48-57 percent of all Americans with just grade school, no college, believe that the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago, or, more specifically at 6 PM (not 5 PM, not 7 PM), on a Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC.

 

God is testing your faith by putting all sorts of dinosaurs in the ground, a million years of ice layers in the glaciers, tree rings 11,000 years old, and starlight travelling from billions of light-years away.

 

In a book with talking snakes and talking donkeys, the first Hebrew word of the bible, Bereshit, has been translated as “In The Beginning”.  That’s not what the word means, in Hebrew.  If this is what the author intended, the word would be Barishona, which would actually indicate a single beginning.    That’s why evangelicals intentionally exclude the modern Jewish translation from their list of translations, because the Jewish version does not read “In The Beginning”.  They cannot handle this cold hard fact, so they suppress it.

 

Most secular people (all that I talk to anyways), believe the Bible is just pure nonsense, written by primitive unlearned unscientific bozos, and not worth reading or studying.  They will happily read Lord of the Rings with talking trees, or Alice in Wonderland with talking rabbits.  But, with the bible, also with talking animals, they see only malicious intent to fool and indoctrinate people with wild-eyed superstition.  They don’t know much about mythology, and can’t see the mythological value in a narrative with a Tree of the knowledge between Good and Bad.  Secular people believe the authors of the Bible were only trying to fool people – it has no symbolic value like the talking trees in Lord of the Rings smashing the clearcutting industrialists.  It is not entertaining, it isn’t rich with symbolism, and it has no value, it’s just brainwashing of the masses with nonsense.

 

Whenever any author writes any book with talking animals, that author is screaming out: this is fiction!  The author of the bible, like Tolkien or Lewis Carol, did not intend for mature intelligent adults to interpret the bible literally.  King Balaam, well after creation – well into the heart of the “historical” narrative, gets into a heated debate with his donkey.  The author is clearly not intending his audience to believe this narrative literally.

 

If I were to refuse to read Lord of the Rings because it has talking trees, I would be ridiculed, because, obviously Tolkien did not intend for me to take this literally.

When a modern secular science-zombie refuses to read the bible, he is lauded for his high intellectualism.  Ridiculous.

 

Secular, modern, science-zombies insist there is no value in studying scripture.

Ya.  Right.  It only underpins the core of modern politics, countless military struggles, and forms the beliefs and the context for the social life of billions on earth.  4.65 billion people are either Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

And you don’t think the Bible and the Qur’an are important works to understand?

Not worth your time?

The majority of humans follow these works, but it’s not worth reading?

Secular folk share a massive part of the blame in why the literal reading of these works have gone unchallenged, for centuries now.

Ignorance has malicious effects, both amongst Young Earth Creationists, and amongst those who never study and try to understand, and thus never try to systematically deprogram the 37 percent of Americans who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

 

Shame!  And:  Shame!

 

To both groups, fundamentalists and science-zombies: shame!

 

The result: religious studies are conducted by religious people.

   Secular folk don’t undertake religious studies.

Everybody stays in their own camp.

Nothing gets resolved.

The one group never talks to the other.

Both are negligent.

Both are ignorant.

Both think the other is stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“We ought not to take literally that which is written in the Book of the Creation nor entertain the same ideas of it as are common with the vulgar.  If it were otherwise, our learned ancient sages would not have taken so many pains to conceal the sense and to keep before the eyes of the uninstructed the veil of allegory which conceals the truths which it contains.

 

Taken literally that work contains the most extravagant and absurd ideas of the Deity.

 

Whoever can guess at the true meaning should take care not to divulge it.

 

This is a maxim inculcated by our wise men especially in connection with the work of the six days.

 

It is possible that by our own intelligence or by the aid of others some may guess the true meaning in which case they should be silent respecting it or if they do speak of it they should do so obscurely as I myself do leaving the rest to be guessed at by those who have sufficient ability to understand me.”

 

Maimonides

(1138–1204)

 

Quoted from within:

On mankind

Arthur Dyot Thomson

1872

Page VI of the Preface

Citing:

“Maimon. More Nevoch, part ii. cap. xxix.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 “Cloth” (clothing), in Semitic scripture, is not just about garments.

 

The “cloth” which people “wear”, represents a personality layer that you present to others in the world.  Different circumstances may make you don different clothes, but we generally wear one thing at a time, or one unified style at a time, to, at least generally accurately portray our true internal state, without faking it too much.

 

“Thou shalt not wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

 

This seems like a silly prohibition, right?

It almost seems as if there is a hidden meaning, right?

Well, that’s right, there actually is a hidden meaning:

 

What it represents is: two-faced people – people who try to weave together multiple personality fronts to others (at the same time), revealing that they are not being true to their actual intentions or emotions at the time.

Like a chef getting angry at a cook, then immediately turning to smile at and charm a crowd of well-to-do guests who just walked in the door.

In other words:  fake  is frowned upon in this passage – in this context in scripture.

 

 

There are also many over-the-top dramatic scenes in scripture when some poor stressed out dude, hearing even more distressing words or news, usually then falling on his knees and throwing sand on his head, he then:  “rends his clothes” (tears his garments).

This is not a physical tearing of one’s shirt!

This is, instead, symbolic of losing one’s shit.  One losing the ironed out exterior “clothing” – one’s outer personality breaking apart when one gets irate, and the real emotion boils over and breaks the façade being maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Water”, in Semitic scripture, is not just about the free satiating drink.

 

When Jesus walks on “water”, this represents being able to cope with distressing news or some sort of commmmmotion in cognizance – like when you get bad news – the waves – the ripples of bad news reverberate through you – “bad”, in this case, because the waters are “troubled” – Jesus just got word that John the Baptist died.  He was able to “walk” on this bad news.  The “troubled waters” – the bad news, did not phase Jesus.  That’s the symbolic point.

 

 

“Water” – Waves – the Rippling – Bouncing Signals within or outside you; which shed light on what’s going on inside or outside you – the reverberations that surround you and that pervade through you – like all of the waves that inform you of what’s going on in your own body, and all the waves that inform you of what’s going on in the world outside you – all of the echoes of what’s happening that reach you.

This is a very core concept in imagining how the infinite eternal tree of life works.  No wonder “water” takes pride of place in the opening lines of Genesis!

 

Every mind is animated by its living members considering and sending signals between themselves, which ripple (or pass along waves or “echoes” in succession).  For example, your cells can internally ponder the echoes that reach them – the signals that reach them, whether from other cells or from other things, and then your mind – your pondering is when this cell communicates with other cells, and when a good majority of your cells, or maybe when a small number of cells shout their case loudly to a lot of your cells, these waves might become the forefront of your consciousness – reverberating throughout your population of cells – the specific waves that a good portion of your cells are repeating/propagating/elaborating upon.

 

Just as cells within you communicate by sending “echoes” or “waves” between each other – signals, so too do humans employ “echoes” or “waves” to communicate with each other. 

And, if you are short on wine, you can always strike up a conversation with others, and this may, depending on the subject matter, be just as, or more uplifting, exciting, satisfying or delightful as actual glasses full of actual wine.

So, if the subject matter is Jesus – discussing how to best serve as many living beings as possible – if you make this the subject matter, it can turn regular water (regular banter – a boring party), into something as delightful to the soul as wine – full of exhilarating passion and novel ideas to help other living things!

So, next time grape-wine runs out at your party, call upon the name of Jesus, ponder and speak of Jesus, and you can instantly turn normal water into delicious wine!

 

 

Jesus, another symbol, another element in Semitic scripture with a symbolic meaning, has always been, and will always be.  Some creature, somewhere, right now, is acting to help as many other living things within all available means, with every last reserve of energy.  Countless such individuals are doing this right now.  Infinite living beings are doing this, right now.  This has always been the case, is the case, and will always be the case.  If the spirit of Jesus is lacking at any given moment, in some place, it exists, always, somewhere, in an infinite universe, and it will always come back again, sometime, resurrecting itself naturally, in every place, eventually, in an eternal universe.

 

 

Just because something always is, somewhere, doesn’t mean it always is, everywhere.  Otherwise, gods wouldn’t fight, and mythology would be very boring.  The quarrels and interplay between characters in cosmological mythologies, the world over, reveals that the authors understood very well that ever-present things can exist without being “everywhere”, and which do battle against or cooperate with other ever-present things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Fasting”, in Semitic scripture, is not just about food.

It’s also about pausing any sort of regular or excessive habit.

 

It can be about pausing certain thoughts looping in your mind,

Or, giving a break to your favorite habitual forms of fun,

Giving a break from reading particular subject matter,

Giving a break from arguing certain notions,

Giving a break from watching the news,

Giving a break from ignoring the news,

Giving a break from planning things too rigorously,

Giving a break from your regular habitual daily routine,

Giving a break from trying to figure out your future,

Giving a break from trying to figure out your past,

And, yes, “fasting” is about food too – especially like taking a break from coffee, sugar, or any other drug.

 

Any system of living participation within you, between your cells, deserve and benefit from taking breaks.

If you were a cell within an animal, your perspective would be very different and things like regular “fasting” – like the sleep-cycles of the animal would be exceedingly important to your life and wellbeing.

 

“Fasting” is a method of mindfulness and of cleansing habits and clearing up future paths; not a mundane digestive recommendation.

 

(Note that this “fasting” can ossify into its own regular routine!)

(So, you would have to also consider taking a break from taking breaks!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Sabbath”, in Semitic scripture, is not just on Saturday.

 

After taking a break from any work, any length of arduous exertion, instead of going straight to the pantry or wine cellar to make your aching bones feel better, just sit and observe.  Get in tune with how your body is aching after any period of work.  There is a lot of information to be gleaned about what your body needs and how it could adapt during the next round of work.  Lots of messages from the Lord are available in such a period of discombobulation – many requests, many complaints, many suggestions from your cells. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of these concepts, and many more, in Semitic scripture, apply to all the infinite creatures within you, and all the infinite creatures outside of you, and all of the infinite creatures moving through you.  Each one may be exhibiting/experiencing/undergoing any of the things mentioned in scripture.

These are universal ever-present goings-on, but not every individual, like you, is always exhibiting/experiencing/undergoing all these things all the time.  Even so, even if you are not “fasting” at a given moment – there are infinite creatures within you that are “fasting”, and infinite creatures outside of you that are “fasting”.

Someone somewhere is truly “observing” their sabbath, right now.  In fact, infinite individuals, found across the infinite universe, are observing their sabbath, right now, each in a unique way – each in a different situation.  This has always been the case and will always be the case.

Infinite living beings are “rending their clothing” right now.  This has always been the case and will always be the case.

Infinite living creatures are “walking on water” right now.  This has always been the case and will always be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hebrew term “Ein Soph”, meaning “without measure” or “infinite”, was the central symbol in the Kabbalah.  It is employed as a noun: “The Infinite”.  The different aspects of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life are said to all “emanate” from The Infinite:

 

 

 

 “It does not reveal itself in a way that makes knowledge of its nature possible, and it is not accessible even to the innermost thought (hirhur ha-lev) of the contemplative.  Only through the finite nature of every existing thing, through the actual existence of creation itself, is it possible to deduce the existence of Ein-Sof as the first infinite cause.”

 

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

Kabbalah

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 89

 

 

 

 

 

 “Ein-Sof is not his proper name, but a word which signifies his complete concealment, and our sacred tongue has no word like these two to signify his concealment.  And it is not right to say ‘Ein-Sof, blessed be he’ or ‘may he be blessed’ because he cannot be blessed by our lips.”

 

Baruch Kosover

(writing in 1770)

 

Quoted from within:

Kabbalah

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 90 – which took it from:

Ammud ha-Avodah, 1863 211d

 

 

 

 

 

 “Every letter and every word in every section of the Torah have a deep root in wisdom and contain a mystery from among the mysteries of understanding, the depths of which we cannot penetrate…”

 

Abraham bar Hiyya

(1065 – 1136)

 

Quoted from within:

On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

Shocken books – New York 1969

page 63 – which took it from:

‘Megillath ha-Megalle, Berlin, 1924 page 75.

