understand. Moreover, experiments have been done on the ground and in moving planes, and it has been found that watches do show a different time, although I have not looked into these studies in great detail to validate them, and I do not know if the watches used were mechanical or digital.
Moreover, I can’t see how something mechanical can do anything to prove something regarding light, since a mechanical watch does not use light; unless you are merely making inferences that you didn’t describe by suggesting that the two mechanical watches are not affected by time dilation – but to make that argument you need to complete the logic flow so that readers can interpret how you came to the conclusion. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that the statement itself is not logically substantiated.
Overall, great comment, keep up the good work.
John thanks for the words of encouragement!
if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring 🙂
The speed of light can be slowed from 186,000 miles per second down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms acting as “optical molasses” If the universe were suddenly destroyed, collapsed or fell into a black hole do you honestly think slowing down the speed of light with sodium atoms would save the earth from being destroyed, giving people on earth time to find another planet to colonize and destroy :-). This physicist on YouTube complemented me on the paper below and also laughed :-).
Einstein’s fantasy physics. The “clock paradox”, whereby a hypothetical astronaut returns from a near-light speed voyage in space to find his stay-at-home twin many years older than him (as traveling at relativistic high speeds has allowed the astronaut to experience only, say, one year of time, while ten years have elapsed on Earth). Because of the time dilation effect, a clock in the spaceship literally registers a shorter duration for the journey than the clock in mission control back on Earth. Problem is the hypothetical astronaut made the mistake of trusting Albert Einstein’s relativity and found himself stranded in space never to return home to see his twin. First: because he found the universe was expanding at an increasingly faster rate, that meant his stay-at-home twins time was decaying at an increasingly slower rate which meant both their clocks registered the same time.
Second: While he was traveling through curved warped space, he noticed time was fluctuating with the relativistic density of the gravity waves he encountered. Passing a large planets gravity waves slowed time down as he experienced artificial gravity through centripetal deceleration, while passing a small planets gravity waves time sped up as he became weightless, so his clock became erratic moving forwards and backwards through time. As time went by he became very frustrated realizing all the stars, planets and galaxies positioning would have to be moved back to their original positions in order to find his way back to the Milky Way galaxy, but that he found was impossible because his starships dilithium crystals didn’t have the energy needed to reposition everything in the universe back to the way it was when he left. The astronauts starship was finally destroyed by the Klingons, the end. The moral of the story is to never trust relativity unless you have plenty of time to waste. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix.
Einstein Relativity 1=2 Fantasy Physics, Wave-Particle Duality, Photon, … https://youtu.be/0cjBdTwF6v8 via @YouTube
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang https://lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/
I’m interested to see your evidence, but you still haven’t clarified how you made the jump from mechanical watches to light being instantaneous. Additionally, on the one hand you are talking about light being instantaneous and on the other hand talking about it being slowed down to 28mph from 186,000 meters per second (also, recent experiments were able to slow down light completely for as long as a few seconds based on a recent article). If it’s instantaneous, then how is it slowed down from a fixed speed?
Moreover, you’re ignoring the possibility of quantum or unknown effects affecting the mechanical watch, as you are bound by your fixed understanding of the physical universe. You also didn’t specify the velocity of the watch traveling across the universe. I’m not saying your hypothesis is wrong necessarily, but it is incorrect to make a hypothesis on an untestable premise – that is, taking a mechanical watching moving it at light speed (or at any speed) across the universe and back and comparing if the time is the same.
There are too many possibilities to simply say that is a fact when it could just as well be incorrect. Just because two mechanical watches at sea level would be bound by the physical laws doesn’t mean that a watch traveling at high velocities across the universe would be bound by the same laws. Look up the many principles such as quantum teleportation and other quantum effects, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and others. You will see there are enough unknowns that your statement about the mechanical watch is not absolute and could be wrong.
You also negate the potential effects of the aether, as it has not been studied in over a hundred years as its existence has been denied. Without even knowing the properties of the aether, it’s impossible to make a conclusion about physical mass and effects while static or at low velocities under atmospheric pressure with effects in a vacuum, at high velocities, and through unknown particulates or the aether.
The experiment I was the Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971. “The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.”
The mechanical watch works by the laws of physics, there is nothing in the emptiness of space that would affect its time, the only way a mechanical watch would run slow is if you tightened the mainspring. To say that unknown quantum effects could affect the mechanical watch would be also making a hypothesis with an untestable premise. If the speed of light is instantaneous the mechanical watch would not change time even it if it were sent across the universe and back. Trying to prove Einstein’s relativity with relativity is like saying the Bible is true because God said so :-). We’re all brainwashed by Alberts fantasy physics; I was too till I stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.
Albert Einstein’s projectile light particle (photon) a particle that has never been observed was fabricated to fit the math of relativity, there are no space-time fantasy unions or gravity waves that can join a particle and a wave together then bend, curve and stretch them like a rubber band :-). If the speed of light is instantaneous then quantum teleportation would also be instantaneous. The Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971 can be debunked easily with gravitational lensing, the closer you are to the electromagnetic fields mass and gravity of the earth the more light-electromagnetic waves bend curve. If science uses Einstein’s speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using the same odometer to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created in the future before time existed. Great Scott Marty we’re back to the future!
What about quantum mechanics. Actually there is nothing physical, it is all an illusion. In the quantum realm, the laws of physics do not apply. Things can be two different places at once, can teleport lightyears away instantaneously, and travel through objects. Simple human observation actually changes the matter itself, this is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Without knowing about quantum mechanics, I can see how you would be under the illusion that the laws of physics would apply, but they do not necessarily apply.
You keep saying that a mechanical watch would not change even if it were sent across the universe and back. This is incorrect, it is impossible to know that and you have no evidence for it. You cannot use a baseless and untestable hypothesis as proof for a hypothesis. That is anti-scientific. Again, not saying the hypothesis is wrong necessarily, but your argument is wrong because you have a baseless conclusion, pure conjecture.
In fact nothing is fully bound to the laws of physics, it’s all an illusion, as can be seen at the quantum level. Everything you see feel and touch is actually not real, there is no solid object. Once you see it at its base level, everything is mostly empty, and there are no solid atoms, only frequencies and vibrations. There appear to be solid objects but there are merely strong forces that cause this illusion. The world is not what it seems. Nothing really exists at all, everything is simply frequencies vibrating. This is why every object has its own resonant frequency.
Regarding the photon, please read further on this, your knowledge of it seems limited. Photons have been proven to be both particles and waves – in fact they behave differently based on whether the light is being observed or not. See the double slit experiment. Depending on whether it is observed, it either shows or doesn’t show interference, providing evidence for the wave-particle duality. Experiments have been done to show that light can act like a wave or a particle in different conditions, and merely observing it can change its state.
You’re right that Einstein didn’t know what he was talking about, in fact his wife wrote most of his articles, and he stole the majority of it from earlier physicists. E=MC^2 was NOT an invention of Einstein, it was already proposed decades before. The same goes for the principles of relativity. Einstein was a fraud.
And the Bible’s validity is not just because God says so but because the vast and overwhelming scientific, archaeological, historical, and more evidence all points to the Bible being completely and entirely accurate. In fact, historians know the Bible to be the most historically accurate book in the world – by a very large margin. The next most reliable historical book is Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Cartographers, anthropologists, and historians reference the Bible for their scientific and historical work because of its established historical accuracy.
And why are you saying that the “Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971 can be debunked easily with gravitational lensing”? In the last replies you insisted that there is no such thing as gravitational lensing. You can’t have it both ways – either it exists, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t then you can’t use it as evidence. You said that a photon was never observed, but in your previous comment you admitted that they have been able to slow down light. You can’t have it both ways. And your other argument is also invalid – it’s quantum teleportation that is proven, not light being instantaneous. It could be possible that quantum teleportation is a mechanism in instantaneous light, but not the other way around. Your arguments are full of holes. Please, be more careful, keep up the good thoughts, you are on the right track but you need to follow logical arguments, avoid contradictions, and follow the scientific method.
Again you’re trying to defend Einstein’s quantum mechanics with Einstein’s quantum mechanics. Einstein’s quantum mechanics is wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm9tUVI6Ehk
Einstein didn’t invent quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics goes against the theory of relativity. Einstein spent the end of his days trying and failing to come up with a “unified theory” that unified both relativity (which he supported) and quantum theory (which he had nothing to do with).
Nice video though. But the video is wrong on several points. First, he is clearly not a scientist so he did not know that when you introduce other measures, the light does not have an interference pattern, but behaves like a particle. This man thinks he is brilliant but he is missing some major points due to his lack of knowledge. And his conclusions are hasty, as his idea that because light sometimes behave as a wave proves that it can’t be a particle is incorrect, because a particle itself is not even a physical thing, but merely frequency and vibration, so it is certainly plausible that light could be modal, that is, have different modes depending on certain circumstances.
It was Einstein who limited the speed of light to 186,000 meters per second I’m just using his postulations as an example. Of course, you can slow down the speed of light, you can also slow down a C8 Corvette with better breaks but in order to speed up the vehicle you need more horsepower.
If science uses Einstein’s speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using the same odometer to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created in the future before time existed, it was Einstein who made the jump by limiting the speed of light to 186,000 meters per second.
You can’t slow down something that isn’t moving. If light is instantaneous then it isn’t moving. Your logic is flawed.
You tell me that there is nothing physical, it is all an illusion. In the quantum realm the laws of physics do not apply, things can be two different places at once, can teleport instantaneously, and travel through objects, and you tell me my logic is flawed :-). “You can’t slow down something that isn’t moving. If light is instantaneous then it isn’t moving”. Slowing down the speed of light with sodium atoms was just an illustration to show the silliness in relativity however it was not my position.
Ok, thank you for the interesting conversation, enjoyed talking with you! Will check out your site to see what you have written about.
If the light from the universe travels from past dimensions of time then it’s light is traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time, and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end.
The speed of the electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein’s projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein’s projectile light (particle photon) had mass it’s light and images would be distorted and could not travel across the universe. The Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors would only magnify these distortions, but most likely the high-speed particles would break the mirrors before we received the first distorted images, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein’s relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories. Einstein’s relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn’t moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. You have now left the Einstein Zone.
Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein’s disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein’s relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein’s time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-). Disciples, remember thy 1st commandment, thou shalt not question thy lawgiver of relativity for blasphemers are the devil’s pawn.
Correct, it was plagiarized by Einstein. He didn’t invent it. Einstein didn’t invent most of his theories, he ripped them off from others. In 1889 English physicist Oliver Heaviside simplified his work to show that the effective mass should be m=(4⁄3)E/c^2. German physicists Wilhelm Wien, famous for his investigations into blackbody radiation, and Max Abraham got the same result. Englishman John Henry Poynting announced in 1884 a celebrated theorem on the conservation of energy.
In 1900 Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc^2. In 1904 when Fritz Hasenöhrl created a thought experiment involving heat energy in a moving cavity. Hasenöhrl, who was one of Austria’s leading physicists, he wrote a prize-winning trilogy of papers, “On the theory of radiation in moving bodies,” the last two of which appeared in the Annalen der Physik in 1904 and early 1905. Hasenöhrl concluded that blackbody radiation has mass m=(8⁄3)E/c^2. In his third paper corrected both results to m=(4⁄3)E/c^2.
