Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The Big Bang Is Wrong

The " theory " ( in quotation marks because it is not scientific, and therefore not a theory ) which is now known as the Big Bang was formulated by a Jesuit priest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang ) , specifically to accommodate the Creation-ism of Christianity.

It is wrong, and the universe is not expanding.

2 Options, No Power

The Matrix likes to set up 2 options, and pretend they are the only 2 options; if you accept this premise, and if you can be convinced ( " prove " ) that 1 of the options is incorrect, then you have to accept the other option. This is how mainstream politics works, for example.

This was done with cosmology in the 20th century. The 2 options were the " Steady State " theory ( taken to mean the universe is unchanging ) and the " Big Bang " theory. Evidence that the universe has undergone some changes " disproved " the Steady State Theory, so the Big Bang was " proven " the right 1.

Unfortunately for them, the evidence contradicting the Big Bang theory has been increasing for decades. Unfortunately for us, the Culture of Obedience has produced a group of cosmologists who accept the 2 option set-up, and so react to this evidence by trying to make it fit the Big Bang model ( to this end, they just keep making up more mystical gibberish - 1st it was neutrinos, now it is the mysterious " dark matter " ).

What Is Energy?

Energy is the capacity to do work, or the capacity of a system to change state. It is a property of matter.

A wave of energy is a disturbance of a medium that propagates through that medium in the form of a wave; if there is no medium, what is waving ?

The Red Shift

From " Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy ", by Donald Hotson http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf A lot of it is wrong ( esp. the use of " must be " ), and the conclusions are not quite correct, but the following section is spot on.

" Among the characteristics of real waves in real physical media is friction. However efficient the transmission, some energy must be lost in the process. This is a characteristic of all real waves, and is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One way of expressing the Second Law is that any transformation of energy must entail a loss of energy... So natural is this expectation that, in 1921, the German physicist Walther von Nernst predicted that light from distant sources would be found to have lost energy in transmission (von Nernst, 1921). Then, later in the decade, Edwin Hubble (1929) published a finding showing exactly that. The characteristic spectrographic emission lines of light from distant galaxies, he showed, are shifted into the red end of the spectrum, indicating a loss of energy apparently proportional to the distance the signal has traveled, thus exactly fulfilling the Second Law and von Nernst’s prediction ... Nothing could be more normal and natural, and consistent with the laws and eternal verities of physics, than that light, like every other real signal, should lose energy in transmission over long distances. That the measured loss of energy is proportional to the distance traveled is direct evidence that light is a real signal in a real medium that obeys the Second Law. This interpretation is further supported by von Nernst’s valid, a priori scientific prediction, which was fulfilled by Hubble’s findings. But will you find this logical chain of events, including this fulfilled scientific prediction, mentioned in any mainstream treatment of the red shift? Not a chance. This is because this natural frictional loss of energy was somehow interpreted as a Doppler shift, supposedly indicating that everything in the universe is rushing madly away from us in every direction at velocities approaching light speed. " [ emphasis added ]

So, the very evidence that you have been told proves the Big Bang actually proves the existence of the aether, and that the universe is not expanding.

The Dreaded Aether

The essence of Science is to find out what actually exists; the Scientific Method, therefore, consists of testing ideas against Reality to find out whether they are true or not.

Th aether is " a fluid in order to fill space, millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves, massless, completely transparent, non-dispersive, incrompessible, continuous, and without viscosity. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

This is what Reality has turned out to be. Don't like it? Too bad.

Michelson-Morley

The Michelson-Morley Experiment is claimed to have tested the aether, and disproven it. Both are untrue. The MM tested the hypothesized aether wind, and they ( and all subsequent replications and modifications ) performed the test only on Earth. The MM proved that the aether wind is not detectable on the surface of this planet; la dee da.

An Electric Universe

The Standard Model ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model ) tries to explain the whole universe with just gravity; the plasma cosmologists ( e.g. Eric Lerner & Hannes Alfven ) and electric universe-ists keep trying to do away with gravity altogether ( much like the SM'ers tried to do to the aether ).

Try these links for more info on Electric Universe:
http://www.thunderbolts.info
http://www.dragonscience.com/
http://www.kronia.com/

The 3 Fundamental Forces

The Standard Model says there are 4 Fundamental Forces, and now they even want to change it to " Interactions " ( taking after their prototype, Einstein, they don't like the idea of a " Force " ). Recent evidence, however, has shown the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces are explainable as effects of Electromagnetism, and therefore are secondary, not fundamental, forces. So we are left with only Electromagnetism and Gravity, which they are now trying to combine into 1. To do this, they are trying to combine Quantum Mechanics & Relativity, which is why they cannot do it ( see " Einstein Was Wrong " & " Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong " March 2005 ).

In Reality, the 3 Fundamental Forces are Gravity, Levity, and Electromagnetism ( which is why Adam McLean's Alchemy website is at http://levity.com/alchemy/ ). Gravity and Levity balance each other ( which is why we are neither crushed nor fly off the Earth into space ), and Electricity and Magnetism balance each other ( perpendicular-wise ); the 2 pairs, in turn, balance each other. This is why both the Standard Model's denial of Electromagnetism's role in the cosmos and the plasma/electric partisans' denial of gravity are wrong.