 

 

 

 

 

 “…the content of the Torah possessed infinite meaning, which revealed itself differently at different levels and according to the capacity of the contemplator.  The unfathomable profundity of the divine speech could not possibly be exhausted at any one level alone…

 

…“Many lights shine forth from each word and each letter”…”

 

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

Kabbalah

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 172

 

 

 

 

 

 “…place in front of the eyes of your mind the letters of God’s name, as if they were written in a book in Hebrew script.  Visualize every letter extending to infinity.  What I mean is: when you visualize the letters focus on them with your mind’s eye as you contemplate infinity.  Both together: gazing and meditating.”

 

Isaac of Akko

(1200’s-1300’s)

 

 Quoted from within:

The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

HarperSanFrancisco 1994

page 120

The quote is cited as being from:

“Isaac of Akko (thirteenth-fourteenth centuries), Me’irat Einayim, 217, …

… see Gottlieb, Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Qabbalah, 235-”

 

 

 

 

 

“An impoverished person thinks that God is an old man with white hair, sitting on a wondrous throne of fire that glitters with countless sparks, as the Bible states: “The Ancient-of-Days sits, the hair on his head like clean fleece, his throne – flames of fire.”  Imagining this and similar fantasies, the fool corporealizes God.  He falls into one of the traps that destroy faith.  His awe of God is limited by his imagination.

 

But if you are enlightened, you know God’s oneness, you know that the divine is devoid of bodily categories – these can never be applied to God.  Then you wonder, astonished: Who am I?  I am a mustard seed in the middle of the sphere of the moon, which itself is a mustard seed within the next sphere.  So it is with that sphere and all it contains in relation to the next sphere.  So it is with all the spheres – one inside the other – and all of them are a mustard seed within the further expanses.  And all of these are a mustard seed within further expanses.

 

Your awe is invigorated, the love in your soul expands.”

 

Or Ne’erav

Moses Cordovero

(1522–1570)

ed. Yehuda Z. Brandwein

Jerusalem: Yeshivat Qol Yehudah  1965

2:2 (18b-19a)

 

The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

Harper-Collins  1996

page 22

 

 

 

 

 

 “When you contemplate the Creator, realize that his encampment extends beyond, infinitely beyond, and so, too, in front of you and behind you, east and west, north and south, above and below, infinitely everywhere.  Be aware that God fashioned everything and is within everything.  There is nothing else.”

 

Sefer ha-Shem

El’azar of Worms

(1176–1238)

 

The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

Harper-Collins  1996

page 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the universe is infinite, it would be eternal.

If the universe is infinite, there cannot have been a single Beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of spending hours of your time trying to teach you how to read Hebrew, and also try to teach you how to read Aramaic, while also trying to teach you how to read Arabic, which are all read right-to-left, and with each having its own script to learn, some with joining letters taking different forms, and each with nuances and special vocalization markers; instead, a simple common script will be offered – a script to represent Hebrew, Aramaic as well as Arabic, without any vowel signs, and it will be presented left-to-right.  The additional Arabic letters (Dhal and company) will be listed when the need arises and will be printed as is from the Arabic script.  Only these 22 letters are common to Hebrew Aramaic and Arabic:

 

 

 

 

The Hebrew term cyj means “a cry for help.”

The Hebrew terms cj and caj mean “to help, save, rescue, deliver; safety”.

The Hebrew term acj means “salvation, deliverance, saving”.

 

Jesus (acyj) is the personification of helping others.

 

 

 

Hebrews 1:4

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

  

 

 

Acts

4:12

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

 

 

John

1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

 

 

The name “Jesus” represents the heartfelt sentiment of yearning to help all living things you are aware of – outside of you and within you.  The key word is helping all within reach.  Even people who most would condemn to death, like prostitutes in certain societies at certain times.

If that is your foundation in life, it will be a strong foundation, like a rock, helping you to weather the inevitable storms that you encounter in life.  It will help you to be able to “walk on water”.

The keyword:  all  living things – to help everybody and every creature within reach – immediately begs the question – how does one achieve this?  How does one know what others need?  Does everybody want help?  Should I make myself more aware of the needs of others or are the living beings I am already aware of enough for me to be responsible for?  When one thinks one is helping, does this help continue to help repeatedly, down the road?  People and their needs change constantly, so how can I be sure that what I’m doing right now is truly the best for all?  One could ponder a thousand such questions.

Such a devoted spirit (usually young in years, like, usually under 30), is confronted with multitudes of basic limits to one’s abilities to “help everybody” and “save the world” and achieve “world peace”.  After 30 years of age, after trying to save the world, after realizing how many hurdles this involves, most of these sorts of people throw in the towel and tend to their own nest instead.

The spirit of the name of Jesus is therefore elusive and complex to achieve gracefully and perpetually, but so long as your intentions are true and work continuously to move toward the direction of the essence of the name, then this does indeed embody the essence of Jesus, and will be a strong foundation for your life in the hereafter (your life, after now) (your limited temporary finite existence, from   now-on  –  in the   here-after).

 

 

 

Whereas Jesus is literally - letterally, the principle of trying to help all of the living beings within your reach, Muhammad is a way to get to Jesus.  The letters of the name Muhammad (fifr) basically indicate a tempering of heat.  Containing one’s fire.  Holding back your anger.  Tempering your desires.  Giving thanks to what has been given to you by countless living beings around you and within you, who gave you your life, and continue to animate you; instead of burning in desire for what you don’t have.  Appreciate what you do have – spend and enjoy what has already been provided for you for free!  Instead of living in heat, take care of those who are cold (zxac).

 

 

 

If you’ve ever had the sense, maybe when you were young, that you were part of a common human family – that everybody appreciates the existence of the other, and meeting new people – anybody – was a blessing, and you just wanted to help others.  That is precisely what Jesus is.

The power of admiration of and cooperation with others, and a sense of wanting to replenish the earth and its wildlife habitats, to protect all of its wonderful creatures, and to freely wander the earth and meet its people, and to expect to encounter lots of wonderful souls – if you’ve lost that sense, and yearn for its return, believe that this can be resurrected within you and fill you with passion again.

If, when you were young, your heart was an open book, and if you used to say ‘live and let live’ (you know you did, you know you did, you know you did), but if this ever-changing world in which we live in made you give in and cry; know that Jesus can make a return to you, but you have to believe in its name, and do works in its name.  You have to invite that principle right into your very flesh and blood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hebrew term hk, sometimes conjugated as qhk, often conjugated as ahk, and even conjugated as ayhk, means: “to add to, increase; more”.

The Hebrew term qhk, meaning “to gather, assemble, collect” is conjugated as ahk in 2 Samuel 6:1.

 

Joseph (ayhk) is the personification of saving/storing/accumulating wealth.

 

 

 

The Hebrew term fx or fxt means “bitterness, embittered, distressed, discontented, refractory, obstinate, contentious, disobedient, rebellious”.

The term fxa means “to embitter, quarrel, rebel, contest” in Aramaic, and “to dispute, doubt, argue” in Arabic.

The term fxaxyv means “bitter grief” in Hebrew, fxaxa means “bitter” in Hebrew, and fxax means “bitter, vehement, ferocious” in Aramaic.

 

Mary (fxaf) is the personification of bitterness, disputation and rebellion.

 

 

 

If you are sitting on a comfortable couch in a cozy air-conditioned suite, and you are well-fed, with plenty of stores of grain in the pantry and plenty of savings in the bank account (Joseph), and you turn on the TV only to behold bombs dropping onto populated city centers with limbs being shorn off innocent people, or with blood and guts from 70 people attending a wedding that was cluster-bombed, or seeing migrants and refugees left out in the cold, or seeing police beating up peaceful protesters with a club and a tazer and firing upon journalists that are just bringing you the footage of this brutality, or watching entire countries – entire societies being bombed back to the stone age with your own country’s munitions and soldiers; you might become embittered, discontented, contentious, disobedient and rebellious (Mary); and with the stores of wealth you have available, you might immediately (automatically – instinctively) turn to trying to help these people (Jesus).

Without even realizing it, if you have plenty to give and behold atrocities and injustices, you might automatically turn to trying to help and save those being left out in the cold or left to die a miserable death at the hands of your own country’s police or military forces.

This was turned into a storyline – the virgin birth.  When Joseph (wealth, stores) meets Mary (discontent, bitterness), before you know it, you are applying your wealth to help those being traumatized, bludgeoned or in danger of being murdered (Jesus is born automatically in your heart).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few hundred years after the composition of this cryptic narrative, the symbolic view had been lost, along with the original Hebrew Gospel(s) which contained the symbolism.

After many book burnings and councils, only morons remained, puzzling over the meaningless Greek translation, and then what do people do?  That’s right – they start fighting, fighting over the virgin birth and the trinity.  They were no longer able to comprehend the text in anything other than a literal manner and so this passage – about the spirit of helping others being born in your heart without you even knowing it – this well-intentioned passage, (along with John chapter 1 about “The Word” becoming flesh), this all became the cause of much bloodshed in of itself!  In one case alone, 10,000 Chalcedonian Christians in Alexandria were killed over a Christological dispute (a dispute over the nature of the trinity – over the nature and provenance of Jesus the man and the divine Jesus).

~1000 years after these disputes and murders over the nature and provenance of Jesus, up to 1,000,000 people were slaughtered in the Albigensian Crusade over the Cathar’s conception of the nature and provenance of Jesus.  “Kill them all, and let God sort them out”  People who thought that the New Testament was speaking of Jesus in allegorical terms, and that he was not a real-world human being, but a spirit or “phantom” only?  Can’t have that!  Death to all those who don’t believe in the real-life flesh-and-blood Jesus!  Most of those 1,000,000 people were probably just unconcerned peasants tending to crops.  A Crusade in a spirit exactly opposite of Jesus!

 

 

 

For the better part of 2000 years, sociopathic popes, domineering priests, greedy kings and maniacal Emperors have tried to hypnotize mankind with their confused beliefs – trying to get us all to digest notions such as “creation out of nothing” and that Jesus the man will one day return – reading from confusing translations of the symbolic Hebrew original, and then going around to murder those who don’t agree with their particular brand of confused interpretation of scripture.

Some popes are, of course, not sociopaths bent on murdering those with opposing views.  Pope Francis, for example, had a background in helping the poor.  He was able to understand the message of the New Testament by reading it with heart instead of with hate.  He certainly disagreed with pope not-so-Innocent III’s murder of up to a million Cathars.  He even named himself after St. Francis of Assisi, who tried to convert rather than slaughter the Cathars.  A good man.  A good pope.

Some priests are, of course, not domineering control-freaks imposing their confused views on those with contrary beliefs.  Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero, living under the U.S.-backed anti-communist military dictatorship in El Salvador, understood the New Testament intuitively when he spoke out against poverty, social injustice, assassinations and torture, and organized protests against the U.S.-backed sociopaths, even writing a letter to Jimmy Carter pleading with him to stop sending arms to these murderers.

So, there are priests and popes that understand the basic message of the New Testament and would never consider murdering others over concepts such as The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost.  These people read the rest of the Bible, and missed the part when Jesus goes around bludgeoning people to death, no, they clearly read that Jesus went around taking care of the poor and infirm people and those cast out by society.

 

 

 

There is a trend, still well-alive today, whereby people will declare entire regions – entire nations to be either “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Jewish”.  Countless bible-belt christians profess America to be “A Christian Nation”, to this very day, and work to impose their confused beliefs onto everybody else.

Christians who are waiting for the return of a flesh-and-blood saviour would have us spend taxdollars toward christian schools, diverted from public schools.

Atta Turk, the founder of modern Turkey, knew better by secularizing the country – demoting Islam from its position as the state-religion.

To this day, very unhealthy christian practices pervade throughout North American society and are allowed to persist with impunity:

 

“There was a young man in Calgary, his name was Ben.  I was running a youth group, I was there for a few years.  He was a nice kid but he was one of those who was always just a real smart aleck.  He was a bright kid, which didn’t help things, right?  It made him more dangerous.

 

And we were outside one day, in youth-group, and he was just trying to push my buttons, and just, kinda, not taking the Lord seriously, and I walked over to him and I went “bam!”  I punched him in his chest as hard as I could – I crumpled the kid.  I just crumpled him.  I leaned over and I said ‘Ben, when are you going to stop playing games with God?’  I led that man to the Lord right there.  There are times that that might be needed.”