As you can see, for decades the famous equation was proposed by many leading physicists around the world, when Einstein was a nobody low-level patent clerk, too dumb to get into college and too inept to even get a promotion. He was made into a so-called “genius” and achieved infamy from stealing others’ works. Henri Poincaré for the first to propose the exact equation of E=mc^2 now attributed falsely to Einstein. Other leading physicists drew question into E=mc^2 and instead proposed, repeatedly and independently, m=(4⁄3)E/c^2, which is more likely to be the correct equation, and Einstein’s forgery was in fact wrong.
In fact, Einstein didn’t even both to prove the equation (because he simply copied it from Henri Poincaré), and in later papers still never attempted to prove it. Because, of course, it is wrong; at least, the equation is inadequate and therefore incorrect. Moreover, it neglects many other elements including antimatter, which had not yet been discovered. Einstein dropped out of high school at 15, and while failing to get a promotion from the lowest level of patent clerk, he repeatedly flunked the entrance exam at the Zurich Polytechnic. He was no genius.
The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkey’s brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein’s space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We’re either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein’s past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein’s relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn’t moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein’s relativity-time dilation’s, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense 🙂
Einstein is starting to piss me off, are you sure Albert wasn’t a used car salesman! The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkey’s brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein’s space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We’re either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein’s past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein’s relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn’t moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein’s relativity-time dilation’s, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense 🙂
The speed of light according to Einstein’s relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein’s relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein’s disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren’t really there, they’re just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can’t make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Monkey see monkey do, the science of monkeys have brainwashed you.
Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time, the atom, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If science uses Einstein’s wrongly theorized speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using that same method to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created and expanded in the future before time existed. Unlike a television or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of still image frames that hypothetical Einstein projectile light particles photons create to give us the appearance of a moving image :-).
The speed of electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein’s projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein’s projectile light (particle photon) had mass it’s light could not travel across the universe, high speed particles traveling at 186,000 miles per second would break the Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein’s relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories.
Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein’s disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein’s relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein’s time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-).
It’s truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able to keep people denying reality, there are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein’s disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren’t really there, they’re just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. Pretending not to notice the gross contradictions-pseudoscience in Relativity is typical of Einstein’s disciples, devaluing the source of any information that’s in contradiction with their beliefs-theories. You could lead a cult to water, but you can’t make them think. If the light from the universe travels to past dimensions of time then it’s light is also traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” Revelation 22:13. Disciples, remember thy 1st commandment, thou shalt not question thy lawgiver of relativity for blasphemers are the devil’s pawn. Let thee not dwell in dissension of our Lord Albert, shun them, drive them back to their jungle lair amen. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix- Magnetron
Unlike the electron beam of a CRT-TV or high definition LED-LCD television the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein’s disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren’t really there, they’re just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it. Neil deGrasse Tyson”. so believe in science even if it’s wrong :-). The philosophy of science requires academic discipline, the emotional intelligence to know when you’ve said something stupid 🙂
The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkeys brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein’s space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We’re either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein’s past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein’s relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn’t moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other.
The speed of light according to Einstein’s relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein’s relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein’s time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein’s disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren’t really there, they’re just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can’t make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Monkey see monkey do, the science of monkeys have brainwashed you. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix-Magnetron
It’s truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able teach people to be stupid. Ignorance is not knowing and doing, stupidity is knowing and doing anyway. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein’s space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. https://www.academia.edu/78597202/Big_Bang_Einsteins_relativity_time_dilation_and_nearly_all_of_science_debunked via @academia
John, we’ve been forced out of business by China, Democrats and the powers that be hacking our website, however you can find me on Facebook and Twitter. It was your page that gave me the inspiration to look further into the insanity of The Big Bang Theory. If the light from the universe travels from past dimensions of time then it’s light is traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time, and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. Like an infinity mirror the image we see is instantaneous. Thanks for all your work!
If you want people to be able to make sense of your jargon shorten it up a tad. Just saying “nuh uh” because you don’t understand science doesn’t make you right lol.
The biggest thing about Quantized Red Shift is the misunderstanding that it’s Doppler Shift, these are two different effects! Doppler shows a compression of a frequency which pitches high as it comes toward us (Blue shift) and as a frequency goes away (Red Shift). The absolute best explanation I’ve heard is that as the density of the Planck Particle Pairs increases, this effected the rotation speed of the electrons/photons around the atom. In response to this (Think Angular Momentum), the (Electrons/Photons) jump to an inner shell, almost instantly, which increases the revolutions per second which makes the light go blue, and we measure the release of energy (photon) as Red. This matches observation, as Pulsars do not Quantize red/blue shift relative to each other, we do measure against multiple Pulsars to determine our location in relative space around our sun, and we use the Red/Blue/No Doppler shift to determine our exact location. Yes, as far out as we can see, Pulsars don’t Quantize the Red/Blue shift. We track clumps of Galaxy’s in a particular area and a single galaxy will Quantize Red Shift less… not a deceleration… IE. 12.999, 12.998, 12.997.. nope, 12.999 to a 11. which no one wants to talk about. There IS far greater evidence showing a static universe. BTW MIT teaches the math on expansion, steady, and contraction, because of this delima, we know it’s not a correct model.
Thank you for your awesome and well-informed comment.
Re #3. Matter can be converted into energy, but the sum total of matter and energy must remain constant.
Correct.
There is no evidence that matter can collapse to “near infinite density” as a result of gravity, black holes do however debunk big bang theory quite nicely. If 2 trillion galaxies of the universe were able to escape the massive gravity of the Big Bang then it should be no problem for the mass inside one black hole to escape gravity as well.
My son and I were talking about this the other day, and he posed the question of why something exists and not nothing.
I said if nothing could exist then nothing would exist. Ergo, something has had to exist for eternity. Something has had to have the information, power and ability to establish the laws upon which reality exists, from eternity. Something beyond time and space.
The Big Bang is the most nonsensical explanation of why we exist and why we search for more than just eat, breed, die. We long for the eternal.
It’s difficult to believe that all the mass energy in the universe originated from a tiny speck compared to the smallest atomic element. What bothers me is theoretical bias. Other theories have been dismissed for no consideration. Newton was unable to explain the cause of gravity because what comes in is the same as what goes out according to conservation of momentum. He dismissed the ether. Einstein considered is unnecessary for the formulation of theory. Quantum physicists reinterpreted the success of wave mechanics as probability conditions. They dismissed tired light in claiming it would interfere, but somehow all those light particles don’t. Waves can superimpose to pass on through in a way that’s consistent with the entropy condition of various equilibrium states.
I would like a copy of the book with this information.
WHAT IS THE TITLE , AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER?
This info is found in many books and peer-reviewed articles. Presently the publisher of this particular article is techreader.com.
Brilliant article, thanks very much for this I will be bookmarking it for future reference.
With endless time to play with, in our vast void where “everywhere is the center, and nowhere the perimeter”, it seems asinine to suggest that only one, nonrepeating event is responsible for everything that will be.
Evolution-Big Bang Theory-Einstein’s Relativity Gravity Wave Theory Debunked:
Evolution-an unguided process with no eyes to see creates eyes having no concept of sight? Creates ears having no concept of hearing, intelligence, love, hate, smell, touch and the list goes on using time and chance as its magic wand and random evolutionary mutations in biology always results in positive favorable improvements for the species and DNA somehow never gets degraded and corrupted from being copied trillions of times? Simple logic tells anyone the first animals and humans were created (without procreation) they didn’t evolve and without the nurturing of their biological parents to give them food and shelter they would both die in a matter of hours. Evolution debunked. In what order would you say evolution evolved all the various (interdependent organs) of these first animals and humans? If one organ were missing life would cease to exist. Evolution debunked. Just because earth or earthlike planets in the universe may have all the essential ingredients for life like air and water doesn’t mean evolution will magically create acorns so trees will grow, seeds so vegetables will grow, animals, humans and the list goes on.
Just because we have automobile manufacturing plants doesn’t mean people would believe automobiles will somehow evolve as long as we define the process as automation. Once there was nothing, so nothing created the universe with all the elements of life. Suddenly an unguided process of evolution appeared that self-assembled all the elements into people that studied philosophy and science, and the people said that it was good 🙂 Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859 http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Atoms can neither be created nor destroyed making black holes, the creation or destruction of our universe a scientific impossibility. If the Big Bang was indeed a singularity it would have nothing to expand in, this makes no sense whatsoever as there is no such thing as nothing. Our universe is traveling in an element of space, that means that element of space was here before the universe and is something not nothing, so logically we cannot conclude that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Like an infinity mirror, the more you look back the more you see the infinite regression. To believe all the energy and matter in the universe exploded and expanded from the size of a piece of fruit from nothing and nowhere is a stretch of the imagination, it’s more logical to think the universe has always been here. Universe from nothing theories are based on the belief that atoms can create and assemble themselves from nothing and nowhere but can neither be created nor destroyed? If atoms can neither be created nor destroyed it means they were always here.
Down here on earth we know in order to create something we need a time, a place and the materials for what ever we’re going to create. Explain where the universe is located? You can’t. Explain where the Big Bang was located? You can’t. Logic tells us the universe could not have created itself from nothing and nowhere simply because the universe like the Big Bang resides in a place in time, an element of space. Arguing that the Big Bang created the universe only brings the problem back one level, then another and another as each level requires a time and a place. What created the energy and matter that created the Big Bang? What created the energy and matter that created the energy and matter that created the Big Bang? On and on she goes and where she stops nobody knows. Logic tells us the universe has always been here and because so could not have created itself from nothing and nowhere.
Gravity is an equalized pressure density against all matter. If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein’s relativity-gravity wave theory curved-warped gravity waves would effect the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit. Einstein’s gravity wave theory is a lot like string theory, it works for a while till ya run outta string :-). Albert Einstein based his gravity wave theory on space being warped vs Tesla’s ether field even though Einstein publicly agreed that the ether did exist. The one thing all orbital planetary systems have in common is a star at the nucleus, in our case it’s our sun. That’s the clue and the key ingredient needed to understand the fundamental forces of gravity – the energy source. Gravity is a relativistic repelling force against the ether aka centrifugal deceleration. Electrons move at a very slow constant terminal drift velocity rate of only 0.0028 inches per second. If you calculate time t = 0 seconds with the known 32.2 ft per second speed of gravity after one second of travel you can determine the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of the electron. Energy = gravity. This concept not only explains the expansion of the universe without hypothetical theories of dark energy and dark matter but gives science a better understanding of celestial mechanics, black holes and the fundamental force that holds all energy and matter together.
While dark matter pulls matter inward, dark energy pushes it outward. The fundamental forces of dark matter and dark energy are hiding in plain sight for anyone who understands the universe is electric in nature. It’s no coincidence that the first observable evidence for this phenomenon came from measurements of a supernova, that’s the clue and key ingredient needed-the plasma energy source-Birkeland currents. The movement of these high current highly charged particles through the vacuum of space creates positive and negatively charged electromagnetic fields each attracting and opposing the other both creating a repelling expansion force against the either, to maintain gravity any expansion is prevented by the use of a closed-loop system aka black holes.
According to general relativity ie gravitational lensing (a warped field of vision in telescopes) is due to (mass) between a distant light source and the observer. If that were true earths huge mass would distort the light of the observer as well making telescopes unusable. In 1916 before it was known that man could travel in space Albert Einstein based his gravitational wave theory on relativity. In 2021 most of us realize if gravitational waves existed in space astronauts would be crushed like an underwater diver traveling to the bottom of the sea. Einstein relativity sycophants will defend relativity by saying gravity is a weak force, yeah so weak it can move planets and galaxies just not astronauts in space? Common sense should tell anyone if there were gravitational waves in space astronauts wouldn’t be weightless.
