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.

2 comments:

  1. Jeffrey Williams11:12 PM

    You raise many interesting points, but I feel there are some gaps in your arguments.

    As you point out earlier, if you define two positions and prove one of them is incorrect, it is a fallacy to believe that the other alternative is automatically the truth. I like the argument against the red shift, but disproving that is not a proof for the existence of aether.

    Likewise, if the MM experiment disproved the existence of the aether wind on this planet, that is not something to be laughed off lightly. If the aether wind is not detectable, then it is also not available for study. It's the proverbial tree falling in the forest... If it can't be studied or explored, then is its existence of any consequence? And what use is the aether, either as a concept or scientific function?

    And what are the reasons for denying the existence of the aether? Instead of proving the aether by disproving conventional science, I would be very interested in seeing some pro-active proof of the concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. jim mckanney backs up a lot of the electric universe suggestions you make. he is an ex lecturing physicist who was defrocked for promoting the electric universe model and showing that comets are effected by the electro-magnetic capacitance of the sun. i am not a physicist but listen to his discussions on www.mysteriesofthemind.com , alex merklinger`s internet radio show. you may find the discussion instructive.

    ReplyDelete