 

Damned Sociopath Pastor Eric Dammann

 

 

 

Just one bad apple you say?  During the Iraq War of 2003, a borne-again christian looking to bring about the Second Coming by instigating the war between Gog and Magog, with the aid of a belligerent self-proclaimed “christian-mercenary” army, went in to utterly destroy a Muslim-majority society without cause and with complete impunity, torturing people for any information.  Gun-toting churchgoers, who are told to hate Muslims their whole lives, were sent in to destroy not just the current Muslim society in Iraq, but also its history – purposefully letting looters ransack the Museum in Baghdad, while heavily defending the oil ministry.  They were warned months in advance that this was going to happen, even by the Pentagon’s own advisors.  Even with a tank and soldiers on the scene, the Americans stood by and let it happen, just watching trucks full of artifacts roll right past them.

To this very day, there is a wide sector in North American society that would have us all forced to pray to their very confused notion of God and his Creation 6000 years ago, and of an unworkable Trinity that none can explain, and of a second-coming that we should all prepare for or be forever damned – a gross misunderstanding of the original symbolic texts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists, science-fans, and “educated” academics – scholars who profess to know best, have claimed to have beaten Religion with facts and figures and mathematics – they claim to have transcended the ridiculous notions promoted by fanatical christians and other faiths.

What has modern science done to address the core beliefs of christians – to address the fundamentalists and their views?

 

 

Instead of the Universe being created out of Nothing with all matter and energy and even Time itself coming into existence at some point, at the hand of a God with a beard sitting on his throne – a notion supported by all Priests and Popes,

Instead, we get the Universe being created out of Nothing with all matter and energy and even Time itself coming into existence at some point, at the hand of abstruse mathemagics – a theory concocted and promoted by a Priest in the early 20th century and praised by all Popes since 1951!

 

 

Instead of the Universe coming to an End at some point, the End Times, when Dark Forces will battle those of Light, and Time will “stop”,

Instead, we get a Universe that will come to an End at some point, the End Times, when Dark Energy will win out over regular matter, freezing everything into a non-energetic dark state – no more light, and Time will “stop”!

 

 

Instead of Priests commanding the flock to not question their sermons – to take their words on faith, because you are not smart enough – you haven’t read scripture fully, and you haven’t read all the oodles of commentaries that various church fathers have written, so sit down and shut up,

Instead, we get Professors commanding students to not question things like Dark Energy, these being “overdetermined” by current “constraints” on science imposed by Relativity and Big Bang.  “You can’t wriggle out of the conclusion that there is a lot of Dark Energy.”  We need to take Sean Carroll’s words on faith, because we haven’t understood his mathematics – we are not smart enough to understand Relativity or Big Bang – we don’t have degrees in physics – and we haven’t read up on all of the “brilliant” papers written about Big Bang, Dark Energy and Relativity, so we must all sit down and shut up!

 

 

 

It can be demonstrated with ease that the universe must be infinite in extent and eternal in duration.

Basic logic and an examination of Big Bang and Relativity easily put the idea of a finite temporary universe to rest.

It can also be demonstrated that the authors of scripture understood this, and employed logic more sound than that employed by modern academia regarding the nature of the universe.

 

Contrary to the view of an infinite Tree of Life, what is on offer in secular classrooms is:  a universe with no intelligence other than us, no intelligent life below the cell; no intelligent life above us multicellular creatures; and that even most multicellular creatures are not intelligent, and that single cells are not individually intelligent.

Modern science constrains the bottom of the universe (microcosm) by declaring unbreakable indivisible building blocks, like electrons; while constraining the top of the universe (macrocosm) by declaring galaxies and their clusters as the largest possible assembled things.

The cell – declared as the “basis of all life” is only animated by Artificial Intelligence.  Only inanimate unbending automatic physics equations need be employed to understand how the cell behaves – how it makes decisions in the face of multiple pressures and signals – how it learns to navigate through obstacles, etc...  Nothing below the cell is alive.  In fact, it is even declared that “cells are just robots”.

A galaxy cannot possibly be alive according to mainstream thinking – people look at you sideways for even proposing this.

 

Nobody has proven that electrons are unbreakable.  That is a massive assumption.

Nobody has proven that galaxies and their clusters are the largest assembled structures.  That is an incredible constraint on science.

Nobody has proven the existence of Nothingness, either before the “birth” of the universe, or outside of its finite area (outside of our exploding universe).  Nobody can even describe this Nothingness.

The theory of a finite universe is not science.  It is unconvincing philosophy.  How can you prove Nothingness – the main ingredient required for Big Bang?  You can’t – nobody can prove that there is somewhere without anything there – that is a physical impossibility.  There is no test for Nothingness.  No Nothingness = No Big Bang.

 

Modern scientists have enthroned cellular and multicellular life on the middle slot of their flat universe – there is no life below, and no life above.  We are so special to be on the only size-level which supports life – right in the middle slice of the universe!  That is a very suspicious universe – a human-centric universe – nothing to see below and nothing to see above.  Cells are just robots acting according to “emergent properties” of particle physics and nothing else; while galaxies are similarly just larger conglomerations of more of this same stuff bouncing around and acting and reacting according to unbending physics equations alone, in a lifeless way.

 

What makes much more sense is that all life is made of life, in an infinite tree.  All life is animated by smaller lifeforms, therefore: life can only be created from pre-existing life-forms.  The implications of this are vast – nay – infinite!

Just as cells, who are individually sentient, may get together to organise multi-cellular creatures, so too should this be possible across the entire extent of the universe, and there is absolutely no reason to assume it is limited in depth, breadth or duration.

Instead of just searching for life on other planetary surfaces, we could also search for life within the microcosm and out in the macrocosm.  Modern science cannot ask these questions because of the constraints imposed on the very fabric of the universe down below and the level of organization possible at the very top of the universe.  And, to suggest creatures even larger than galaxies is completely disallowed, because there wouldn’t have been enough time for those to develop.

 

The authors of scripture not only understood the universe better than we do, they also understood that you all would continue to crave a finite universe.  They understood very well that the opening line of genesis would be translated as “In The Beginning”.  If you read the text carefully, though, these geniuses were declaring an infinite universe – by detailing how new life only arises out of pre-existing lifeforms within infinite Beginnings.  There are infinite beginnings happening all the time.  There always was and there always will be.  New lifeforms – new creatures, somewhere, are having their start right now.

 

The two major names for God, ALHYM (qdtaf) and YHVH (atyt), if read letter-by-letter, indicate that there was life pre-existing in creating life.  All life must come from these two – that’s the point of the first few chapters of genesis.  ALHYM is living beings, previously unrelated, coming together to participate/organize – form new life.  Think: “Allo!” or “Ola!” or “Aloha!” or “et. al.” (“and others”) or “alliance”.  YHVH is living beings already together creating new liveliness/activity/organisation.

The first chapter of Genesis details beginnings of creatures through ALHYM alone, the second and third chapters through YHVH ALHYM alone, and the 4th chapter through YHVH alone.

 

It was not malicious intent to translate the first verse of Genesis into “In The Beginning”.  The authors and translators understood that people during tough times or ignorant times have a hard time grasping an infinite universe – so it is translated into a fairy tale intentionally with a Beginning, Middle, and prophesized End.  Much easier to comprehend.  The word “The” in “In The Beginning” does not exist in the Hebrew.

 

 

 

wxqcav wxq qdtaf qv tcfaf yqv tqxl

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

ytqxl tavt vty ywty yics jd-kga vtyf yxyi qdtaf fxikv jd-kga tfaf

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

 

 

 

To clear something (wxq) – is interpreted, in this work, as preparing to create anew, in this context – in the opening line of scripture.  To clear something means that something pre-existed to be cleared, in the first place.  Once you clear something out, it is natural to expect it to be “empty” and “void”, right?

These first two verses are not part of the first “day” of creation, because each and every single “day” begins with the same term: “And God said…” – so the first actual “day” of creation begins in verse 3.  These first two verses are an introduction – a prelude – what you do before you set out to create anything – you make space – you clear out the old.  These books, however, do not detail a sequence of historical one-time events happening one after another; instead, they are detailing ever-present processes occurring, all the time, inside and outside of you, throughout an infinite tree of life.

 

 

 

“There is no ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ in the Torah.”

 

Talmud: tractate Pesachim, 6b    

 

 

 

 

 

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

wxcav qavyta tyq fdvq yty fdvq qavyta tyq dyv qdtq yqdtq qavyta tyq ty fdvq

John 1:2

He was in the beginning with God.

tgq qavyta tyq wxcav dyv qdtq

 

 

Here, the Aramaic New Testament also fails to include the word “The” in “In The Beginning.” (wxcav).  Just as with the Hebrew, the Aramaic term is in the construct state.

 

 

 

1000 years ago, the highly respected grammarian Rashi pointed out that if “In The Beginning” was intended by the first word of genesis, it should’ve been written Barishona, not Bereshit.

The modern JPS translation does not translate it as “In The Beginning”.

An excellent online bible study tool, BlueLetter bible, with excellent Hebrew interlinear, mysteriously does not include the JPS translation.  Why?  The website is evangelical.  Evangelicals need the first Hebrew word to mean “In The Beginning”.

 

37-40 percent of Americans are Young Earth Creationists!

  22 percent of Canadians!

  33 percent of Albertans!

  40-50 percent of Kentuckians!

  48-57 percent of all Americans without college education!

 

The church still maintains a massive deep-seated pervasive and pernicious stranglehold on education and belief; it still dominates in one of the most advanced countries with advanced education – one of the pioneers of public education.

 

More than 1 out of 3 Americans that you meet believe the earth was created in 4004 BC?

That is as scary as it is embarrassing.

You simply cannot maintain a healthy political system or social structure with so much deep-seated ignorance, hiding of information – tinkering with the education system.

The bible does not speak of a single Beginning.

A grammarian living 1000 years ago knew more than the sophisticated modern American christian education paradigm teaches, with public funds to boot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you firmly believe in the theory of Relativity?

You know, the Space-Time continuum.

Do you firmly believe in this?

 

Really?  You do??

 

OK.  Are you ready to defend your views?

 

If I believed in a flat earth, and you asked me to defend my views, and I were to say: “there are experts at the flat-earth university who devote their lives to understanding flat-earth theory, so you’d have to ask them” – if I were to refuse to defend flat-earth because of this excuse, how would that sit with you?

If you then go to flat-earth U, and ask professor Flatulence to defend his theory with facts and figures and a good explanation, and he says: “I don’t speak for all of flat-earth theory, my expertise is on the equations for the estimation of the size of the edge of the flat earth, and the estimation of where the edge might be – so I can’t defend flat-earth theory as a whole nor should I be asked to, with my specialization”.  How would this sit with you?

If flat-earth theory were taught in publicly-funded schools as fact, and nobody opened themselves up to scrutiny – nobody was open to debate, and professors were not able and not willing to explain their fancy mathemagics to you and they just offer you computer animations of flat-earth fact, how would this sit with you?

If, when a student asks a flat-earth professor if flat-earth-theory is fact or theory, and they respond – “well, we use the term ‘theory’, but, what we really mean is that it is fact, like the ‘theory’ of evolution – that’s fact”.  How would this sit with you?

 

So, are you ready to defend your personal belief in Relativity?

 

If you believe in Relativity, you must therefore believe in time-travel, right?

So, you think you can travel through time.  Really.  Interesting.

You think that because you isolated Time as a variable in an equation, that this allows you to control Time itself?

Is this not a significantly crackpot belief of yours?

Do I have to believe this?

Do I have to believe this to be accepted by “Science”?

Do you have a problem with me talking trash about time-travel?

Is this anti-science talk in your eyes?

Do you have a problem with me talking trash about Relativity?

Do I have a primitive mind, in your eyes, if I deny well-funded science?

 

So, you sat down and watched those silly Twilight Zone episodes, like where a guy travels through time or into “another dimension” by the magic of a cinematic dissolve, and, instead of asking yourself if this is physically possible or patently insane, you were like: “Makes sense to me – I heard my science teacher say so – and there’s fancy math to back it all up!”.

 

What was that?  No?  You don’t actually believe in time-travel?  Time travel is obviously really stupid you say?  Well, you can’t have it both ways my friend.  You either agree that Relativity is utter nonsense, or you declare, here and now, that you wholeheartedly also believe in time-travel, and will defend this whimsical childish fantastical notion with a fervor equal to your defending Relativity.

 

 

 

 

 

Speed is simply a measure of relative motion between things.  We should be allowed to simply add the velocities of any two items.  Right?  This would faithfully determine the experience of each thing moving away from or toward the other, right?