If gravity is solely the result of curved space caused by mass according to Albert Einstein’s gravity wave theory then before the universe came into being gravity couldn’t have existed simply because mass was not yet created. Einstein’s gravity wave theory seems to be a gross contradiction in scientific terms as gravity is the very component needed for the big bang. If scientists accept that Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong then so is every known theory that uses relativity, which is nearly all of science. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. Stephen Hawking. “I am the alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”. Scientific Creationism aka Big bang-universe from nothing theories are based on the belief that nothing can produce everything and since there are no constraints on nothing, I guess nothing can produce everything :-). The universe is NOT expanding, gravity the equalized pressure density against all mass prevents it. In an expanding universe with no external boundaries gravity would cease to exist. If the big bang singularity existed the views from the Hubble space telescope would show a point of origin by stars being dimmer from the early universe in one direction while brighter in another as planet earth does not reside in the center of the universe.
Whoah this weblog is magnificent, I love reading your posts.
Keep up the great work! You already know, a lot of individuals are hunting round for
this information, you can help them greatly.
Relativistic limitations depend on electric and magnetic permittivity in a vacuum, but w/o E&M there’s no limitation on the rate at which mass can be distributed in space.
This is all hypothetical, none of it is known or proven. It’s only theory.
If scientists tried to re-create a Big Bang experiment in space using the exact pre-Big Bang conditions it would not form stars, solar systems and galaxies yet that is exactly what proponents of the Big Bang want you to belief. The Big Bang Theory contradicts reality, it’s not an explosion it’s an expansion from nothing and nowhere where all the forces were created then evolved into the universe. This is magical thinking aka scientific creationism. The Big Bang Theory was initially created by Georges Lemaître a Catholic priest and physicist as a way to prove creationism. According to the big bang theory, there’s no center of the universe. Every point in the universe is the same as every other point, with no centralized location?! If the big bang singularity existed the views from the Hubble space telescope would show a point of origin by stars being dimmer from the early universe in one direction while brighter in another as planet earth does not reside in the center of the universe.
Conversely, if recent science is correct which proves the Earth really is in the center of the universe (look up the “axis of evil” regarding the heat map of the universe), then it explains why Earth, being in the center, does not see dimmer stars anywhere.
The Big Bang is a creationist model. It cannot have happened according to the laws of physics, so something had to put the universe there. And since recent science proves the Earth really is in the center of the universe, then it begs the question, who put us here? It could not have happened by chance, which is why the new science is being suppressed, because it debunks the Copernican model.
Evolution-an unguided process with no eyes to see creates eyes having no concept of sight? Creates ears having no concept of hearing, intelligence, love, hate, smell, touch and the list goes on using time and chance as its magic wand? In what order would you say evolution evolved all the various interdependent organs of animals and humans? If one organ is missing life ceases to exist and you need more than doctor Frankenstein to bring it to life! 🙂
Atoms can neither be created nor destroyed making both the creation and destruction of the universe a scientific impossibility. If the Big Bang was indeed a singularity it would have nothing to expand in, this makes no sense whatsoever. Our universe is traveling in an element of space, that means that element of space was here before the universe, so logically we cannot conclude that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Like an infinity mirror, the more you look back the more you see, an infinite regression. To believe all the energy and matter in the universe exploded and expanded from the size of a piece of fruit from nothing and nowhere is a stretch of the imagination, it’s more logical to say the universe has always been here and we are living in a cell membrane-a cell within a cell of what I call God The Universe. The universe resides in an entity Tesla called the ether. “God said, Let us make man in Our image according to Our likeness”. The atomic structure, protons-neutrons and electrons-Trinity three distinct properties-persons, the atomic structure of the atom that can neither be created nor destroyed.
If it were possible to speak to someone on a telephone landline across the universe theoretically there would be no noticeable delay in the conversation as we see in the phenomenon of quantum entanglement-spooky action at a distance-where atoms though separated can communicate with each other instantaneously no matter the distance between them even if they are light years apart. At the quantum level time doesn’t exist, it can only be measured by the terminal drift velocity speed of the electron. Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory https://techreader.com/…/top-ten-scientific-flaws…/
Albert Einstein based his theory of gravity on space being warped vs Tesla’s ether field even though Einstein publicly agreed that the ether did exist. The one thing all orbital planetary systems have in common is a star at the nucleus, in our case it’s our sun. That’s the clue and the key ingredient needed to understand the fundamental forces of gravity – the energy source. While stars emitted electromagnetic radiation into the surrounding ether in our early preformed universe cell, all mass became equally charged with energy forming solar systems with globes – planets while creating a relativistic repelling force against the ether (aka centrifugal deceleration) what I refer to as an elevator effect. Electrons move at a very slow constant terminal drift velocity rate of only 0.0028 inches per second. If you calculate time t = 0 seconds with the known 32.2 ft per second speed of gravity after one second of travel you can determine the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of the electron. Energy = gravity. This concept not only explains the expansion of the universe without hypothetical theories of the big bang, dark energy and dark matter but gives science a better understanding of celestial mechanics, black holes and the fundamental force that holds all energy and matter together. – Magnetron
It wasn’t Einstein’s theory. Einstein never invented anything, he was an idiot who dropped out of high school at age 15 because he couldn’t pass basic mathematics. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein’s early education that he “showed little scholastic ability.” It also says that at the age of 15, “with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma.” Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his “lack of imagination and practical ability.”
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school.
He couldn’t even remember his own address where he lived. His teachers called him incompetent, and they were not wrong. He repeatedly failed to pass exams to become even an advanced patent clerk and remained in the lowest position long after his peers advanced to higher positions.
Even E=MC^2 was stolen, as it had already been published by other physicists as much as 27 years before Einstein took credit for it. James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein’s paper. Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto’s insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.
Even Obama received a Nobel Prize, that should tell you something about the [il]legitimacy of that award. Just like MLK, Einstein was a fraud and the media created a false facade about him causing him to become famous, without any basis in reality. Einstein was a Zionist with membership in at least 16 Communist front organizations such as Friends of the Soviet. Einstein was head of the Jewish Black Book Committee, which was listed as a Communist front in the 1947 House Un-American Activities Committee Report.
Here’s the truth about “Einstein”: Albert Einstein – was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?
Oliver Heaviside was the man who actually formulated Maxwell’s 4 equations of in the form we we know today. He took Maxwell’s 17 equations written in quarternion form (which were utterly unworkable in any practical sense) and turned them into field vector equations. In 1889, he came up with the relativistic ratio 1/(1 – (v2/c2))1/2, which is at the heart of the theory of special relativity.
He communicated this to Fitzgerald who, with Lorenz, came up with the Lorenz Contraction.
Further extending this, Henri Poincare, the French mathematician, in 1895 came up with the formula M=E/c2.
In other words, the main outcomes of Special Relativity are in fact obtainable from the Theory of Electromagnetism, and special relativity is redundant. Furthermore, Einstein must have known of these findings.
How did it come to pass that this history has been swept away and replaced by the “history” we are taught today.
THANK YOUUUUU, I’m “learning” about the big bang theory in science class (I’m a freshman) and now I know how to stump my science teach, or at least frazzle him 🙂
Totally agreeable, your article. Thank you very much to help people having another way of thinking. I would only add to your very good article one thing: Quantum Physics, Crowd Psychology, Economy Science and maybe other sciencies have understood that there is only one common law over the universe: the fact that laws changes when you are considering a different dimension/size of the things. Saying that the economy of a big Nation goes well does not mean saying that each single person stays well. I reckon it’s time to decide to say that we must abandon the General Relativity as the base for any law that refers to the galaxies and the universe itself. Just as it’s not good to explain how a single quantum particle works, it’s not good to explain how a galaxy works.
What a fascinating read. I often ponder these and similar ideas, like the practical worship of Darwin. The laws of human nature are proven time and again: what was once “settled science” is now considered rubbish. Man has always been and probably always will be quite vain. We do learn a little bit every few hundred years, but the cycle will continue as we’re quite far from a true “theory of everything”.
Excellent summary.
There are likely reasons that causes strong and unprofessional resistance to criticism. Peer review is one. I have heard the person responsible for the early theory is head of the peer review panel. Another instance of the loss of objectivity, an essential aspect of scientific exploration, if so.
The Big Bang also ties in nicely with Biblical view of creation. Don’t go literal on the timing it is basically the same magic act creatio ex nihilo, of Christian theology.
Then there is funding issue of scientists. not just the ones being denied support if they criticise current theory, but also the loss of funding of those in high places who have a VESTED interest in its maintenance.
One may extrapolate value of a function thereby satisfying a mathematical equation devoid of unknown factors.Therefore ,the ‘Big Bang Theory’ could well be a convenient solution accepting unknown factors.
Exactly, they ignore the requirement of evidence, and make up their own fiction. Rather convenient.
I had thought of some of these myself, but like other “settled science”, you learn it in college from PhD.’s, and you just believe it If you look at the May 2020 issue of Astronomy Magazine, they have an article on “problems” with the BB theory written by a pretty senior-sounding Astrophysist. They dance all around the possibility that an Eternal God put all the laws and matter into motion. Who knows?
–retired Science teacher
Also, there is no way that widely observed “super massive black holes” could have formed to their present size in less that 13.7 billion years. Some have argued that super-massive black holes could have formed directly from hydrogen gas clouds by temporality creating a “blue star” during that process. However, our TV science programs have yet to identify a present example of such a “temporary blue star”.
Jesus Christ is Lord
Descartes stated “I think, therefore I am.” But what are we? No matter. Never mind. We are finite creations within an infinite possibilities. As Shakespeare suggested, we are parts of the bigger stage. As finites, we do not seem to comprehend such infinities as no beginning and no end. We only have faith.
Descartes also suggested all of space is a plenum, which would have no wiggle room for even wave action except by rotations within rotations. It suggest the number pi, as in Hine’s theory. Two rotations can only move others in a bigger rotation that, in turn, multiplies.
I cannot explain my own existence, infinite time and infinite space, but I can explain in consistent manner the reality in which we live. For instance, I can explain gravity cause and the creation of matter as wave action. Waves of matter carry momentum by their interaction. Einstein explained the emission of electrons from a metal being according to light frequency in stead of intensity as photons being of a particle form. However, frequency is also a wave property. Particle can be waves and waves can be particles, Wave action itself can explain all that particle action explains and more, whereas particle action cannot explain how a single particle passing through one of two holes results in an interference pattern.