As usual, 1 side has half the truth and half the lie, and The Other Side has the other half of the truth and the other half of the lie.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Einstein Was Wrong

Albert Einstein: Eccentric Genius, or Agent of The Matrix?

Background

He failed math, couldn't get a position as a teacher ( because everyone found him irritating ), treated his 1st wife like dirt, divorced her, married again, treated her like dirt too. Einstein considered himself a pacifist and a humanitarian; in reality, he was a supporter of Zionism.

Mission

Destroy the aether.

Step 1: Establish Credibility

Einstein 1st published papers on " Brownian Motion " ( proving the existence of atoms ) and " The Photoelectric Effect " ( explaining the " black-body radiation " by hypothesizing the quantization of light ); these were good science, establishing some credibility for Einstein.

Step 2: Special Relativity

In 1905, he published the Special Theory of Relativity, which is based on the speed of light in a vacuum. Since there's no such thing as a vacuum ( the aether is the medium through which the disturbance propagates ), Special Relativity is wrong. This is why Einstein was subjected to ridicule and scorn by the real scientists of the day when he 1st published this - not because his " theory " was so advanced, but because it doesn't make any sense; it's gibberish.

Those who were willing to pretend that it made sense were rewarded with funding and titles; those who did not were ( and are ) dismissed and ridiculed as " cranks ". From Wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein
" In Einstein's view, many of them simply could not understand the mathematics involved. " This is a typical reaction of the psychopath to anyone who dares to call him on his lie; I'm only surprised he didn't tell them to " go see a psychiatrist ".

( Note: French astronomer Camille Flammarion, in his novel Lumen, had described riding a beam of light, and what that would look like to the rider - it was 1st published in 1872.)

Bell's Theorem also " proves " ( mathematically ) that Einstein's Relativity is wrong - the supposed speed of light is not sacrosanct. In 1982, Alan Aspect, et al, in a series of experiments, proved Bell's Theorem true - " spooky action at a distance ", indeed.

Step 3: General Relativity

In 1915, Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity; this was yet another attempt to " eliminate " the aether, attacking the " problem " from another angle. Positing that length, width, and height are united with time, he explained away the Force of gravity as the curvature of this " fabric of space-time ".

( Flammarion said, in 1921, " A space with a shape, curved! Mr. Einstein, you know that space-time, the fourth dimension, is already in the Encyclop├ędie de Diderot et D’Alembert. But it has not a shape! "
http://www.uv.es/~ten/womeneng.htm )

This was allegedly proved in 1919, during a solar eclipse, with the observation of light curving around the Sun. However, it was long known that a wave propagating through a medium would curve around an object, so when they " confirmed " that light curved around the Sun, they did not confirm General Relativity. Why, then, did they take it as confirmation of it? Because the whole point was to get rid of the aether. Einstein's alleged motivation - that he didn't like gravity being a " mysterious force " - was a smokescreen.

Stupid Einstein Dummy Boy

Well, Agent Smith, er, I mean, Albert Einstein didn't get everything wrong; his statement about the Uncertainty Principle - " God does not play dice " - was right on the money. http://www.thenazareneway.com/cause_and_effect.htm

Way to go, Einstein.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong

( Note: I assume a familiarity with the concepts involved; if you need a primer/refresher, I recommend
" Quantum Mechanics "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics , and
" Wave-Particle Duality "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality .)

The Photon

In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed, as a solution to the " Photoelectric Effect ", that light waves form into packets, called " quanta ". There is always a whole number of waves in a quantum ( packet ), and the packet, as a packet, can behave like a particle under certain conditions. This is why photons have some characteristics of a particle and some characteristics of a wave.

A photon is a packet of waves of energy; it is not a particle.

The Electron

From Wikipedia.org, " In 1924, de Broglie claimed that all matter has a wave-like nature ". Modern " Science " ( which is very unscientific ) now claims this has been " confirmed " with sub-atomic particles, and even with atoms and molecules.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's wrong.

The 4th Spatial Dimension

( A good intro to the 4th Spatial Dimension is http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/introduction.htm )

To get the electron ( or any particle ) to exhibit these effects, they have to shoot it out of an "electron gun " ( the " slit experiment " has not actually been done with a particle very many times, BTW, but you have to dig to find that out ). Doing so artificially puts enough energy into the electron for it to temporarily acquire some of the qualities of a 4D particle ( specifically: flowing like a fluid, bilocation, teleportation ); in performing the 4D " manuever ", it expends that energy, and then drops back to its natural, 3D, state.

There is no such thing as " wave-particle duality ".

The Electron Microscope

The electron microscope does not use light, it uses electrons shot at a material. Electrons, being particles of matter, don't have a " wavelength". So where is the picture coming from? The computer that is connected to the electron microscope turns the results into an image with a program written ( by some person ) to do that; what is the code ( to instruct the computer what to do ) based on?

This cannot legitimately be called " scientific ".

No Such Thing

There are no such things as fermions, quarks, hadrons, bosons, neutrinos, baryons, mesons, leptons, or Hilbert spaces. The smallest particles of matter are the electron, neutron, and proton; they are particles of matter, not " wavicles " or " wavefunctions".