 

The above statement has nothing to do with the theory of “relativity”.

Nothing at all.

The theory of relativity in fact denies, outright, this statement of straight-forward common-sense physical fact.

 

If I walk down the block at 5km per hour, that’s in relation to the ground, but the earth is spinning, so I might even be going backwards in relation to the moon or the sun.  Or I could base my speed with that of a nearby solar system moving at great speed, or any other frame of reference in the universe, which is infinite.  There are infinite frames of reference with which you can calculate speed, and nothing “warps” – nothing changes if I change my measurement from one thing to another.  This is so darn straight-forward and logical.  Modern science simply cannot accept this straight-forward physics.

 

When a lightbulb emits light in opposing directions, I choose to base the speed of one photon relative not to the lightbulb, but to another photon emitted in the opposite direction.  Each one is going twice the speed of light in relation to the other.  They are both breaking the rule that “nothing can travel faster than light”.  That’s the only “experiment” required.  End of this time-traveling fairy tale!

 

Relativity categorically denies the above statement – about one photon moving twice as fast (in relation to the other photon) – they assert, without any shred of doubt (or evidence) that the photons do not, and cannot move away at twice the speed of light from each other.  And, if you try to reason with these people, you’ll be told that you don’t understand the mathematics, and they will start to twist simple terms like “dimension” and “frame of reference” to no end and befuddle you with endless paradoxical or irrational statements taken as sacrosanct like “personal clocks” and “local time” and “length contraction” and “time dilation” and claim wild-eyed loony-bin-worthy things like Time is a physical dimension.

 

 

“A photon experiences no time because its journey at the speed of light is instantaneous due to the effects of time dilation from its perspective, as predicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity.  At the speed of light, the entire universe's spacetime is contracted to a single point in its direction of travel, meaning it is emitted and absorbed at the same instant in its own "proper time".”

 

 

If you don’t understand that statement, don’t feel bad, feel mad – feel very very mad, at such weak-sauce sorcery being taught in public schools.

 

Why in the world cannot a photon, travelling at the speed of light, be considered to have “its own frame of reference”?  Why?  Do we understand a photon so well to declare that it can’t even experience the universe, as it travels along its merry way?  “A photon experiences zero time.”?  You can’t even produce a fully detailed photograph of what a photon looks like, and you’ve already declared it to experience no time?  You don’t even know what it’s made of or how it functions.  How can a thing experience no time at all, in the first place?  If your theory requires entities that experience no time, then, you have invalidated your theory, because that’s impossible and a stupid idea.

 

“Yeah, but, you don’t understand, photons don’t have clocks and rulers to measure time.”

Really?  Are you joking now?  Seriously?  This is an official response?

So, a baboon rising at sunset and sleeping at sundown, day after day, has no experience of time, because: he doesn’t have a wristwatch?

 

“Yeah, but, you don’t understand, photons are not alive, and have no interaction with anything else.”

How would you know if a photon is alive or not?  Have you conducted any experiments to prove that photons are lifeless?  Can you even draw me a picture of what a photon looks like, in any detail? 

And even if a photon is inanimate, it should still “experience” time, just like an hourglass “experiences” time.  Every goddam thing experiences time – how can it be otherwise???

 

“Yeah, but, you don’t understand, the one photon can’t see the other.”

Oh I see, I see very clearly now, you claim that photons cannot see each other, right?  With light, right?  Because there is nothing smaller than light, right?  Nothing in the universe is smaller than sub-atomic particles, right?  Nothing smaller might be bouncing in between photons, for them to be able to “see” each other, right?  Well, that is another one of your own assumptions!  That is another one of your cosmological blunders!  That is another one of your constraints on Nature - that subatomic particles are the smallest things – and the fastest things in the universe!  I never agreed to these assumptions about the “bottom” of the universe!!!  I never agreed that there was even a “bottom” to the universe, in the first place!!!

 

How can one even begin to quantify such ridiculous notions?!!!

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot add meters to seconds.

 

I’m sorry, but the rule, in school, clearly stipulates that you get deductions for doing so.  Why is this not enforced in the Astrophysics classroom then?  The first thing your first math teacher told you, with stink-eye, is that you will fail if you mix your units up.  But, at the end of schooling, academia insists that you are a fool if you adhere to this rule – you must believe in a mathematical construct conflating Space with Time – Space-Time.  Hypocrites!

 

 

 

 

 

If you firmly believe in Relativity, then you must also believe that Time can “start” and “stop”, right?

So, you think the whole universe can come to a halt or can boot up from a frozen state, right?  Eh??

Is this not a significantly crackpot belief of yours?

Does what I say offend your view of orthodox Science?

Well, tough beans buddy.

How could you ever possibly prove to me that Time can start or stop.  That’s not science.  That’s just lame philosophy.

If you can’t defend your position, then don’t take offense.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you firmly believe in Big Bang?  A friggin’ birthday to the entire universe??

 

Yes??  Really???  OK then, this means you believe we live in a flat universe, and that we reside in the middle slice of this flat universe.

If you believe firmly in Big Bang, then you therefore believe that there is nothing smaller than electrons (they are “indivisible”) and nothing bigger than galaxy clusters assembled on large scales.

You have thus pompously enthroned yourself on the central slice of the universe, while assuming you have the ability to see all the way to the bottom and all the way to the top of the universe.  You have made your own self the star of the whole show – the central player in the whole shebang.  Ridiculous.

 

The authors of the Bible and Qur’an were much more intelligent than you are with your Big Bang Bullogna.  They entertained no such childish notions, and understood people like you will come to believe in and promote such simplistic fairy tales.  They would never have claimed that we live in a universe that looks like this:

 

 

Galaxy clusters    - and others of their size

 Galaxies and quasars    - and others of their size

  Solar systems and nebulae    - and others of their size

   Planets and suns    - and others of their size

    Humans    - and others of their size

   Living cells    - and others of their size

  Molecules    - and others of their size

 Atoms    - and others of their size

Sub-atomic things    - and others of their size

 

 

Nothing below!

Nothing above!

We’re in the middle!

The bottom is made of indivisible bits sitting in nothingness!

The top only forms galaxies and their unglamorous groupings!

Outside this entire flat “expanding” universe?  Nothingness!

That’s it folks!

 

 

What’s more ridiculous, a flat earth, or a whole friggin’ flat universe, which just so happens to have a few layers of entities assembled above our size to examine, and it just so happens to have a few layers of entities assembled below our size to examine, and we just so happen to be comfortably sitting in the middle spot, miraculously, where we just so happen to be afforded an equal view of top and bottom layers, while we just so happen to have just the right equipment to come to this “brilliant” conclusion in just the right time to make us the first creatures in the history of the planet to come to see all that is above and all that is below – the entire universe, from Creation till now?

 

Our microscopes just so happen to have found roughly the same magnitude of depth - the same number of "layers" of entities, or "levels of size" in the microcosm, as our telescopes have found above us, in the macrocosm??  It just so happens that the limits of our current technology match precisely the limits of the universe???  Our best microscopes just so happen to see to the smallest fundamental “atoms”????  Our best telescopes just so happen to see all the way to the largest structures the universe has to offer, and even to right after The Beginning of Time itself – we can just barely glimpse the moment of Creation?????

 

What a special time and place to live!  We’re so special!  We are the center of the universe, and our time here, now, is the peak of all of History, having now viewed the whole universe, from top to bottom, and can physically see microwaves from just xico-seconds after creation!  Wow!  Feels good to be on the center-slice of the universe, at the ultimate pinnacle of the history of intelligence and engineering and science on our planet!

 

So, we don’t live in a Geo-centric universe.

And, we don’t live in a Helio-centric universe.

We live in a friggin’ Humano-centric universe.

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

 

 

 

Or howbout “Nothingness” – like before The Beginning, or like that which is outside of our “exploding” universe.

Some wild-eyed flat-earth types promote the Holographic Moon theory – that it is a projection – an illusion.  What’s more ridiculous, a holographic moon (nothing is really there but a phantasm), or “Nothingness” itself (not even a phantasm to examine)?

 

No experiment could ever be conducted to prove that Nothingness “exists” anywhere.

 

This is worse than believing in ghosts!

This is more superstitious/occult than believing in angels and demons!

You can test occult claims!

 

If you think you are following the rules of Science, and you are defending what is Good – Science – the Good Guys, and that I’m on the wrong team, then explain to me how Nothingness can possibly exist?  What sort of proof could you possibly offer me to convince me that there is “somewhere” with “nothing” there!!!  How will you show me this???  Will you just saddle me with some mathematics?  Here’s an equation for you:   Math alone ≠ Science!

 

The alleged Nothingness before the Big Bang, and the alleged remaining nothingness outside of our expanding universe into which it is exploding, has not only remained untested, it has not been explained or described, at all, by anybody!  Is this nothingness the same everywhere?  Is this nothingness infinite?  Does it go on forever?  So, there is an infinite volume of nothing?!  There is enough nothing to go ‘round, for everyone to “have” their own share, to “own” their own portion of the void?!  The supply of Nothingness is inexhaustible?!

 

Oy!

 

 

 

 

 

The term “universe” means: all that there was, is, and ever will be. 

The whole shebang! 

100%

The whole kit and caboodle. 

Lock, stock, and barrel.

 

There cannot be more than one “whole shebang”.

You cannot have parallel “whole shebangs”.

You cannot have a succession of “whole shebangs”.

And the whole shebang most definitely cannot wrap around itself!

 

The fact that this needs to be articulated in this day and age, reveals much, not only about scientists, but about consumers of Science.

 

 

 

 

 

Just as mainstream science cannot allow large galaxy clusters too soon after Creation, and most definitely cannot imagine anything much larger than galaxy clusters being assembled in our universe (not enough time), mainstream science proclaims that electrons and other sub-atomic entities are indivisible – they cannot allow for complexity within the primordial lego blocks of Creation – their … calculators cannot handle it.  They desperately need simplistic indivisible building blocks in order to simplify The Beginning – how matter formed from “Pure Energy” after Creation. 

 

The nature of “indivisible” fundamental building blocks has not been explained or even described, at all, by anybody.  They are simply assumed.  This is not science, it is crap philosophy.  How can such a thing exist in the first place?  What is the nature of something which has no parts to it?  It is impossible to fathom.  Are the fundamental building blocks empty inside or solid all the way through?  What shape would these smallest parts have?  Just a point?  This point would have to have a shape, even if it is just a sphere, right?  Well, would not the fact that you could observe one side of the sphere as opposed to its other side, reveal that it has multiple parts to it?  No?  OK.  Describe the surface of this empty thing then.  Is it simply that there is nothing inside and the surface is simply the boundary of the void within and the things outside of it?  Can things fall into this void?  Does the void remain void if something falls into it?  And if there is just a void in these fundamental building blocks, then how can they be building blocks of anything at all?  In other words, how can anything that is made of nothing constitute larger things?

 

Atomism is highly unintelligible.

 

What we call “Atoms” – the chemical elements like Oxygen or Silicon – were first claimed to be indivisible.  The very word “Atom” means “unbreakable” in Greek, but not only this, the Greek concept of the “Atom”, is precisely this idea of fundamental building blocks to the universe, and it was believed that we had finally isolated these smallest lego blocks for the entire universe.  We adopted this simple-minded model of the universe, Atomism, from the Greeks, who also believed in static celestial spheres made of the “fifth element” “quintessence”, with the stars and planets embedded in these spheres, with the outer-most sphere being governed by a “Prime Mover”, setting in motion all of the sub-ordinate enclosed spheres.  Atomism was adopted wholeheartedly from the Greeks, while celestial spheres were not, probably because we cannot readily visualize how ridiculous Atomism is, but in the larger realm of planets and stars, we can now clearly see (visually and obviously) how ridiculous celestial spheres would be as a working model today.

Then, in the early 1900’s, we smashed the alleged fundamental “Atom” lego-blocks, and found that they were made up of smaller bits!  Whoops!  This should have smashed the notion of Atomism along with it.  Instead, it is now assumed that sub-atomic particles are indivisible – fundamental building blocks for the universe!  Now electrons and their friends are the true “Atoms”!?