I explain gravity along with the creation of mass as wave packets of energy in my book VACUUM EFFECTS OF GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC ATTRACTION, However, for being a self-educated, self-published and self-edited writer, I’m blocked by the academic establishment. My ideas are only promoted by my website bobticer.com
John Watson, Your website is fascinating, and what you say is so true. I approached a maths / space satellite Professor at Imperial College in London, and he said the equation from ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ was ‘elegant’, and described knowing Hubble’s Constant is 70.98047 precisely. He then went on to re-write it in a way that complied with how today’s scientific papers are written. He did this under a new title of ‘Fixing the Hubble Constant’. The Professor then submitted it for publication in several journals, but was refused many times with NO explanations given (most unusual). This Professor has successfully published over 70 papers in his area of satellites and maths, so is no novice to scientific publishing. He tried again, but was told by someone at Imperial College to stop trying to publish ‘Fixing the Hubble Constant’, or his future position at Imperial would be ‘very uncertain’. This is exactly as you described the way the establishment ‘forces’ their agenda, and totally disregards true science when it does not suit them. My email is :- evad_hine@yahoo.co.uk I could introduce you to this Professor if you think this corruption should be followed up. With very kind regards, David Hine
This is terrible! Something needs to be done
Down here on earth we know in order to create something we need a time, a place and the materials for what ever it is we’re going to create. Our universe is obviously traveling in an element of space and time, that means that element of space and time was here before the Big Bang so we cannot conclude that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Explain where the universe is located? You can’t. Explain where the Big Bang was located? You can’t. To say the Big Bang was the beginning of everything is like saying you had to create your mother and a time and a place to be born-a magic trick being performed without the magician, so logic tells us the universe could not have created itself from nothing and nowhere simply because the universe like the Big Bang resides in a place in time, an element of space. Arguing that the Big Bang created the universe only brings the problem back one level, then another and another as each level requires a time and a place. What created the energy that created the Big Bang? What created the energy that created the energy that created the Big Bang? On and on she goes and where she stops nobody knows. The only thing that makes any sense is that the universe has always been here and because so could not have created itself from nothing and nowhere. “I am the alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”.
Bobby Dee Ticer, Your calculated value of 70.745484 is so VERY close to my value of 70.98047, that we are in complete agreement, and we both are correct !!! We have used such totally different maths methods, and the tiny discrepancy will be caused by ever so slight errors of the inputted data on which our separate equations are based. All it needs is for, say, the speed of light figure to be ever so slightly wrong, and / or the nuclear radius figure ever so slightly wrong !!!!! That will account for the far less than the 1% difference!!!
We are both in much closer agreement than those that try to measure Hubble’s Constant.
I should have realised this earlier, and please email me :- evad_hine@yahoo.co.uk
These two totally different maths methods are in total agreement, and prove the big bang fake. With very kind regards, David Hine
If you divide G by c of one gram per centimeter-squared, you get nearly the same value if G is defined in centimeters. The latter and lack of theory for it indicates coincidence. Lately I’ve been studying Aspen’s theory. It derives the value of G from theory along with the fine structure constant, the ratio of proton to electron mass and so on. It is based on a Thomson formula that Thomson used to derive internal energy as mass times the sped of light squared before Einstein did. Aspen also published the value of the fine structure constant ten years before it was confirmed. His theory is based on an analysis of the aether and is difficult to initially grasp.
I hope the creators of the James Web space telescope are smart/honest enough make its measurements based on the infinite Stable Universe theory rather than the Big Bang theory. Otherwise, it could turn out to be pretty much a wast of money and huge embarrassment as they discover even more celestial objects.
There is an equation derived from geometry that ‘fixes’ Hubble’s Constant at 70.98047.
The equation is :- 2 X a megaparsec X light speed. then divide this by Pi to the power of 21.
This equation, and how it was derived, comes from ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This 70.98047 value falls exactly in the middle of the measured values shown in the Wikipedia Hubble Chart. This 70.98047 figure is too fantastically close to the measured Hubble constant values for it to be chance!! This is a definite proof the big bang is fake, as the reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 BLY’s, and because this reciprocal ALSO never increases over time, it cannot be the age of the Universe. In fact, it’s the Hubble horizon distance only. ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ has been in booklet form since 2008, and on Amazon Kindle since 2017. It is intensely hated by NASA, who have tried to remove it from Amazon, and secular Wikipedia have refused (in a very rude and unpleasant way) to include the 70.98047 value on the Wikipedia chart. A maths / space Professor at Imperial College in Kensington described that equation as elegant. I hope this equation can be included in your proofs that the big bang is false. With very kind regards, David Hine.
I have been emailing my rebuttals to the “Big Bang Theory” to most of the scientist and professors featured on “How the Universe Works”, “Space’s Deepest Secrets”, “NOVA”, etc. Hopefully, one or more of them will pick on on this theme and perhaps end up winning a Nobel Prize for doing so.
I’ve opposed Big Bang as inconsistent with general relativity. I’m self educated without a degree, such that I’m ineligible to submit a paper to a physics journal, but last night the final clue to a unified field theory came to me. It’s all already in theory, the last piece of the puzzle, needing no modification of theory. All is need is someone with a doctorate willing to formulate it. Do you know someone?
There is a much better theory that works with every single thing we know and it is called Infinite Wave Theory. Bottom line, there was no beginning. Dark matter and dark energy explained, a simple purpose for black holes… simple as pie.
If gravity was attributed to mass, like planets the universe, galaxies would all be globe shaped, either there was no big bang or our understanding of gravity needs to be revised energy to matter-density.
Key Tenets of General Relativity: Gravity arises from distortions in spacetime; the presence of mass causes distortions, and the resulting distortions determine how other objects move through spacetime. Houston we have a problem, according to the theory of gravity ‘mass-attracts mass’ the gravitational effects we feel in one direction should cancel out the effects of the other rendering us weightless as we would be at the center of the earth. Einstein’s gravity wave theory states mass warps space-time, but according to relativity-time dilation, all the stars, planets and galaxies that have moved into the space time of the future would have the ability to warp the gravity and space time from the past? Taking this to its logical conclusion the mass and distortions of space-time in the future would prevent the Big Bang from ever existing. Einstein’s theory of multidimensional space time is similar to the magician that focuses your attention elsewhere while they place your card at the top of the deck. If intense gravitational waves existed in space astronauts would be crushed like an underwater diver that travels to the bottom of the sea. Great Scott Marty how is it possible Einstein has fooled people with his theory of relativity for all these years?! “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”. Mark Twain. Mass is concentrated energy. Energy equals gravity.
Space Cat, sworn enemy of groupthink cult mentality.
Einstein’s relativity-clock paradox debunked: The “clock paradox”, whereby a hypothetical astronaut returns from a near-light speed voyage in space to find his stay-at-home twin many years older than him (as travelling at relativistic high speeds has allowed the astronaut to experience only, say, one year of time, while ten years have elapsed on Earth). Because of the time dilation effect, a clock in the spaceship literally registers a shorter duration for the journey than the clock in mission control on Earth. That would mean all the stars, planets and galaxies positioning would have to be rearranged, changed from their original state for the time traveler, but for the observer back on earth all the stars, planets and galaxies would still be in their original state. According to relativity-the time traveler is creating his own energy to reposition all the stars, galaxies and planets in the universe?! :-).
The Real Phenomenon Of Black Holes:
Black holes at the center of all galaxies can simply be attributed to opposite spin centrifugal-centripetal dynamo vortex force velocities of electrons traveling faster than the speed of light. On the molecular level matter=energy and the theory of everything. Energy is what makes up particle structures and gives it properties. Energy to matter confines energy to density by exceeding its magnetic wave creating mass. The increasing faster rate of expansion of the universe is not due to hypothetical theories of dark matter and dark energy but a loss in energy-mass-gravity. Mass is concentrated energy and the fundamental force of gravity. Black holes at the center of all galaxies can simply be attributed to opposite spin (centrifugal-centripetal) electromagnetic force velocities resulting from extreme electromagnetic-electrostatic fields aka dielectric forces. First watch video at mark 20:51 (Primer Fields) to 3:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_IvDVgg2Kg then see video mark 049 to 0:57 to see the real phenomenon of black holes aka basic simplex electromagnetic theory. In the Shadow of the Black Hole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omz77qrDjsU.
Energy and mass always follows the curve of the electromagnetic field, the force that creates spiral vortex galaxies, globe shaped planets and the force of gravity. The Sun like all stars at the center of solar systems exhibits vortex dynamo convective motion from intense electromagnetic field currents, these currents create spiral centrifugal-centripetal vortex velocities creating what we understand as gravity, Maxwell related this to the kinetic energy of molecular vortices through rotating electron-positron dipoles. Energy equals mass. Mass is concentrated energy and the fundamental force of gravity is dielectric-electromagnetic. The spiral centrifugal-centripetal force velocities of spiral galaxies & planetary orbits is thought to be attributed to clouds of helium & hydrogen at the formation of the Big Bang. Wrong, the only phenomena that can create vortex dynamo convective motion (directions of travel) are electromagnetic fields.
At the center of the black void-black hole the opposite spin centrifugal-centripetal dynamo vortex force velocities traveling faster than the speed of light are forced to follow the curve of their opposing electromagnetic fields thus changing the molecular structure of matter back into energy aka Intelligent Design. At the nucleus of our Milky Way galaxy’s huge electromagnetic monopole fields, polarities are hidden in plain sight. Outside these monopole fields life as we know it could not exist. Like string theory, it works for a while, till ya run outta string. The zealot is such a true believer in scientism they become blind to reality. “If black holes have been eating up matter in the center of galaxies for 13.8 billion years there would be no galaxies left”. Kathy knows better. Sorry zealots, the black hole phenomenon is nothing more than basic simplex electromagnetic theory. “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”. Mark Twain.
Hawking and Einstein are still wrong 🙂 Einstein’s Relativity Is Wrong: Abbreviated Version https://youtu.be/tbY15JskOYI via YouTube
If our universe is traveling in an element of space, that means that element of space was here before the universe, so we cannot conclude then that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Nothing ever begins to exist for the material in which it consists precedes it. Dalton’s law, atoms can neither be created nor destroyed, energy can only be changed from one form to another, the universe-energy has always been here. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” On the molecular level matter=energy and the theory of everything. Energy is what makes up particle structures and gives it properties. Energy to matter confines energy to density by exceeding its magnetic wave creating mass. The big bang was and is concentrated energy, black holes re-concentrate matter back to energy. Mass is concentrated energy. Energy equals gravity.
It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating. The Moon is escaping earth’s gravity moving away from Earth at the rate of 1.5″ per year. The earth’s geomagnetic field has been weakening losing its gravitational pull on the moon, and here we have the reason for the increasing faster rate of expansion of the universe. The increasing faster rate of expansion of the universe is not due to hypothetical theories of dark matter and dark energy but a loss in energy-mass-gravity. Mass is concentrated energy and the fundamental force of gravity.
According to general relativity-gravitational lensing (a warped field of vision in telescopes) is due to (mass) between a distant light source and the observer. If that were true earths mass would distort the light of the observer as well making telescopes unusable :-). Orbits in galaxies and solar systems are not the result of a perfect balance between the forward motion of a body in space & the pull of gravity from another body in space (orbital mechanics) as orbits always move in a clockwise-counterclockwise spiral vortex dependent on the observers location.
At the quantum level mass-singularity doesn’t exist, having an electrical charge the positive nuclei surrounded by negatively charged electrons repel, concentrated energy equals gravity-the strong force of the molecule. Dalton’s law proves the universe is intelligently designed. The hypothetical Higgs field-boson particle doesn’t exist nor does it have to, on the molecular level mass doesn’t exist. Since Hawking-Krauss universe from nothing theories are solely dependent on relativity which has been debunked, these theories are just a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations driven by ideologies. Hawking’s M theory violates the first law of thermodynamics but who cares about the laws of physics cause string theory will work for a while, till ya run outta string 🙂
Even atheist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking’s ‘no-God-needed’ theory of the universe as hardly science and not even a theory aka Hawking quackademics 🙂 https://youtu.be/Dg_95wZZFr4 via @YouTube Einstein’s Relativity Is Wrong: Abbreviated Version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbY15JskOYI&t=612s A person that lives in a box, can’t see outside of the box, for that is the paradox of a person that lives in a box. God IS The Universe and the theory of everything. Space Cat, sworn enemy of groupthink cult mentality.?
Einstein’s relativity-clock paradox debunked: The “clock paradox”, whereby a hypothetical astronaut returns from a near-light speed voyage in space to find his stay-at-home twin many years older than him (as travelling at relativistic high speeds has allowed the astronaut to experience only, say, one year of time, while ten years have elapsed on Earth). Because of the time dilation effect, a clock in the spaceship literally registers a shorter duration for the journey than the clock in mission control on Earth. That would mean all the stars, planets and galaxies positioning would have to be rearranged, moved from their original positions for the time traveler, but for the observer back on earth the stars, planets and galaxies would still be in their original positions. So according to relativity-the time traveler is creating his own energy to reposition all the stars, galaxies and planets in the universe. Einstein’s relativity-clock paradox sounds much like Scientology’s L Ron Hubbard’s secret papers from Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. Space Cat, sworn enemy of groupthink cult mentality.
What I find amusing most of all is that any of us think we will ever have the right answer. I think it’s God’s way of keeping us thinking… ( I completely admit right now, that God is a total matter of faith….so now that this is out of the way.) The real irritant however of all this is that people want to hold on to this to the point where they completely reject out of hand any other ideas, cause people to lose jobs, be failed on a grade and the many other number of things that are unfortunate results of someone having the audacity to question the status quo …. you know…. the reason we should be doing science at all…. is to question and find the TRUTH no matter where it may lead.
I agree. In the early 1970s they were promoting big bang having a frame of reference for the construction of the universe, it having a time line. Alternative theories in the textbook were then encourage, they providing a means to test theory and discover. It seems Big Bang has taken over, even though it has continually been modified to comply with observation. About 13 different versions of it were tested with a rocket beyond the solar system, with no other theory included. They dismiss the alternative theory Tired Light for anything they can come up with. I do not believe in a TOE, theory of everything. Existence along with knowing is itself a mystery.
In “The Theory of Everything” film (2014) Stephen Hawking, who made his fame by developing a mathematical formula for describing the “Big Bang Theory”, ultimately concluded that “there are no boundaries to the universe” (i.e. he ended up believing the “Stable Universe Theory”). He also created a theory (called Hawking Radiation) that black holes “evaporate and disappear” if they no long have anything to feed on. This may help explain where the hydrogen atoms come from (along with collisions of sub-atomic particles that pop into existence in every cubic centimeter of “empty space”) which eventually coalesce into the hydrogen clouds that create new stars. The Stable Universe Theory allows ample time for all this to happen.
Time is not variable.
The “c” in e=mc(squared) assumes that finite speed of 186,000 mi/sec is constant. The second is a physically measurable measure of amount of time based on the rotation rate of planet Earth. And it will probably remain that amount even if the rotation rate of planet Earth eventually slows down.
Theories that time itself varies (like the theory that a person who travels near the speed of light for what he thinks is a year and returns to earth nearly 20,000 years later) are examples that amount to an oxymoron, because they assume that time is a variable. But since time is half of the definition of the constant that we call “the speed of light”, then the speed of light would likewise be variable accordingly. This also applies to “fabric of space-time” theories. Such theories are analogies rather than scientific proofs (and not very good ones at that). What they are REALLY describing are affects of the interactions of interlocking forces of gravity created by the celestial objects (galaxies, black holes, solar systems, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, space derbies, molecules, and atoms, etc.) that light rays pass by as they travel for billions of years to reach our telescopes. Even the “prism effect” of the lenses in our telescopes slow down light rays a little (all of which help to create the “red tint” that we observe in all directions. That means that we are living in a “Stable Universe”, not an “expanding universe.” It’s the same effect that we see when we watch our atmosphere turn the color of our sun from yellow to red at sunset.
So the suns gravity pulls on the moon but the earth’s gravity pushes on the moon and the sun’s gravity only attracts the moon but not the earth, other planets, space junk and satellites? Science has become a religion having a conclusion then searching for evidence to support that conclusion. The reason the moon is escaping earth’s gravity is simple, the earth’s geomagnetic field has been weakening losing its gravitational pull on the moon, and here we have the reason for the increasing faster rate of expansion of the universe. The spiral centrifugal-centripetal force velocities of spiral galaxies & planetary orbits is said to be attributed to clouds of helium & hydrogen at the formation of the Big Bang. Wrong, the only phenomena that can create vortex dynamo convective motion are electromagnetic fields. Like the electron, it needs no hydrogen or helium to spin.
According to Einstein’s general relativity ie gravitational lensing (a warped field of vision in telescopes) is due to (matter) between a distant light source and the observer. Our understanding of gravity tells us orbits in galaxies and solar systems are the result of a perfect balance between the forward motion of a body in space and the pull of gravity on it from another body in space however, what our understanding of gravity doesn’t tell us is why orbits are not parallel or perpendicular to each other as orbits always move in a clockwise-counterclockwise spiral vortex dependent on the observers location. The force of gravity cannot determine directions of travel in orbital systems however, electromagnetic lines of force can. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear, orbits in solar systems and galaxies are following the curve of the electromagnetic field. If it were true that matter could distort light at distances then surely the earths matter would distort the light of the observer as well, only so much so it would make telescopes unusable as the earth is very close to us grin. Albert Einstein’s predictions of gravitational waves rely on the hypothetical assumption that gravitational waves exist without an explanation of how they exist. For gravitational waves to exist gravity must exist. So how can gravitational waves exist without gravity, as there is no gravity in space 🙂
If gravity attracts mass it would logically follow that gravity would be a three-dimensional density, similar to the weightlessness of an underwater diver. Houston we have a problem, according to the theory of gravity the gravitational effects we feel in one direction should cancel out the effects of the other, rendering us weightless as we would be at the center of the earth. When planets swing by other planets in orbit according to our understanding of gravity their orbiting speed should slow down, however this is not the case as their orbiting speed remains constant. If gravity is the result of a curved warped space as Albert Einstein predicted galaxies would not be perfectly symmetrical, space would be warped by heavier mass galaxies and planets throwing off orbit trajectories. All mass including the planets, sun, stars, atoms and molecules would become a singularity-solid mass. Our understanding of gravity is beyond the simpleminded, entering the realm of stupidity. At the quantum level atoms would not be able to function if ‘mass-attracts mass’ as there would be no space between particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, having an electrical charge the positive nuclei surrounded by negatively charged electrons repel, this is the fundamental force behind orbital systems of planets and galaxies If it were true that gravity ‘mass-attracts mass’ there would be no quantum world and life wouldn’t exist.
The increasing faster rate of expansion of the universe is not due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy but rather a loss in energy-gravity. The hypothetical Higgs field-bozo-boson particle doesn’t exist nor does it have to, on the molecular level mass doesn’t exist. Energy to matter confines energy to density by exceeding its magnetic wave. Energy equals gravity. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a fundamental law of science which says that matter can only be converted into other matter, so if that’s true then the energy and matter of the universe has always been here. Down here on earth we know in order to create something we must first have a place to create it, obviously the universe resides in another element of space and didn’t just magically create itself like a magic trick without the magician from nothing and nowhere. Revelation 22:13 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Space Cat, sworn enemy of groupthink cult mentality.
Sorry, there was an error of pasting the text, here are the first few lines.
The Moon is escaping earth’s gravity moving away from Earth at the rate of 1.5″ per year this phenomenon is thought to be attributed to the sun’s gravity pulling on the moon while earths tidal bulges push on the moon. This explanation is like a magic trick being performed without the magician. According to the theory of gravity the exact opposite should be taking place given enough time the moon should eventually crash into the earth like satellites and space junk, but such is not the case.
What has been curious to me is why the moon the planet Mercury have exact orbit and rotation whereby we only see half of it.
I fully agree that the “Big Bang Theory” has been thoroughly disproven in MANY ways.
Hawking criticized black hole theory according to entropy, claiming the event horizon needs to expand. Actually it does expand with more mass, but for energy conservation it still needs to emit Hawking radiation. What differs is the singularity: more mass to result in more gravity and shrinkage. Similarly, increasing speed to that of light is only possible by mass absorbing an infinite amount of it. An infinite amount of mass at zero volume space would be an infinite distance for the event horizon. How the mass can expand from the singularity is not understood. I suppose, if two singularities collided as inelastic collision to be relatively at rest, their energies could expand. It would be an extremely rare event unless space is full of them.
Calculate Hubble’s Constant simply, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations, and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology.
The reciprocal of ‘fixed’ 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years, BUT as this does not increase as time passes, it’s the Hubble distance ONLY.
The equation to perform this is :- 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec.
The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.
I also came up with values first published 6 years ago which is now the process of a rewrite: Explaining Gravity and Hubble Cosmology. My value is 70.745484 as the Hubble Constant change in speed at a distance equal to the nuclear radius of the hydrogen atom per light speed, which equals the ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic force between the proton and electron in the hydrogen atom. How does your result differ from mine?
Bobby Dee Ticer, Your calculated value of 70.745484 is so VERY close to my value of 70.98047, that we are in complete agreement, and we both are correct !!! We have used such totally different maths methods, and the tiny discrepancy will be caused by ever so slight errors of the inputted data on which our separate equations are based. All it needs is for, say, the speed of light figure to be ever so slightly wrong, and / or the nuclear radius figure ever so slightly wrong !!!!! That will account for the far less than the 1% difference!!!
We are both in much closer agreement than those that try to measure Hubble’s Constant.
I should have realised this earlier, and please email me :- evad_hine@yahoo.co.uk
These two totally different maths methods are in total agreement, and prove the big bang fake. With very kind regards, David Hine
Well written. I am impressed with the acumen, the science, and the overall presentation. I have discussed most of these and more on my site evolutioncreation.net but I must admit your presentation and graphics are far superior to my own. I personally find it irritating and disturbing that so many educators can continue to teach the big bang, or evolution, as fact, when there are so many huge holes in the theories. Then when so many insist in calling the Big Bang and Evolution “fact” and not theory, science has lost all credibility and they have entered the realm of scientism rather than objective science.
The big mistake Einstein made was assuming the universe is finite and static. When the Hubble Constant was presented, two explanations were given: Big Bang and Tired Light. Tired Light allows for an infinite universe to fade away, but it was rejected as not explaining the clarity of the distant stars. Light is also considered as a particle effect, but somehow light differs from matter in that different light can occupy the same space whereas matter cannot. There is also a problem of increasing entropy. The first and second laws of thermodynamics interrelate. Kinetic is not conserved with an increase in energy, and the fourth power law derived by Boltzmann that led to the derivation of the quantum includes an adiabatic process whereby entropy is conserved. An oven, for instance, maintains the same temperature by energy being added to it. An adiabatic process is allowed by an infinite universe and gravity as a recycling effect where the pressure from gravity creates more heat. All this is lost in the Big Bang.
Excellent comment Bobby. Big Bang scientists are living in blissful ignorance of reality and science. You can’t even call them scientists because literally they are philosophers, not scientists.
A real scientist does experiments and bases their science on the repeatable observable evidence that results. Conversely, today’s “scientists” ignore the evidence and instead cling to their unproven philosophies in spite of the evidence against their theories, hoping that one day their “science” proves their unfounded preconceptions. This makes them philosophers, not scientists.
Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being a philosopher. Even if someone’s philosophy is wrong, it is their own prerogative to choose to be a philosopher, and kudos for them for believing in things like the Big Bang in blind faith. The issue arrives with the reality that calling philosophy “science” is a serious problem and a major error, and counterinducive to everything that science stands for.
Thanks! I wonder how difficult it would be to test the premise that light can occupy the same space. There would need to be beams of light crossing in a vacuum. Although there is an interference -wave-pattern, would there be other reflective effect?
The author of this article conclusively reveals that the Big Bang Theory is simply a theory. It is also proven false based upon new findings in quantum physics. Recently, a paper was published online March 13, 2018 by Physics Essays 31, 1 (2018). This paper, titled, “Structural Relation Between the Vacuum Space and the Electron, was written by Paramahamsa Tewari, an electrical engineer, who ventured into the world of quantum physics. The paper reveals that the first fundamental particle created in our universe is the electron. It may be accessed below:
https://www.tewari.org/uploads/3/9/2/2/39220475/16tewari.pdf. For an introduction as to why “The Electron Began the Universe,” a short article is posted on the site: http://www.nicholasginex.com/2018/07/30/the-electron-began-the-universe/
FURTHER PROOF that the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid!
Ref #1: The Science Channel’s 14 May 18 Space’s Deepest Secrets 2-hour episode titled “Big Bang: The Dark Secrets”
Ref #2: The Science Channel’s Space’s Deepest Secret episode Season 2, Episode 4
For years, I have been pointing out to astrophysicists and other scientists, science channels, science organizations, and editors of science magazines how and why the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid (because it is based on invalid mathematical assumptions). But it appears that my points have been ignored. However, based on evidence recently presented in the Science Channel’s episode Ref #1a above, I shall try again.
1. Perhaps the easiest way to prove that the Big Bang Theory is invalid is as follows:
a. The Big Bang theorists have computed (according to their mathematical assumptions) that our universe was created essentially “out of nothing” 13.8 billion years ago.
b. The above Ref #1 episode points out that the oldest star scientists have been able to find so far is over 13.6 billion light years away. Dr. Stefan Keller of the Australian National University discovered this star based on elements in its light spectrum and observing that it had an incredibly low content of iron and a little bit of carbon which shows that it is at least a second generation star (created from the debris of at least one supernova before it formed). It is significant to note that (like me) Dr. Stefan Keller evidently doesn’t believe that the Big Bang Theory is valid, because his light spectrum analysis of our star (the Sun) is that it was derived from “about a thousand generations of stars before it.” The Ref #1 episode didn’t mention a name for that star, so for discussion purposes, I shall refer to it as “OldestStarSoFar.”
c. It seems to me that any astrophysicist can disprove the Big Bang Theory simply by locating any celestial object that:
1) Is in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM EARTH from the direction to earth of the OldestStarSoFar described above.
2) Is moving generally TOWARD EARTH.
3) And is at least FOUR BILLION light years away from earth.
d. That would mean that OldestStarSoFar would be at least 17.6 billion light years away from the celestial object that meets the three criteria described above. How could that be possible if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old as the Big Bang theorists claim?
2. A far simpler explanation for what our astrophysicists have been observing (one which does NOT require hypothesizing violations of the presently known laws of physics) is that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. If so, then
1) It appears to me that so-called “dark matter” (estimated by Cosmologist Risa Wechsler to be 85% of the universe) is simply comprised of:
a) BURNED OUT celestial objects (stars, galaxies, black holes, neutron stars, super-nova debris, gas clouds, etc.) that are up to “infinitely old” and haven’t completely dissolved yet, AND
b) Probably trillions of stars and galaxies that we can’t see at this time, because sometime along the multi-billion-light-year stream of light coming from them toward our solar system got broken for a while (i.e. “eclipsed” for a million years or so (one-or-more times)) by other celestial objects that passed between them and our solar system since that light stream was originated. If we are in one of those gaps in that light stream, we may not be able to “see” the celestial object that created that stream of light, but we CAN observe the effects of its gravitational and electromagnetic forces. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) scheduled for launch in 2022 (which will use outer space “lens effects” to identify “large dark matter concentrations”) might be able to help us quantify how often this is happening and how much this is contributing to our “dark matter” calculations. It may also help to identify to what extent “burned out” celestial objects are contributing to our “dark matter” calculations.
c) This is an explanation that is simpler and makes far more sense than a Big Bang theorist hypothesis that such dark matter “has been lurking in the universe since the dawn of time” or that it may be “stuff that is passing through our finger nails, but we don’t notice it!” Both explanations were suggested in Ref #1
2) The concept of “dark energy” would likely no longer be needed, because (as I will explain below) the universe isn’t really expanding in general. However, it is possible that some of the celestial objects that we can already see are being pulled by the gravitational forces of other celestial objects that are so much further away that we can’t yet see them with our present technology.
3) The Ref #2 episode points out that spiral galaxies like our Milky Way spin in a manner unlike our solar system. It is obvious to me that this is because (unlike our solar system) the three-dimensional INTERLOCKING gravitational forces of the “dark matter” in those galaxies is holding it all together just as the flexible silk threads woven into a scarf can hold things together in a fairly consistent shape.
4) The reason that there are so many “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy is because according to the Ref #1 episode, “red dwarf” stars can “last a trillion years.” It is estimated that as many as three fourths of the presently observable stars in our Milky Way are “red dwarf” stars, so it is likely that most of “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy are FAR older than a mere 13.8 billion years. Perhaps because I have always been highly skeptical about the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it appears to me that our Milky Way Galaxy is at least one order of magnitude OLDER than 13.8 billion years. If you view our Milky Way galaxy this way, you will find that ALL of the phenomena that our astrophysicists have been observing about our Milky Way galaxy make FAR MORE SENSE than if one views the Milky Way galaxy in the context of the Big Bang Theory (which leaves so many perceptual puzzles unanswered).
5) According to the Ref #2 episode, astrophysicists have discovered an ancient galaxy which they call “Dragon 44” that is as massive as our Milky Way galaxy, but it emits very little light. This appears to me to be an example of an almost completely burned out galaxy with perhaps only few (trillion-year-old?) “red dwarf” stars remaining. So it appears to me that the Dragon 44 galaxy could be over a trillion years old! In any case, the existence of the Dragon 44 galaxy is another pretty much irrefutable PROOF that the Big Bang Theory is invalid.
6) The speed of light is a ratio (186,000 miles/second = space/time) which is generally assumed to be constant (except by some Big Bang theorists who have hypothesized exceptions to the 186,000 miles/second speed limit in order to explain why their physical observations don’t “add up” to fit within the 16.8 billion-year timeframe of the Big Bang Theory). Anyhow, the idea that the speed of light (within a vacuum) is constant in Einstein’s E=m(c squared) equation is that if an object is traveling at less than the vacuum “speed of light”, then it must acquire at least some of the properties of matter. Indeed, astrophysicists have observed that visible light rays really do “bend” when passing a massively heavy object like a black hole. This means that visible light rays (like matter) REALLY ARE affected by the force of gravity. Furthermore, observations that the visible displays of supernovas are briefly preceded with neutrino waves indicate that those neutrino waves are traveling through space at a slightly higher speed than visible light rays (because neutrinos aren’t affected by electromagnetic forces).
a) In the first half of the Ref #1 episode, the narrator says “The Big Bang kick started the expansion of the universe. Since that moment, space itself is stretching further and further apart.” This statement was followed by a statement by Astrophysicist Amber Straughn that “the light from the universe is literally stretched.” She goes on to explain that “light from so far away objects has been stretched for so long that the light has become redder than the eye can see and has been shifted all the way to infrared.” Those observations by Amber and the narrator are correct, but their explanations for why that is happening are evidently wrong. It appears to me that it would be FAR more realistic (and simpler) to assume that the light rays that we are observing from OldestStarSoFar have been slowed down by the cumulative forces of gravity and electromagnetic fields encountered while passing through a “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” which are far from being “perfect vacuums”, because they contain light rays from all over the observable universe as well as (in many cases) weak gravitational and electromagnetic forces, neutrino and gamma waves, space debris, hydrogen atoms, etc. Also keep in mind that during the 13.6 billion year trip which the light rays from OldestStarSoFar traveled to reach us, many types of celestial objects may have passed by NEAR the path of those light rays thereby increasing their influence on those light rays. So each cubic meter of “outer space” exerts a weak “prism effect” on light rays that pass through it, and the cumulative effect when passing through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” can be significant.
b) So the “red tint effect in all directions” which our Big Bang theorists have claimed is proof that the universe is “expanding in all directions” can be more simply (and I believe more accurately) explained as being this gravitational “prism effect” that “gazillions” cubic meters of “outer space” cumulatively have on the light that is passing through all of them. This criticism also applies to Professor Saul Perlmutter’s conclusion that the universe is “expanding at an accelerating rate”, because he apparently assumed that the speed of light remains constant as it travels through “outer space”, but for the reasons described above, the speed of light actually slows down a bit as it travels through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space.” If our scientists have light sensors that are sensitive enough, they might be able to create outer space cubic-meter simulators that will measure to what degree exterior gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, neutrino waves, gamma rays and light rays from all directions, hydrogen atoms, space debris, etc. have on precisely measured light rays passing through various examples of near-perfect-vacuum cubic-meter containers.
c) It is important to note at this point that the slowing-down-effect that a stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” has on light rays ALSO slows down everything else that is passing through that stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” (although perhaps not at the same rate). This includes radio/microwaves, electromagnetic waves, neutrino waves, “gravitational waves”, etc. That stream might even “slow down time itself”, although that might just be a perspective illusion.
d) Furthermore, if our universe is “expanding in all directions” as our Big Bang theorists claim to be happening, then how come we’ve seen so many photographs of different galaxies colliding with each other! That couldn’t happen if that claim was true. Furthermore, astrophysicists are also claiming that our own Milky Way galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. This was my first observation that convinced me (decades ago) that the Big Bang Theory cannot possibly be valid.
7) Also, the Big Bang theorists’ claim that the radio/microwaves from all directions that show up on our TV screens when we select a non-existent channel are “echoes of the Big Bang.” This explanation is dubious, because this observable phenomenon can be more simply explained as being merely jumbled up radio/microwaves from celestial sources that are too far away to be distinctly identified by our present radio/microwave telescopes. It’s kind of like the overlapping broadcasts you hear as you “lose your channel” while driving beyond the effective range of the radio station that your car radio was tuned to. Besides, if they were really “echoes of the Big Bang”, they would have passed by us by now, rather than apparently “continuing forever” as shown in the “cosmic microwave background chart” that supposedly goes back to 400,000 years after the Big Bang. If the “echoes of the Big Bang” theory were true, then it appears to me that by now our radio/microwave (direction finding) telescope projects would have been able to determine the spot in our universe where those radio/microwaves originated, and they would be able to distinguish between original radio/microwaves and echoed radio/microwaves.