 

Big-Bang theory rests heavily on the notion of Atomism.  Without Atomism, each of the parts that explodes from The Beginning, actually had more parts within it to consider, and those parts would be made of smaller parts to consider, and so on, to infinity; with each part being no less significant to the whole of the functioning universe than any other part.  Without Atomism, each part of the universe is just as “large” as any other, and just as complicated to “create” as any other part, and just as complicated to understand mathematically as any other part.  Without Atomism, the theory of spontaneous creation out of nothing becomes infinitely more complex to conjure up and describe and draw on the classroom chalkboard.  Without Atomism, the Big Bang is a big fizzling dud.  Thwoop!

 

 

 

 

 

Modern mainstream cosmologists would have us digest the notion that the universe, “before” it “started”, was a “singularity” – where just “pure energy” was “bound” in an “infinitely dense” and “infinitely small” “spot”, and then this “pure energy” was “transformed” into matter, using E=mc2.

 

Energy cannot possibly be distinguished from the matter it moves, so you can’t transform one into another – energy is an aspect of matter – matter in motion or in resistance to motion.  So you most definitely cannot have just “Pure Energy” – not just in The Beginning in a “singularity” – but at any time anywhere!  You cannot just declare that the universe started with just “Pure Energy”, on its own, all alone, without any matter to convey this energy along!  Like, friggin’, duhhhhh!!!  No shit Sherlock!

 

What does “Pure Energy” even look like if nothing exists to be shaken about or be disturbed by it?!  How does it work???  How can Energy exist without matter?!  It is an unfathomable proposition!!!  Ancient fairy tales make more literal sense (while being more rewarding to contemplate).

 

Before we found out that air consisted of actual physical particles, maybe some people came to believe that wind energy was a thing, in of itself, separate from physical things.  We have assumed the same notion, that energy is a thing in of itself, distinct from matter, which can be packed into a thing called a “singularity”, and when released it can transform into matter, to “create” the universe from “pure energy”.

 

In experiments involving the breaking apart of atoms, the atoms are weighed before and then their by-products are weighed after splitting, and they found that by measuring the difference in weight (here on Earth, in our time, in these conditions), reveals how much energy was released by splitting the atoms.  This does not prove that you can transform matter into “pure” energy, nor does this prove that “pure” energy can even exist, much less does it prove that you can transform all matter into “pure” energy, or that you can transform all energy into “pure” matter.

What if the breakdown of an atom releases, instead: smaller bits of real matter that are in motion – and then we measure the motion and collisions of those smaller bits as energy.  These sorts of experiments could instead be perceived as a transformation of matter in motion of one form, into matter in motion in another form.  In other words, there is only matter in motion – energy cannot be separated from its carrying agent/medium.  Energy is a property of matter, it is a description of matter moving and colliding over time, so energy is inseparable from matter, so you can’t transform one into the other.

 

 

 

 

 

"Infinite Density" and "Infinite Smallness" are ludicrous physical impossibilities.

 

These cryptic turns of phrase encoded and inscribed in the dusty torturous tomes of esoteric Big Bang lore, are obvious contradictions in terms, which in fact reveal major flaws in a theory which literally tries to get something for nothing somehow!

 

If something were to be infinitely dense, it could never unpack itself at all.  Infinity cannot be subtracted from to get a smaller infinity – infinite density would never come out of infinite density – it would be limitless – it would be beyond comprehension and beyond observation – it would disallow the possibility of anything ever ungluing itself from anything else, ever!  A very dense idea!

 

If something were to be infinitely small, it would never expand into anything of any size or shape, whatever the rate of expansion you might attribute to it.  How can anything be infinitely small in the first place?  If something were to be infinitely small, it would fill no space, it would not exist, at all, in the first place!  Why do I need to type this out?  Small-minded theorists!

 

Science Zombies!

 

Science-Creationists!!!

 

 

 

 

 

In declaring a discovery of a uniform unchanging background of microwave radiation (interpreted as the remnant of the Big explosion), how were Penzias and Wilson able to pierce through all microwave sources, for example distant galaxies that pervade the universe in all directions?  How did they pierce through to better than Hubble resolution to avoid hitting distant galaxies – which are all emitters of microwaves?

Why did Big Bangers once predict 50 degrees Kelvin when they found 2.7?

Tens of scientists before these two had predicted values for the background temperature of space, very close to 2.7, without the need for Big Bang theory.  Why are all these more accurate predictions ignored in the science classroom?

Why are the microwave maps that we are shown not reproducible?  Why do they not show the discrepancies between different maps, which do exist?

 

 

 

 

 

In the 1920’s, Hubble discovered a proportional relationship between the apparent brightness (distance) of far-off galaxies and their light being shifted to the red.  The farther away from us they appeared, the more their light appeared to shift to the red end of the spectrum.  This was declared to be an unbending universal constant.  This is what allowed Einstein to save his unstable equation – he no longer needed Dark Energy to keep the universe from collapsing in on itself.  The Big Bang explosion, inferred from the redshift, allowed him to remove his Cosmological Constant.

Why is it that, when, in 1998, this constant was revealed to not be constant after all – why is it that they then added a new invisible force to keep Hubble’s constant a constant: the same silly non-existent embarrassing Dark Energy that Einstein craved so much?  Just to save a pet theory?  Why did the 1998 discovery that Hubble’s constant was not constant, not completely invalidate both Relativity and Big Bang?

The whole point – the whole reason Big Bang is a thing today is because they originally asserted to have found a universal constant!  That’s why they got funding!

Why do so many galaxies that are paired together in space (visibly attached) emit wildly different redshifts – while being at the very same distance?  Sometimes, within an attached pair of galaxies, one will be four times as redshifty as its companion.  Why was Halton Arp, the person who discovered this, denied further telescope time?

Why do quasars not follow Hubble’s constant?  They just offer a scatter of redshift values – all over the place – without clear correlation to their distance.

Why were those who discovered quasars ignored when they asserted that their redshifts do not accurately portray their distance?  How do we account for the tremendous energies of quasars, by sticking to a theory that pushes them back to so distant, that their light – their energy level is impossible to comprehend; while, in so doing, we have declared that quasars were only in the “early universe” – so no more quasars – they are not part of our current universe!  Oy!  That is really something else, honestly.  What pomp.  With a single grand sweeping gesture, us wise, studious and noble humans have declared that quasars do not exist in our current universe.  Genius.

 

 

 

 

 

The only official argument used to dismiss the theory of the universe being infinite is that, if it were infinite, the sky would be infinitely bright because an infinite number of stars would shine above us.

This assumes that outer space is empty space, and that light-waves do not slow down or dissipate, ever – this assumes that light waves encounter no resistance in the allegedly “Pure Vacuum”.

This argument (which is called “Olbers’ paradox) also assumes that an infinite universe would have an infinite number of stars – which is not at all the case.

 

 

 

 

 

In the Big Bang model, immediately after Creation, everything was essentially all still “Energy”.  With the insertion of Dark Energy into the equation, it forces the entire universe to expand and to eventually thin itself out into a non-energetic state, with some theorizing everything turning into matter – so no more energy in The End, just cold non-energetic “Matter”.  Lights out!

 

Besides the other countless flaws revealed by this implication of the Big Bang Model; why the heck would we be living in a time when the estimated amount of Dark Energy (70% of the energy-density of the universe) is so darn close to the proposed amount of Matter in the current universe (30% of the energy-density of the universe).  And, what, we’re way past the middle point of the total life of the entire universe???  Dark energy has already surpassed normal matter in this cosmic tug-o-war????  Are you people nuts?????

 

Normal matter allegedly only takes up 5% of the total energy-density of the universe.

We have yet to discover Dark Matter, which is estimated to account for 25%.

These two forms of gravity-inducing matter, one real, one entirely theoretical, take up 30%.

Theoretical Dark Energy is said to therefore account for the remainder: 70%.

Matter pulls things together, while Dark Energy allegedly pulls them apart.

 

So, Dark Energy has surpassed normal matter by 14 to 1,

and it has surpassed undiscovered Dark Matter by almost 3 to 1,

and, when real-world normal matter and undiscovered Dark Matter are considered together, undiscovered Dark Energy surpasses both forms of matter by 70/30, so 2.3 to 1!

 

Ask them about this and they say:

 

“I actually don’t have any good ideas as to why that might be the case.”

 

Sean Carroll

Then the class ends immediately.

Fade to black.

 

 

So, Dark Energy is now dominant – it is now in charge of things – it is more than twice as dominant as matter (observable and theoretical), and 14 times as dominant as normal matter (observable matter – matter examined and understood by real scientists).  The alleged undiscovered pulling-apart force is 14 times as abundant in the universe than the observable measurable bona-fide real-world pulling-together force.

 

But, that’s not all!  Listen very close to this next bit of theory-tripe:  Unlike normal matter, or even Dark Matter, Dark Energy has a very very special magic superpower: it doesn’t weaken out as it pushes things apart!!!  So, if Dark Energy expands 1 cubic centimeter of the universe into 100 cubic centimeters, each new cubic centimeter of that new area of universe has a Dark-Energy power equal to the initial cubic centimeter – Dark Energy doesn’t thin its power out as it thins the universe out!  It grows itself at an exponential rate as it grows the universe!!!  Wow!!!  Magic!!!  After expanding that cubic centimetre to 100, the universe then has 100 times the expanding force!!??!!??  What a magical superpower!  It just keeps going and growing and going and growing.  Ask them what Dark Energy is: “we have absolutely no understanding”.

 

What’s the evidence for all this?  Nothing at all.  They just pulled this horseshit right out of their magic mad top hat.  This is such a blatant fabrication – a nonsensical impossibility – a childish notion which, if they were to actually explain to the public, people might actually see Big Bang and Relativity for what they really are: a hodgepodge of wild-eyed mathematically-myopic inventions, not based on observations – completely divorced from reality.  Toxic pollution in our classrooms.

A magic show is more entertaining to deconstruct – a magic show is much more convincing – a magic show entices the audience to try to deconstruct the act; whereas Big Bangers do not put their full act on display, and confuse the audience rather than engaging with them as intelligent beings.  “You just don’t understand the maths.”  Well, I understand bullshit when I smell it.

 

So, not only has Dark Energy already beaten out Matter by over 2 to 1 (and, in fact, in reality, Dark Energy has beaten out observable – real – matter by 14 to 1), but, also, because of the way Dark Energy grows and grows and grows its own self exponentially, the end of the universe might very well be nigh!

 So, we are closer to the End than we are from the Beginning???  Are you kidding me?!?  Nonsense!!!  Absolute mathematical gobbledygook!!!

 

Again, just as we have enthroned ourselves on the physical center of the universe (a few layers of things above, and a few layers of things below), we have also enthroned ourselves in the middle time-slot of the universe!  We are so special to be gifted an existence in the only time in the universe that normal existence is possible!  Just enough matter, and just enough energy!  Perfect!  Yay!  Soon everything will just freeze into place – in just a few billion years even, maybe less!  Maybe much less!!!  Yay!  We’re so lucky!

 

Is anybody at all minding the shop???

 

 

 

 

 

No student, in a publicly-funded (secular) institution, should be force-fed the notion of creation-out-of-nothing – literally Church doctrine – Creatio ex nihilo, much less should a student be asked to prove that Nothingness cannot exist!

 

 

 

 

 

 “How can one describe the universe at The Beginning of Time?  I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the Laws of Science.  The universe exists because the Laws of general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist.  If I’m right, the universe is self-contained, and governed by Science alone.”

 

Stephen Hawking

In a lecture at the university of California at Berkley, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

Woah woah woah there buddy…

Don’t turn around now and blame the scientists!

Don’t you dare start blaming poor Stephen!

You said you did firmly believe in all this crap!

You admitted that you believe in this Time-Travel Big-Bang Flat-Universe nonsense.

 

 

 

Do you blame the worst errant rabbis, priests and mullahs alone for fundamentalism?

 

Do you blame the originator of the Flat-Earth idea alone for all of the followers that believe in and promote the idea?

 

Do you blame Trump alone for the behaviour of the 74 million that voted for him?

 

Do you blame Putin alone, or the millions of people that work under him and have supported him for decades as well.

 

 

 

Did you yourself ever question these embarrassingly untenable ideas?

A friggin’ birthday to the entire universe?

Time bending, starting and stopping?

Wormholes through Space-Time?

Are you fucking nuts?

Trying to have the entire universe packed into “a spot” which then “explodes”?

Crackpot gibberish!

You have blotted the good name of Science and the effectiveness of public education with your twisted unintelligible fantasies, worse than the sorts of rambling mutterings you hear among flat-earthers.

 

 

 

 

 

Our modern 21st-century view of the entire universe is based most fundamentally on Einstein’s explanation of gravity, light-waves, and time.  Einstein’s work was initially formulated and published in a time when the galaxies had yet to be discovered, quasars had yet to be discovered, the atomic nucleus had just started to be observed, things like neutrons had not yet been theorized, and protons were just beginning to be theorized.  Plate tectonics had not yet even been proposed seriously.  Electricity coming from the sun and interacting with our magnetosphere was considered a ridiculous proposition.  We had yet to find out what was on the moon or if we should prepare for a Martian invasion.  Venus was still considered a potential hospitable vacation planet.

 

 

 

 

 

If you find something incredibly wrong with theologians being funded by public university departments, and you find that some priests are holding courses which are clearly in contradiction with public education principles, and you raise the matter, and you are told that: the only way you can address the situation is to spend years training as a priest at seminary school, and then, once ordained, you can then have permission to file your complaint in the peer-reviewed Theological Journal, but the journal referee can disallow your complaint, after all those years of effort;  what’s the difference with this, and:  finding something clearly incredibly wrong with science-based cosmology, heavily funded by public university departments, and then you are told that you have to first spend years and tens of thousands of dollars to get a physics degree, then, if accredited, you will then have permission to file your complaint in a peer-reviewed physics journal, which you might not even be accepted to publish within, as Halton Arp was – rejected by many physics journals, even with undeniable telescope-based proof that Big Bang is clearly seriously incorrect.

 

Should public universities fund departments of time-travel medicine?

If so, if after 100 years, time-travel medicine, publicly funded, has resorted to inventing unseen forces, and is taking lab-time away from other medical researchers, and won’t take no for an answer, is that still OK with you?

This would be insulting, both to the patients in need and the taxpayer.  A huge double-standard exists here, institutionally.

 

 

 

 

 

It is also a sad spiritual state of affairs among scientists themselves, with one documentary, the Time Lords, telling the story of a tragic attempt by one physicist (out of many trying to achieve time-travel), seeking to go back in time to meet his deceased father!  You are breaking your own heart while twisting your own mind!

In this, scientists themselves don’t seem to be well-served by modern official cosmology.  Nobody should be told that their loved ones that have passed away, or distant ancestors, are all still alive and well, but just waiting for you “in another dimension” or waiting for you in “the past”.  That is a heart-wrenching thought, unnecessarily cruel, a waste of effort, is heavily reminiscent of standard religious practices that try to satisfy the soul during times of grief, defies common-sense, and is a general shame all-‘round.

 

If you seek to devote yourself to a worthy vocation that applies science, or conducts science, or is dependent on science in a significant way, trust in subject matter, notions, theories, and raw equations and such, of things close to your size and proximity

We know nothing much worth knowing about inter-galactic astronomy, or even galactic astronomy, or even about the insides of our own Astro; and we know nothing much worth reporting concerning tiny microscopic entities like electrons and such.  But, we know tons of solid things, solid facts, worth studying, concerning things like how terrestrial biology works, and we know tons about chemistry, and we know lots of useful things about subjects like near-surface geology or oceanography.  Going out further to macroscopic or into microscopic realms, or out to distant areas at our size-level, or way back in time or way forward in time; weakens our ability to conduct experiments. 

Science is powered by experiment.  Without experiment, it’s just philosophy.  Where experiment is limited (distance, reach, time), Science runs blind and is pretty much rendered useless.  Modern Science has yet to come to grips with this simple fact – it still believes it can answer any and every question … … … eventually.  No mystic, of any tradition, in their right mind, would be as arrogant or presumptuous as a modern mainstream cosmologist.

Scientists would be much more helpful, to themselves as well as helpful to others, if they were to pause to reflect way deeper, before making definite assertions about deep time, and about the super-small and the super-large, and about human antiquity, and most importantly, about the nature of Life and the minds of living organisms, including animals, plants, single cells, and below…  and above…

 

 

 

 

 

A finite universe is highly unintelligible, wildly irrational, defies common sense, contradicts raw observations, and demands that students digest and promote concepts less rational than medieval medical procedures – tortuous concepts which twist the mind, and leaves only those willing to believe in something they cannot comprehend much less explain, but can handle the wild mathematics, or worse – it leaves those who are willing to pretend to understand, just to fit in and get the “right” answer, it leaves only these individuals working on, promoting and teaching the same untenable concepts to the next unquestioning generation, while the public simply remains baffled and befuddled and ignores the opaque subject altogether, giving up after trying to digest A Brief History of Time.

The theory of a finite universe, the central pillar of modern official cosmology, is nothing more than B-grade science fiction, hiding behind a web of abstruse mathematics, and overshadows and takes telescope time and research funding away from much more interesting physics experiments, such as those involving plasmas in our observable universe, solving the mystery of quasars, the mystery of star formation, the mystery of connected galactic strings, the mystery of quantized redshift, etc…

The more rational and sensible and far less insane default assumption is that there are infinite types of entities within infinite types of entities, (while some entities may be so unique and fleeting that they do not belong to any “type”).  Therefore, there cannot possibly be a single equation to the universe.  A fully accurate mathematical model of the universe would require infinite equations, describing infinite ever-changing processes, putting the value of labours of physicists in context, with their equations only referring to the small portion of the universe in which our eyes and instruments can probe.  And, being animated by infinite detail, even the equations describing the limited number of physical processes which we can observe would therefore not be able to be combined into a single perfect equation.

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmology is not a science, even though it may benefit from systematic investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your spirit simmers in frustration due to Science’s denial of your spiritual life, or due to Science’s portrayal of your inner life as made of lifeless “automatic” reactions between lifeless chemicals and particles, and that your living mind acts through lifeless synapses only between certain cells which are triggered by lifeless electrical impulses driven by other, previous, lifeless electrical impulses, all “conducted” by a lifeless genetic molecule triggered by lifeless automatic chemical and particle reactions;  and you feel you know better, but that Science just hasn’t been able to deal with (come to terms with) or detect what you feel is the deeper truth of life within you and outside of you;  fear not, for the authors of the Bible and the Qur’an have prepared for us a brilliant set of arguments to address the constraints on cosmology that Science was destined to impose by the natural course of events.

 

Here is what the word “Pharisee” means in Aramaic, with some counterparts in Hebrew as well:

 

To separate, divide.

To specify, distinguish, discriminate, discern, delimit.

Point, difference.

Differences.

Exact amount.

Arranging things in a hierarchal or logical order.

Ordered words.

Speaking explicitly.

Intelligence, perception.

To define, explain.

 

That is explicitly what the Aramaic dictionary says.

 

The very definition of modern science!

 

Everything in its box!

Divide our understanding of nature into compartments!

Arranging everything for us in what they think is a logical order!

Explaining things by separating their parts and explaining those parts instead!

Looking at differences rather than inter-relationships!

Ignoring the fact that all the distinctions – all the boxes – all the various science-theories about the macrocosm and the microcosm don’t form a cohesive picture of nature!

Following mathematics strictly!  (in each box) (but not between boxes)

Speaking in a manner that shows no doubt of their theories!

Professing themselves to be the intelligent ones!

Acting as arbiters of truth!

Purporting to offer an explanation or definition for every thing!

 

The authors of Semitic scripture were exceedingly cunning.

They understood that eventually Science-Zombies - Big Bang Believers - Time-Travelling Troglodytes - Multiverse Morons - they understood that you guys would rise in power – they predicted your folly!  The authors have one up on you!  Yet you deride their books to no end!  Ha!  They knew you wouldn’t bother reading the Bible, or considering its mythological themes – its allegorical themes – they knew very well that you would stay in your box!  They knew you better than you know yourself!

In other words, you have to hand it to the authors of Semitic scripture because they have not only fooled the billions of people that follow Semitic scripture in a literal way, they also predicted that fools would be in charge of “secular” understanding of nature – to the tune of billions as well – science-zombies regurgitating ridiculous childish theories about the natural world, like a birthday to the universe.

 

 

 

If you are burdened by regular demoralizing shame or frustration at not understanding what the physics teacher is talking about, and worry about getting the wrong answer on the final exam, about Big Bang, Time as a physical dimension, Time Travel, Wormholes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Cosmic Microwave Background (as a glimpse of creation even), Quantum Entanglement, 1-dimensional things, 0-dimensional things, 12-dimensional things, Electrons as “Indivisible”, etc…; if you live in fear of not understanding what the teacher is talking about, don’t worry, because all of this is a friggin’ steaming load of fresh uncomposted horseshit. 

Revelation of the symbolic nature of scripture isn’t even necessary to address all this ill-conceived thought-tripe.  You could easily ask your Science teacher a series of straight-forward questions to easily put him or her on the hot seat, concerning all these crackpot notions taught in publicly-funded schools.

 

 

 

Let’s recap the refutations of Relativity and Big Bang described above, then expand upon a few of them in greater detail:

 

 

We have most certainly not been miraculously granted a comfortable middle spot in a finite universal sandwich, sitting between a few layers of entities above us, and a few layers of entities below, with our kind (planetary-surface life) enclosed in the middle-most slot, like a slice of ham.  We have built our entire view of the universe based on the assumption that there is nothing smaller than electrons and their kind, and nothing larger than galaxy clusters assembled in the universe; yet we simply cannot assume that we have inherited a perfect viewing vantage point in the cosmos, with an equal view of the entire macrocosm and of the entire microcosm, each consisting of roughly equal portions of layers, while having just so happened to have inherited the exact technology necessary to do so in our time!  This point is exceedingly strong – it is listed first here because it refutes all of Big Bang and Relativity in one fell swoop, with ease.

 

Atomism has nothing to do with science.  It is ill-conceived philosophy, heavily resorted to by certain physicists craving simplicity and a soft daily job, computing and calculating easy parameters of simplistic models.  Atomism is a childish ancient notion, just as ridiculous as “celestial spheres”.  Electrons are most definitely divisible.  Without Atomism, Big Bang cannot possibly work.

 

Nothingness cannot be the object of any scientific investigation, because there is no test for it.  To be incorporated into a scientific theory, it would first have to be proven, by logic, that it could exist.  To date, the number of logical arguments proving the existence or even possible existence of Nothingness, published in peer-reviewed journals and discussed and debated in lecture halls across the world and mulled over by officials handing out funding for research and reviewed and discussed by textbook printing house research staff; totals a great big whopping 0.  Nodda!  Nothing!  There is a void of evidence for the void!  There is nothing to indicate that Nothing can exist!

 

“Pure Energy” and “Pure Matter” are impossible concepts, and have not been established experimentally.  Energy cannot be transformed into Matter or vice versa.  Energy is an aspect of matter, and all matter is always energetic.  E=mc2 is not some magic spell you can invoke to allow you to transform matter into energy in an absolute way.

 

"Infinite Density" and "Infinite Smallness" are not mathematical terms.  They just sound like it.  They are not scientific terms – they just sound fancy.  These are softly spoken magic spells.  These should have immediately raised alarm bells in every student in every physics classroom, but, instead, we get an entranced population not able or willing to scrutinize what the teacher is babbling on about.

 

Time-travel, a ridiculous notion, is allowed by the mathematics of Relativity, thereby completely and immediately invalidating the theory.  Relativity should’ve been DOA.  Should public universities fund departments of time-travel medicine?

 

There is no maximum speed, of anything, in the universe, because speed is a measure of relative motion, so you can choose any two items out of an infinite number with an infinite variety of motion, in infinite directions.

 

You cannot add meters to seconds.

 

The notion that Time can “start” or “stop” is not science.  Period.  It is not even philosophy, because philosophy usually tries to explain itself – whereas Time “starting” and “stopping” is just a mathematical construct, without any metaphysical elaboration.

 

The term “Universe” means all that there ever was, is, and whatever will be.  You cannot have multiples of these.  The term “Multiverse” is therefore an obvious blatant contradiction in terms.

 

The “confirmation” of Big Bang – the “Cosmic Microwave Background”, is an outlandish and ridiculous “discovery”.  There are emitters of microwaves in all directions, that any horn or telescope cannot possibly hope to avoid – all the distant galaxies.  Even our very own galaxy immerses us in a background of radiation.  2.7 degrees is not at all what Big Bangers predicted.  Other scientists were much more successful in predicting the background temperature of space, without resorting to a seethingly hot “birthday” to the universe.