8) The Ref #2 episode also shows that astrophysicists have discovered “super massive black holes” that are 13 billion years old. If the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, then how can “super massive black holes” form during the 800,000 years since the Big Bang? To try and explain this, Big Bang theorists have invented a hypothesis that the first stars must have been “super massive blue hydrogen stars” (no such stars can presently been observed) which grew fast and then blew up as “hyper-novas” in a “few million years.” This still didn’t credibly explain how super-massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. Later on, they hypothesized that perhaps some of those super massive blue hydrogen stars simply “collapsed directly into a black hole”(which may violate our presently known laws of physics) “and then gobbled up other black holes”, but even that doesn’t satisfactorily explain how super massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. It takes a lot of time for a black hole to “gobble up” another black hole (without exploding), because they tend to spin around each other for quite a while as they approach each other. Our Big Bang theorists seem to be “scrambling around” to dream up hypotheses that violate the known laws of physics in order to explain what they have been observing in a way that conforms to the Big Bang Theory! This itself is symptomatic of a popular theory on the verge of collapse! I figure it will just be a matter of time before improvements in our technology will begin to reveal (directly) that there are MANY celestial objects in “outer space” that are far older (and/or farther away) than 13.8 billion years.
9) The second hour of the Ref #1 episode describes how the Hubble telescope was programmed to observe a specific point the universe for 100 hours (it required 650 orbits) in order to identify the oldest galaxies that the Hubble telescope could see. The last photo (farthest photo) showed that there were LOTS of galaxies in that particular tiny portion of the universe over 13 billion years ago. How can we reasonably assume that so many galaxies could have formed in that very tiny portion of the universe in less than 800,000 years after the Big Bang?
10) Astronomer Michelle Thaller says that “Initially, the universe was unimaginably hot and dense, so much so that our laws of physics don’t apply.” This appears to me to be an example of carrying an invalid mathematical model to a ridiculous extreme. Theories that violate our presently known laws of physics should be viewed as a potential “red flag” as far as validity is concerned. The same can be said regarding the narrator’s comment that “’Inflation’ is science’s best explanation for how our cosmos formed. The entire universe would begin stuffed into an infinitesimally small space and expand faster than the speed of light.”
3. In the Ref #1 episode, Cosmologist Risa Wechsler explained that she was using a supercomputer to test mathematical models of the “creation of the universe since the Big Bang” and to “trace the evolution of the universe back to the Big Bang.” This is what convinced me to write and “publish” this new rebuttal of the Big Bang Theory, because it appears that our scientists aren’t even bothering to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory itself. It is, after all, just a theory (i.e. an hypothesis). She should ALSO be testing mathematical models of the universe based on the assumptions that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. Since the term “infinitely” is a concept rather than a number, I suggest that she use the largest number that her supercomputer can store as a number to simulate infinity.
4. Two widely accepted “pillars of the scientific method” are:
1) Karl Popper’s “empirical falsification” technique that is “ if you can find an exception to an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is invalid” and
2) The “Law of Parsimony” principle (a.k.a “Occam’s razor”) that is that “the simplest hypothesis (i. e. the hypothesis that has the least number of assumptions) for accurately explaining what is physically observed is the best hypothesis.
5. So it appears to me that many of our astrophysicists have NOT been following those two basic principles of the scientific method. Essentially, what I am asking them to do is to FOLLOW those two fundamental principles of the scientific method!
CONCLUSIONS: Our astrophysicists have been so enamored with the Big Bang Theory that they are no longer asking the right questions. This is a violation of the scientific method!
RECOMMENDATION: Our astrophysicists should also be questioning the Big Bang Theory itself. Please forward copies of this document to scientists and scientific organizations who SHOULD be concerned about this.
Thanks,
Feel free to publish the above (and the post script which follows) or to use these points in your own articles
Christopher C. Currie, Master of Science, Information and Computer Sciences, Georgia Tech
161 Lake Shore Drive, Pascoag, RI 02859 401-568-8266
PS: Last night (21 May 18), a 2-hour episode of Space’s Deepest Secrets titled “Secrets of Alien Universes” aired which included the following observations:
1) The first hour describes an interesting discussion of the issues involved in attempts to create a “time travel machine.” Among other things, it points out that the forces through which a vehicle travels while orbiting the earth (at a very high speed) actually slows down the clocks that are in those vehicles. In order to remain accurate, our GPS satellites have to apply a “fudge factor” in their computations to offset this predictable phenomenon.
2) The second hour discusses various efforts to apply “quantum mechanics” equations to celestial objects and the universe. To begin with, it is important to realize that quantum mechanics is essentially a statistical approach (as far as measuring goes) for describing the universe. For example, for the sake of measurement and mathematical manipulations, light rays are parsed into digital “photons” which has proven to be a useful technique for many practical purposes. However, it appears to me that the quantum-mechanics-based claims that tiny objects can “exist it two places at the same time” merely means that the slices of time during which those measurements were taken were NOT small enough and/or coordinated enough to uniquely isolate such tiny, rapidly moving wave-parsed “particles” (i.e. the “shutter speed” wasn’t quick enough). Or perhaps the techniques used for identifying such particles weren’t fine enough to uniquely identify such particles as being the same wave-parsed “particle” in each case. In other words, it appears to me that the results that they are getting are sometimes more a function of the method that they have chosen parse waves rather than actually identifying “the same object in two places at the same time.”
3) Anyhow, in the second hour the cosmologist Prof. Mac Tegmark of MIT says the “We don’t have a shred of evidence that the universe ends here” (beyond what we can see). That’s great! But then the narrator explains that Max believes that there is an infinite number of “other” universes “each containing the same finite number of atoms.” WOW! He gets it right, but then falls back to putting his faith in the Big Bang Theory. Then the rest of the second hour describes a variety of different theories as to what the characteristics of such a “multiverse” would be. This appears to me to be examples of carrying the mathematical equations of Quantum Theory to a ridiculous extreme.
ccc
PS2: As far as I know, our scientists have NOT been able to credibly demonstrate that ANYTHING can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. So the “inflation theory” excuse (that our universe initially expanded many times faster than the speed of light) dreamed up by Big Bang theorists to explain away the proof that the Big Bang Theory is invalid (i.e. paragraph 1 in the article above) is no more valid than a claim that “A fairy godmother did it with her magic wand.” The failure of our scientific community to insist that Big Bang theorists stick to the scientific method is DISGRACEFUL!
ccc
I liked your post but not being a scientist at all but still wanting to grasp a concept…when you mention the bending of light due to gravity, is that what is happening or is gravitational interference with time the thing that is causing light to appear to bend when it is really just going through a local time phenomena? Perhaps I explained what I meant badly or just don’t know enough….
Do people really believe this BB stuff? Like a fairy tail or historical fiction.:)
This isn’t a critique, I was just wondering, uneducated as I am in this field, why, for the BB theory to work, dark matter would have to be so abundant?
Great article btw, it’s a shame so many people believe this without examining the evidence, probably due to it being posited so frequently and vehemently in the news/media.
The Big Bang theory is false by just applying common sense and a philosophical approach. From a common sense point of view, to believe the BB began with an explosion to expel matter and energy to populate the universe is nonsense. It would mean that an infinite amount of particles had to come together through gravity to form a very, very big ball. But we know today that the heat and pressure of such a process would cause instability caused by high levels of heat and pressure that will then emit matter and energy back out into the universe as it does for pulsars, quasars, and black holes. Stars will explode when they get too large and dense due to gravitational pressures and heat. It becomes obvious that matter, gases, and energy expelled back into the universe will cause the formation of clouds that will then give birth to new stars as proven by astronomers. Therefore, the universe has reached a point whereby it is self-staining.
From a Ginex philosophical point of view, “Everything has a beginning including the universe.” Quantum mechanics indicate that atoms are formed through the interaction of particles and they then develop inorganic matter which, after forming stars, are able to form organic matter on planets that revolve around the star if conditions for life exist, such as water and heat.
The Big Bang Theory states that it was an expansion of matter and energy. A problem exists within the theory’s definitions and explanation.
I agreed with everything else and think you did a very good job on the article.
Anyone with an open mind that puts aside BB indoctrination and reads its fantastical theories, would have to chuckle at the anti-scientific gibberish that in reality is a worse offender of the supernatural than any religion. At least religion is coherent and orderly and has steps that can be followed if one believes the primal ideas: primordial, omnipresent and omnipotent; the last attribute distinguishes religion from one other competitive idea of the cosmos– a specific cosmological energy.
The scientists of the 1800’s were unsatisfied with vitalism and the aether since although they did have coherence and some observability, they could not be objectified and verified. Thus out of desperation and due to the Age of Enlightenment, God was abandoned for their own mechanistic god: Machines are powered by man-made energy, have parts that are replaceable, and always work the same way without any “mystery”. This combined with the golden idol of Einstein’s Relativity theories, forced the highly learned PhD’s to manufacture a theory about the cosmos which necessities two components: there is nothing in space nor can anything travel faster than light. And manufactured they did as they kept adding variables, constants and exceptions as this article points out. Mostly nonsense and non-verifiable except in a university where under threat, it is taken for granted.
OK, so if its not the BB or God that created the cosmos and everything in it, what is the third postulate? Nature functions within the laws of cosmic energy, which has order, is self-organizing, evolves and creates material matter. Thus it goes against the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is not a machine but functional. A mammal is highly organized from a single cell, and the fact that is dies and decomposes does not change this anti-entropy. It also loses energy as it is dying and dead. Further, the stars are also organized from cosmic energy streams and live for billions of years before disintegrating; one would not eliminate the observable order just because material objects cannot sustain themselves forever. Are we to be nihilists?
This energy, called at various times, aether, prana, spirit, elan vital, chi, has been scientifically rediscovered as orgone. It is measurable with a thermometer, electroscope, spectroscope and “gravity”; it is observable in air and vacuum, and in living organisms. It is blue, massless but affected by mass, everywhere and in motion. I won’t try to prove this here since there is adequate writing on this subject, but please don’t look in Wikipedia and other skeptical sites or “orgonite” hucksters.
In observing Hubble’s photographs of the universe, there is always a spiral like-form in all the stages of a universe and even in some planets’ atmospheres (Jupiter). The spiral is how orgone moves and concurrently creates matter in the center-which is always elliptical or egg-shaped. All biology has the egg-form, and as it is said in the Bible, we come from God. God is really an anthropomorphization of the cosmic energy because as stated in the opening, both are primordial, omnipresent, but not equally omnipotent. In God’s view, he is a sentient being that made everything and sees all. In orgone, the energy is not a “being” with a consciousness, but just is and over eons creates things through merging with each other.
Since the beginning, man has always been curious about nature and his place within it. The early man felt the spiral move within and understood intuitively he was a child of the cosmos. In the Church, we are children of God, including his “fatherly” protection. The early man believed in animism (nature had a spirit to communicate with), since he felt the spirit, while communicate more from our “head” and make our god in our image. Animist feared crossing the spirit the wrong way—which meant doing something unnatural or destructive; we also fear God and his laws of morality, which tell us to behave properly.
In summary, one can believe in either God or orgone, since they are both based on the perception of an all-pervasive, unifying and supra-individual force. True science, as in the past, is not anti-God.
Interesting post. Thank you for sharing. Side note- the aether does exist and it has been proven multiple times.
The Big Bang is all opinion, and viewed from the standpoint of working assumptions that are proclaimed to be fact. Perhaps within the confines of a particular view of the way the universe works, they are workable assumptions. But then we come to conundrums, which don’t fit that pattern. It may well, however, be inconsistent with assumptions about the Big Bang, or about the way other things work. I am not defending the Big Bang; I am defending the flaw in any absolute belief in a “law” that may be a convenient shorthand by which to deal with a phenomenon in one set of circumstances, but which is not a law in another set – ergo, just a notion, or limited in its scope of applicability. Syllogisms proceed from assumptions. When they don’t work out, question the assumptions. The notion of speed, for example, is distance over time. At the speed of light, time changes – it loses its universality. What does that do to the notion of speed?
See YouTube for, Thunderboltsproject. The Universe is electric, a force billions of times stronger than gravity. The gravity model is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA&t=66s
The Eu guys had predicted that when we visit comets, we will find that they are rocky objects just like any other asteroid. Comets are not dirty snowballs, nor are they icy dirtballs. Comet 67P has mile high cliff faces, sand dunes, massive boulders ans is double lobed.
See the sidebar in the link provided and prepare to be amazed. The make a very good argument with experimental data. The effects and behavior of electricity is scalable from the tiniest to the cosmological.
Great article. I have, personally, never accepted the Big Bang Theory as a fact for the origin of the universe. I never knew there were these many scientific flaws within. This is very enligtening. Thanks.
Where and how did all these laws “arise”? As others have pointed out, Newton’s laws of motion will predict the velocity and direction of a snooker ball struck by a que. But these laws by themselves never have, or could, move a snooker ball one millimeter across a table. It requires an external input of energy, and where did this come from?
All the unfounded theories of modern science derived from the Copernican Principle (from Nicolaus Copernicus) which is the idea that “we are not special in the universe”. All other false pseudo-scientific theories stemmed from this polarize anti-God atheistic view which refuses to accept any theory which does not line up with the unfounded premise that there is no God. Thus, the plethora of unfounded theories that we have today which don’t line up with true science.
Unfortunately for the Copernican Principle, numerous scientific evidence and especially recent modern true scientific breakthroughs (such as the heat map of the universe) indeed indicate that we are special in the universe, and thus the entire premise of the Copernican Principle is utterly fallacious; and therefore every theory which stems from it is also unfounded.
All of this is great, but the Laws of Thermodynamics were not discovered by Newton.
True story.
Great article. I think the BB theory is flawed because you always come back to the problem of what was there before. I think the issue of infinity and our struggle to understand it is part of the discussion.
BUT maybe we are capable of understanding infinity. We are only tapping a small part of our brain scientists say. If someone can ever use all of their brain, maybe that person will understand issues such as infinity and the universe.
I was a friend of John Dobson… the man behind the dobsonian telescopes (google it). We had great discussions both philosophical and scientific. Neither of us believed (he’s since passed away) in the Big Bang theory. His retort was always … “You can’t make something out of nothing”. Works for me :o)
The existence of the Eridanus supervoid which is 1.8 billion light years wide cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. Eridanus supervoid creates a huge hole to the Big Bang theory.
It’s ironic that a huge hole [in space] creates a huge hole in the theory. 🙂
The flatness problem as I see it, as with regard to homogeneity and isotropy of the cosmological principle, is spacetime curvature should decrease as the universe expands. I also found fault in the brightness test, distinguishing it from tired light, in the intensity of light decreasing because of recession between signals is nullified by seeing a denser past according to the same recessional speed. I also find the clarity of the distant stars can be explained in analogy to magnets being divisible such that they can be amplified by energy to pass through cables and whatnot to reach countless observers. I thus favor tired light whereby a decrease in energy can explain gravity as a long range vacuum effect.
Nice presentation. All spontaneous processes take place with an increase in entropy. Formation of planets and stars from randomly moving particles which arise from the Big Bang would be a process where the entropy decreases. Hence it cannot happen spontaneously.
Great point, Gordon, thank you for your input. I agree, in order for disorder to move to order, entropy must decrease – that is, things must become more ordered, not less. This is in diametric opposition to the most fundamental principles of science that not only state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed but also states that everything that occurs spontaneously results in greater entropy, not less.
Good article that needs to be widely read IMO. I will address your criticisms of the Big Bang (BB) model in detail.
I wrote a paper on it if links can be accepted in this format, on this blog. One way or the other here are my comments.
10) Magnetic Monopole problem.
Yes, the magnetic monopole is certainly a prediction of the model that has not been observed and generally does not make sense outside this model.
9) The flatness problem.
This is an obvious problem with the BB model as well as General Relativity (GR) IMO. The standard retort is that the universe could be curved at much larger scales than can be observed, or that a completely flat universe does not violate GR.
Both these statements are true but IMO the first retort is highly unlikely and the second covers all bases so for this reason alone GR cannot be disproved.
8) The flatness problem.
This also is obviously a flaw in the theory. This flaw can accordingly be corrected by the “imaginary” physics of the Inflation model. If this is true then seemingly any problem with any model most likely can be corrected by imaginary physics. This is not science. At best it is an ad hoc hypothesis that is needed to keep the ball rolling since there are no other consensus-recognized alternatives.
7) Lack of universal galactic uniformity.
Yes, truly a BB problem but said to not be a problem with the “imaginary” physics of the Inflation model, whatever value that may have.
6) Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The fact that both have been adopted by the BB model, now called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, is a big problem as long as neither have been observed to date. There will always be speculations and claims of discovery, but IMO none will ever pan out.
This is not just a BB problem but a problem with any model than adopt these entities as being valid, or any other models that cannot better-explain what has been observed in regard to both.
5) Inflation theory violates General Relativity.
This is not necessarily a problem with the BB model for two reasons. The first reason is that the imaginary physics of Inflation can explain what is observed without violating GR, And the second reason is that GR by this statement is assumed to be valid whereby the equations of GR (as well as Newtonian physics) are also totally dependent on the existence of dark matter for it to be valid at galactic scales. This is also true for Einstein’s cosmic, universe equations if dark matter is not a valid entity.
4) The BB model violates Newton’s Second Law of thermodynamics.
This criticism would be valid if the universe were a closed system, but it appears that the universe is flat and open. So if the universe is flat and open at the largest scales, which it appears to be, then thermodynamics does not apply and this criticism is not necessarily valid.
3) The BB model violates Newton’s Second Law of thermodynamics.
Again thermodynamics relates to a closed system such as a steam engine. In an open universe such laws do not necessarily apply.
2) Static Universe models fit the observation data better than an expanding universe model.
Yes, IMO this is absolutely a true statement but most practitioners would disagree with this statement. IMO this is because observation data can be interpreted differently and made to fit almost any model.
1) The horizon problem.
This also relates to the age problem of the BB model as explained above. This has been a long standing problem with the model which is asserted to be explained by the “imaginary”/ hypothetical physics of Inflation. There are still stars in our own galaxy that are asserted by some practitioners, to be older that the Big Bang itself, which of course is impossible.
How long will it take for the model to fall? It probably will not be discarded regardless of observation data because it is so deeply entrenched, and most funding by practitioners is predicated upon the model and its related implications. If observations continue to contradict aspects of the model, alternatives will continue to be considered as well as new ones proposed until the tide will eventually turn.
At that time I expect that most of today’s die-hard adherents will have passed away.
As Max Plank said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (the new “truth).”
https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf (link to my related paper)
Thanks for the great article, I really enjoyed reading it. I have some questions though, most of your arguments are based on the laws of physics as we know it. However these laws of physics are discovered, or invented on Earth itself. Wouldn’t it be possible for these laws to actually act differently in the outer space than it is on earth? I mean we only knew that moon has a different gravity on earth as when we observe them, not after Newton discovered a falling apple. Who knows how the universe works?
P.S.: I’m not supporting Big Bang either.
Hi Harry, the laws of physics are constant, they never change. It would not be possible for the laws to act differently outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The moon does not have different gravity than Earth. What it has is a different atmosphere. This lack of atmosphere prevents people from being pushed down like they are on Earth which has as atmosphere miles high.
Or like I often state: the inverse square law in relation to light expanding into the universe shows that when they measure this light expanding into the universe, it’s the light expanding, INTO the universe. But through the big bang theory, they misinterpret this information and say that it is the universe that is expanding because they measure light expanding into the universe.
That’s like saying that since you can measure a baseball being hit out of the stadium at a baseball game that the measurement of the ball flying through the air proves that the universe is expanding….
Interesting, and yes I tend to agree with you.
Wouldn’t it be better for science to admit that we don’t know, instead of teaching kids at schools about hypothetical explanations (not mentioning that ‘hypothetical’ part)?
I think article is very good, only thing, entropy is mentioned in second Law of Thermodynamics (not third). And second; Second law of thermodynamics does allow entropy to decrease ! Remember, these laws talk only about isolated systems.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamicsGravitational systemsIn systems that do not require for their descriptions the general theory of relativity, bodies always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time. This is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important and the general theory of relativity is required. Such systems can spontaneously change towards uneven spread of mass and energy. This applies to the universe in large scale, and consequently it may be difficult or impossible to apply the second law to it.I hope you are not saying that stars and galaxies do not exist at all, because it is hard to apply second law of thermodynamics onto them?
You’re right about it being the second law not the third, fixed. However, entropy by definition means that things will always move toward disorder. Whether entropy itself is increasing or decreasing is irrelevant because entropy always means things are moving toward disorder. Sometimes there may be less entropy than other times, yes, but there will always be entropy, which means that everything will always move toward disorder, this is a law of the universe.
A good analogy would be food spoilage. Yes, you can decrease the rate of entropy regarding food spoilage by freezing it, but you can’t ever reverse the entropy. For example, it doesn’t matter how cold you freeze food, it will never become *more* fresh, it will *always* become less fresh. Even if you could reach the theoretical absolute zero, it would only freeze entropy to a standstill, but could never reverse entropy. If you could freeze food to absolute zero, it would stop it from spoiling, but would never be able to reverse spoilage.
Entropy can be slowed, but never reversed. The rate of entropy can decrease, but it can never reverse. Thus, the rate of entropy is irrelevant to the primary point, since the point is that entropy exists and always exists. Whether entropy is occurring faster or slower doesn’t change the fact that entropy is happening.
I agree that the Big Bang theory has its flaws and is mostly based on assumptions, made up physics, and the like.
Great presentation.
Theorist never considered basic physics and how potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
Motion never entered their calculus.
Yes as up to today science and understanding of it sure can explain a lot of stuff and even prove it but the very existence of time space and gravity within the universe, trying scientifically to explain it is a huge and even impossible piece of work that could employ entire human generations. Or it could be so simple that we cannot see it yet! Science is all about the truth whatever that may be but theory not proven yet is only theory, nothing less and nothing more!
We can get help in near future by AI artificial intelligence. The solutions of that problem may be closer than we believe today. It’s also possible that Newton’s Third Law of Thermodynamics stands, but we do not recognize some state of energy yet, there is a lot to explain out there so people help them self with theories and presumptions.
We know for sure that space between galaxies is increasing and the universe is expanding at constant rate. We should rather stick to the proven facts rather than pushing non-proven theory as only true one. The nature of science is to question everything, as this pushes science forward and this is the very nature of science!
There is a lot to explain out there, it seems to me like a never ending job! Great article, I only knew about a few of flaws regarding the Big Bang that were questioned by very researchers of Big Bang theory. We just do not understand the universe and we are at very beginning on that journey. A theory is only a theory until proven and there is a lot to prove out there! We will live and see!
Here is one simple possibility. One all-powerful and eternal intelligent being who always existed designed and created the universe.
I have never understood this “the universe is expanding outwards”. That implies a “centre” of the universe, which must be increasingly empty… is there such a centre? Has it been found?
If not, *why not*??
Thank you for being unbiased and supporting both sides of the arguments. I understand your beliefs, and it’s clear you have absolute proof that the scientific community is running a huge scam.
Nice article! I agree it is very interesting how so many people believe this “Theory” with so much conviction, even trying to disprove god, yet is so far from a fact and has so many extreme and notable flaws.