 

The redshift of galaxies and quasars are not proportional to their distance.  Hubble’s constant turns out to not be a universal constant, after all.  Hubble himself disowned the use of the Hubble constant for the Big Bang theory.  Hubble disagreed with Big Bang!  Halton Arp, a protégé of Hubble, discovered galaxy-pairs and galaxy-quasar pairs that have exceedingly different redshifts.  Quasars do not offer a steady correlation between their distance and their redshift (just a scatter on the plot).  Also, quasars would have to produce impossible energies (because we put them so distant from us that the bright light we see must indicate insane amounts of energy).  Also, quasars would have to be extinct in our current universe – they are only allowed in the early universe by mainstream cosmologists.  Even mainstream cosmologists, in 1998, discovered that Hubble’s constant wasn’t constant.  That is a lot of solid refutation of both Relativity and Big Bang (by addressing a single topic alone – redshift!)

 

The Coincidence Scandal alone strongly refutes all of Big Bang and Relativity.  In the introduction, a summary of the Coincidence Scandal was offered, without naming it as such.  It involves “Dark Energy”.  You see,  the mainstream cosmologists, in 1998, having found a significant discrepancy in their Redshift = Distance law (Hubble’s “constant”), invented “Dark Energy”.  This unknown, undiscovered “force” just so happens to be roughly equal with the amount of matter (normal and “Dark” matter) in the current universe.  This puts us at the center-time slot of the universe.  In fact, it puts us past the middle-point of the life of the whole universe!  Dark Energy has already beat all Matter by over 2 to 1 (70 percent vs. 30 percent).  The fact that I did not come up with this – the fact that this had been developed and had been understood by mainstream cosmologists demonstrates that these people won’t take no for an answer – they knew very well how unworkable all this nonsense really is!

 

Olbers’ paradox, which is the only official argument put forward against the idea of an eternal and infinite universe, assumes that empty space is purely empty – that light waves do not encounter resistance – forever and ever.

 

 

Let’s recap this recap.  Relativity and Big Bang require:

 

A Universal Sandwich – a flat universe.

Atomism – indivisible things.

A maximum size to things – not enough time for anything much larger than galaxies to develop.

Nothingness – all that is “outside” of our “exploding” universe, and all that was “before” the “beginning”.

Pure Energy – like what was “packed into” the primordial “singularity”.

Pure Matter – like all that will remain once Dark Energy thins out the entire universe into a non-energetic frozen state.

Infinite Density  and  Infinite Smallness.  Oy!

Time-Travel.  Sheesh!  This alone!  This alone!!!

A Maximum Speed – a novice misunderstanding of the simple notion of speed.

The adding of meters to seconds in an equation.

Time Starting or Stopping.

Multiple “Universes”.

A Distant Primordial Microwave Background – whereas what we see is clearly from our galaxy as well as from every other galaxy in the universe – think of Hubble deep field – there are emitters of microwaves in every direction.

Redshift Proportional to Distance – whereas Hubble’s constant is not a constant – even mainstream people discovered this fact (1998).  Galaxy pairs and galaxy-quasar pairs show different redshifts while being at the same distance.  Quasars don’t show the same relationship between distance and redshift.

 

And:

 

Olber’s Paradox – the official refutation of the main theory in this work – that the universe is infinite and eternal – rather than disproving this notion, instead reveals that mainstream cosmologists simply don’t understand how light is affected by its travel through space.

The Coincidence Scandal alone, should have put all this Big Bang and Relativity talk to rest long ago – they admitted to this flaw all along!

 

 

 

Big Bang had long ago been given the Big Boot – it had already been revealed to be false with hard facts, many moons ago.  It was easy as 1, 2, 3, 2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet NGC 1232 (and its child-galaxy to the left).

 

 

For Big Bang to work, these two objects must be very very very very far apart.

But they’re not, so Big Bang cannot possibly work.

 

How many observations are required to disprove Big Bang.

Just one.

This one alone completely disallows Big Bang.

 

Big Bang Bullderdash was born from the observation that the more distant a galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted to the red end of the light-spectrum.  (it is worth re-reading this last bit, because this is the very foundation of Big Bang – the reason we ever considered it in the first place – the reason I’m writing about this and the reason you’re reading about Big Bang, and thinking about Big Bang – it’s because of the redshift of galaxies)

This, in turn, led to the erroneous assumption that this galactic redshift is an indication of, and only an indication of: how fast a galaxy is moving away from us.  Red light wavelengths are longer than blue ones, therefore, it is assumed, the light waves of galaxies have been stretched like the soundwaves of a siren moving away from you.  By interpreting all redshift from all galaxies in this manner, we conjured an illusion for ourselves by imagining them all moving away from us (and from each other) (only because they all show light shifted to the red).

Then, in our great wisdom, we deduced that there must have been a Beginning Spot where all of the galaxies must have exploded from (because they’re all moving away from each other, because all the ones we see are redshifted, and all redshift is from motion – receding motion, and nothing else).

Then, in our greater wisdom, we deduced that there must have been a Beginning of Time and of the entire Universe itself, all based on this hypothetical explosion, all based on this hypothetical motion of every galaxy away from every other galaxy, all based on the simple observable fact that we see the light of all galaxies shifted to the red.  I mean, like, what explanation of redshift, could there possibly be other than a primordial explosion, from Nothingness and the Beginning of Time itself?!!!

 

That is a lot of inference from the redshift of galaxies!  Only a priest could have come up with this – and, indeed, it was a priest who did – Georges Lemaitre, in order to prove the literal interpretation of the creation narrative found in the book of Genesis, by his very own admission, and by the admission of scholars today – and this is not even controversial at all, which is astronomically astounding, in of itself.

 

In this childish mainstream Redshift=Big-Bang model, with the redshift of any galaxy being only an indication of how fast it is moving away from us (therefore indicating how close we were to that galaxy at creation/explosion-time); in this model, you cannot have two galaxies, side-by-side (at the same distance from us), with wildly different redshifts.  That would be a huge contradiction, and immediately and conclusively invalidate Big Bang.  If anybody were to find two galaxies, clearly side by side or associated, or better-yet – two galaxies visibly connected together, and measure different redshifts for each, well then, that would seal the deal – no Big Bang (like, they have to concede, they have to abandon this theory, because this is an empirical test) (are we not supposed to find ways to invalidate theories – in order to test their weaknesses and make them stronger – or to kick crap theories out?).

 

In the above picture, using the Big Bang interpretation of redshift, the big galaxy should be moving away from us at 1600 kilometers per second, and the companion cannot be a companion, because it should be moving away from us at 6500 kilometers per second, according to Big Bang redshift theory.  So, the big galaxy should be 4 times closer than the smaller one, according to Big Bang redshift interpretation.  It was, apparently, 4 times closer to us in The Beginning Spot than the smaller galaxy.

 

 

 

“It is amusing to note that in both the NGC 4151 and NGC 1232 cases, the companions were [first] reported [by mainstream astronomers] as having the same redshifts as the main galaxies to which they obviously belonged.

 

In both cases it was later determined that this was a mistake, and that the companions actually had +5,700 and +4,900 km/sec higher redshifts.  Naturally they were then relegated to the background!  [by mainstream Big Bang Boasters]

 

But in the case of NGC 1232B, Fig. 15 shows that an outer spiral arm leads directly to the companion.  The companion and the arm have the same resolution into stars and HII regions [the background behind both the large galaxy and the companion galaxy is just as opaque – same density of galaxy material], and this detailed picture seems to show clearly that the [smaller companion] galaxy is an aggregate of the same material as in the arm [of the larger galaxy].

 

Following this arm back toward the center of the spiral leads to a flat section perpendicular to the arm, which looks like the beginning of a channel of just the size along which the companion could have travelled.”

 

Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations

Halton Arp

2003

Pages 199-200 and image on page 232

 

 

There is a clear bridge of material between the two galaxies – that greenish cloudiness, as Arp mentions.  They are clearly connected, while the companion galaxy is 4 times as redshifty as the main galaxy!

 

 

 

 

Not good enough for you?

It should be.

You want more proof?

There’s plenty:

 

 

 

 

 

Even with this grainy image of NGC 7603, there is clearly a bridge of material between the two, with the two dots in the bridge also being clearly part of this system, but Big Bang theory disallows that these two objects be physically attached, let alone the two confirmed quasars (dots in the bridge)!

 

The big galaxy has a redshift of 0.029

The companion galaxy has a redshift of 0.057

The dot, on the companion’s side of the bridge, has a redshift of 0.243

The dot, on the big galaxy’s side of the bridge, has a redshift of 0.391

 

 Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations

Halton Arp

2003

Page 202, and image on page 233

 

 

So, according to Big Bang, the companion galaxy is not a companion galaxy, because, according to Big Bang, it is moving away from us eight leap-froggin’ thousand kilometers per second faster than the larger galaxy is moving away from us, so the two cannot be connected – so that luminous bridge is just an illusion, and the two dots in the bridge are even way more distant than the companion galaxy (like, wayyyy more distant).  And the whole cloud of blueishness that clearly connects the two galaxies? – oh that’s just an interesting “coincidence”.

If you don’t believe that this is precisely what is “understood” in mainstream astrophysics – just ask your science teacher, and please do so.

 

 

 

If two objects, at the same distance from us, can have very different redshifts, then there are components to redshift that have nothing to do with motion away from us, and maybe very little of the redshift indicates motion at all.  If we so poorly understand redshift on galactic scales, then maybe the galaxies are not all moving away from each other – the redshift we see from distant galaxies is from causes other than motion away from us.  If the galaxies are not moving away from each other, then there is no big bang.

Galaxies NGC 1232 and NGC 7603 satisfactorily put a quick End to any talk of a Beginning.

 

 

 

What’s even more amazing (and, in the end, more important for science and cosmology), is, Halton Arp demonstrated, through all his decades of astronomical amounts of research, that galaxies eject baby galaxies!  Not an insignificant discovery!  One day, Halton Arp will be rightly lauded for uncovering one of the most fascinating things to be known.

In the two examples above, the parent and child galaxies are so close that the umbilical cord is still visible.

What Halton Arp found was that, when first ejected, the baby galaxies are more energetic than the parent galaxy (and this, for some reason, gives out light which is shifted more to the red).  Halton Arp then explains that these baby galaxies are confused with quasars.  Birthing usually occurs out the poles, but, as in the 2 above cases, the baby galaxies sometimes fling out the sides of the parent galaxies.

 

 

 

So, the general redshift of all galaxies does not at all indicate motion away from us, and does not at all indicate that all galaxies are moving away from each other, much less does it demonstrate that there was a Beginning of the Universe and of Time itself!

Even if you were to interpret all the redshift of galaxies and quasars as an indication of an explosion in the past – there is no logic in then claiming that Time started and that the whole universe started, with this explosion.  That is a wildly irrational – wildly illogical assertion.

Instead of the universe having a finite existence, with a finite number of things; the universe never started, and will never stop, and each thing within the universe is made up of smaller things, to no end.  No thing, in an infinite universe, can be indivisible (every thing can be divided into smaller things).  And each thing in the universe is part of larger things, to no end of assemblages/structures/things/creatures above us…

If our living selves are made of living cells, if this is a possibility, then we must ask ourselves if living cells are made of smaller living selves – smaller creatures, and if those smaller creatures are made of smaller creatures – with no end to this infinite Tree of Life.

If living cells can interact together to form a cohesive living organism, such as yourself, then humans and other multicellular creatures would also be able to form larger living organisms, and those organisms might be part of larger organisms, with no end to this infinite Tree of Life.

It is the central opinion of this book that this was the central opinion of scripture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey now,

Hold on there buddy…

Hold the hippie tree-of-life-hugging yarn for a minute…

Isn’t there any other evidence for Big Bang, other than redshift of galaxies?

I mean, like, this is Big Science we’re talking about here, so there should be Big Evidence, right?  We paid Big Bucks for this!

 

Well, if you consider two dudes, Penzias and Wilson, in the 60s, who pointed an antique antenna with pigeons roosting in it, straight up at the sky, thinking to themselves that they could see all the way to the edge of the universe, to measure, from here on Earth, the temperature of Creation:

 

They did measure a temperature.

A very small temperature.

2.7 degrees Kelvin.  (there is no 0 degrees Kelvin)

The temperature of the top of the sky, from the ground.

The temperature of the “edge of the universe”, allegedly accessible from the ground, with a giant horn, pointed at the top of the sky.

Modern Science.

 

This, apparently, confirmed the Big Bang once and for all, because this residual microwave radiation from Creation’s incalculably explosive power was previously predicted (at 5, 10, 25, and even at 50 degrees Kelvin, by Big Bangers), before this high-tech observation of the edge of the universe, from the ground, here on Earth, with a novelty oversized horn on a hand-cranked swivel, perched wayyyy up high, on a hill.

 

Hmmmm….

From where else could all this intense, 2.7 degrees worth of microwave radiation possibly come from?

Hmmmmmmmm………

 

Could this sizzling 2.7 degrees Kelvin worth of microwaves they measured be from particles in the solar wind within the Heliosphere?  No?  Too fine?  OK fine.  Howbout from interstellar clouds?  No?  Too cold?  OK sold.  Howbout the strong microwave radiation from stars?  No?  But stars are everywhere in our galaxy!  Still No?  Really?  OK  Howbout the exceedingly strong microwave signals from galaxies themselves, found in all directions?  No?  The space-age pigeon-antenna could pierce through all that?  Wow!  Amazing!  Howbout microwave signals from giant clouds of inter-galactic gas?  No?  Penzias and Wilson could pierce through all that noise, and weren’t in fact just scoooooping up a general sample of all the friggin’ radiating matter in the universe, in any direction?

 

Nope.  The unbearably stifling 2.7 degrees worth of Big Bang explosion shock-waves that were found, can only be from the very distant “edge of the universe” (Better than Hubble can resolve).  The giant horn we used, after we took out the pigeons that were roosting in it, and scrubbed it clean of pigeon poop, and greased the hand-cranked swivelling mechanism, and had lunch sitting in the horn with the farmer whose field we were using; after this, we then made sure the horn did not hit any distant galaxy, or any cloud of dust between galaxies, or any other emitter of microwaves.  It pierced right through to better resolution than Hubble Deep Field, avoiding any contamination from all sources of microwave radiation, in any and all directions.

 

Hmmmmm…. out of the entire universe, what else could this 2.7 degrees worth of microwaves possibly come from?  Oh, I dunno, howbout our own friggin’ home galaxy, in which we are immersed, which friggin’ emits friggin’ microwaves – plenty of microwaves!  We are sitting in a giant emitter of microwaves, and we are then surprised to find that there are microwaves in every direction, with the brightest glare from the galaxy center itself! 

                                                                                                          

Crackpot Science is what Big Bang has always been, from The Very Beginning.

 

It is so far out of rational bounds, it is so ridiculous (a birthday to the universe?) (I mean, like, sheesh!), and the tonsured academic proponents are so convinced and cannot entertain any objection; and, more importantly, so many consumers of science do not bother to question Big Bang; the state of affairs is so egregious, that this will surely be studied as a textbook example of how textbook Science can go wrong, and in wondrous fashion.

 

 

 

 

This, above, is the microwave-map of the heavens, as seen from space.

This, is what all the fuss is about.

Ask yourself, is this really a glimpse of creation?

Is this really all it takes to convince you that the universe is flat and finite, and that Time can Start?

Does this correct all the problems with redshift interpretation by Big Bang Buffoons, and finally confirm, once and for all, that the universe had a birthday?

Really?

This is what seals the deal for you?

 

All of that red in the above microwave map of the “early heavens”, is from our galaxy.  (From our local heavens)  Microwaves are heavily emitted by our galaxy.  Our galaxy’s center is the shape outlined within the red region.  The milky way’s microwave emissions are clearly all-enveloping, taking up a majority of our view of the heavens!  The galaxy clearly emits outside of its central regions!

Now, where the red becomes blue, how can we be sure that the blue regions still don’t have some sort of microwave signal from our galaxy – from the portion of our galaxy away from its center?!  If the center emits microwaves, why not the same galaxy, but in less dense regions, closer to its edges (enough for at least a good portion of that 2.7 kelvin)?  When we look at a distant galaxy, do we only find it emitting microwaves only at its very center, or all throughout, even to the edges?

Add to this many emitters of microwaves below the scale of galaxy, as well as many significant emitters of microwaves above the scale of galaxies, and it begs the question:  how, on Earth, did Penzias and Wilson filter all these microwave sources out?  (this was the officially accepted confirmation of Big Bang – this microwaves-of-creation business is precisely why Big Bang is still a thing today).

 

In any other trade, this would be eagerly prosecuted as fraud, and would eject those who sell this snake-oil out onto the real job market, with the case being easily decided even in the most underfunded and exhausted court of law – with clear evidence of presenting doctored images as real, which include contradictory datasets (each time they sample the heavens, they get a new microwave map – no map has been reproduced, while claiming the background to be uniform and unchanging), as well as the proponents refusing to accept contrary evidence (NGC 1232, NGC 7603, for excellent examples), and personally taking telescope time away from those providing the clear evidence that disproves Big Bang, for half a century; let alone doing things like conjuring and forcibly promoting the adoption of a mathematical equation that adds seconds to meters (something you get deductions for in grade school); all in order to force a creationist view into authoritative science, by the admission of the very Father of Big Bang himself – an ordained Father.

 

Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille points out that when Medicine gets things wrong, there are checks and balances (like case-reviews or even lawsuits), while no such checks exist on mainstream well-funded cosmology.

 

A cosmology which has run amuck with the imaginations of students as well as adults, with concepts that bend simple notions like space and time into unintelligible noise that makes no integrated sense.

 

When have you ever heard a preacher or churchgoer complain of Big Bang?

 

Big Bang is creationism veiled with a hodgepodge of half-witted “deductions” from a tiny number of ill-interpreted observations (redshift can be caused by things other than receding motion, and the Microwave Background is clearly not made from “The Background”).

 

Big Bang is creationism veiled.

Take the word of the Priest who came up with the notion in the first place.  Priests don’t lie, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C’mon man!

Surely they must know all this?

Surely they checked this all out?

 

Who is they?

Can you cite a paper?

Do you just trust your science guru?

 

Well, there’s so much more to Big Bang theory – there’s all that Dark Energy and Dark Matter stuff, right?  What about all that now then eh buddy?!

 

What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

What are you talking about, buddy?

 

Well, aren’t Dark Matter and Dark Energy all part of Big Bang?

 

Well, yes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are part of Big Bang theory, but:

 

 

 

Dark Matter was invented to save Relativity and Big Bang!

While Dark Energy is just a mis-interpretation of the redshift of light coming from exploding stars in distant galaxies as allegedly indicating that the alleged expansion of the entire universe is accelerating!

 

 

 

The need to invent Dark Matter reveals a clear invalidation of the theory that Gravity is the only force operating at large scales.  Big Bang requires that Einstein’s view of the macrocosm remain intact (Einstein = Gravity-Only).

Dark Matter was invented to solve the puzzle that was noticed long ago by Fritz Zwicky: that galaxies don’t have enough visible matter to keep themselves together gravitationally, with the known rate of spin of galaxies – they should just whirl apart.

OK.

Well, to save the Gravity-Is-The-Only-Force-At-Work model, which underpins Big Bang theory, Big Bang Bozos invented invisible, yet-to-be-detected matter (not without trying), that helps with the gravity, to keep our galaxy from whirling apart.

Now, with the theory presented in this work, concerning an infinite universe, there is matter which is undetectable – that is true.  But, we can explain the cohesion of galaxies with forces other than Gravity from invisible matter.  A very reasonable theory of ElectroMagnetic forces at work on these scales is almost certainly the solution.  Magnetic fields have already been discovered on galactic scales (aligned along the arms), so does this not already indicate the presence of a cohesive force?

In any case, even if you doubt the ElectroMagnetic alternative (to explain how galaxies stay together), and even if there is indeed invisible matter in the universe, Dark Matter still remains a long-unsuccessful model to explain the cohesion of galaxies.

The invisible matter that does exist in the infinite depths, does not all produce gravity, and of the biggest bits of matter in the depths – the ones closest to our size, we’ve tried long and hard to find some more matter that does produce gravity as well – but we haven’t found this, with decades of effort now.

Maybe there are some gravity-interactions with bits of matter near to our size-level that we haven’t detected yet – but, the ElectroMagnetic explanation is so very much more probable, that searching through the infinite depths for more gravity-inducing bits, is clearly a waste of time and effort, in order to help us understand why our galaxy keeps itself together as it enjoys its dizzying spinning existence.

We don’t need Dark Matter theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Energy, on the other hand, is a completely different tin of 28-year-old spam, and is 120 orders of magnitude more ridiculous than Dark Matter, and reveals so many wrenches in the well-CGI-manicured Big Bang theory-engine, that it is stupendous how it has survived in serious institutions of intellectual innovation, for decades.

In 1998, Big Bang Buffoons interpreted the light of stars exploding in distant galaxies as indicating that the alleged expansion rate of the entire universe was accelerating:

 

 

“One area that seems particularly disruptive is in Astrophysics, and the attempt to make sense out of the discovery of what has been called Dark Energy.  That’s the 1998 discovery that, based on interpreting certain kinds of supernova observations, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this acceleration therefore means that there is a force at work that is pushing the universe out.

 

Now, this is not just pushing the Matter out, it’s pushing out Space, Time, Matter, and Energy, because as we know from General Relativity theory – all of those are interconnected, so what we’re saying is that there is a force at work, which is part of the fabric of the universe, and which is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, and that this force manifested itself, it now looks like, when the universe was about 7 billion years old.  So, approximately 6 and a half billion years ago, this force manifested itself.

 

But, that would be really too bizarre, so it must always have been there, but it was masked by Gravity, early on, in the first 5 or 6 billion years; but, as the universe expanded and the gravitational force of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe [was] weakened by the expansion of the universe; then about 7 billion years ago, the force that we have come to call Dark Energy began to manifest itself.”

 

Stephen L. Goldman

Science in the 20th Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey

The Great Courses #1220

 

 

 

But, what if I don’t believe in a Birthday to the universe?

What if I don’t believe that the redshift of distant galaxies only indicates velocity?

Could we learn something new (about the properties of light and “empty space”) with the nuances observed in the more distant supernovae?  Instead of immediately trying to patch up yet another hole in Big Bang theory (their redshift=distance was not a constant after all!).

Do I have to really believe that there is yet another invisible undetected force that now makes up 70 percent of the energy-density of the universe?  And that this Energy doesn’t change as the universe expands?  As the universe expands, this Dark Energy is described as not expanding itself – it doesn’t thin itself out – it doesn’t get weaker, like everything else allegedly does.  Do I really have to believe this snake-oil?

 

 

 

So, let me get this straight:

 

First: Early on in the game, Big Bang Broponents forcibly claimed that Hubble’s observation of redshift of distant galaxies was a universal constant, and that the universe must have exploded because of this constant.

Then, they discovered it was not a constant at all (the 1998 discovery).

Then, they invented a force to keep their constant constant???

 

And nobody up top calls bullshit?

 

 

 

Should not the 1998 “discovery” have cast doubt on our fundamental understanding of redshift instead?

And, should not this, in turn, have thrown Big Bang under extreme scrutiny?

The mainstream discovery that Big Bang redshift interpretation was not constant was in 1998 – a quarter-century ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“… …  You are still forced to the conclusion that Dark Energy exists.

 

The constraints that we have right now over-determine the kind of universe in which we live in.

 

You can’t wriggle out of the conclusion that there is a lot of Dark Energy.”

 

 

… …

 

 

“Our best guess, our best estimate on the basis of modern physics of how much energy should be in the vacuum is 10 to the power of 120 times bigger than the amount that we actually see.

 

 

… One trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times bigger than what we actually see. [and in the wrong direction!!!]  That’s a theory that does not match the data.  …  Right now, we’re simply at a loss.  If the cosmological Dark Energy is the energy of empty space, it’s an idea that fits the data but about which we have no understanding.”

 

 

… …

 

 

“… … However, we’re inventing a universe now, claiming that it fits the data, in which 30 percent of the energy-density [of the entire universe] is matter, and 70 percent is vacuum energy. 

 

 

Those numbers are close to each other. 

 

 

In the past it was almost all matter.

 

In the future it will be almost all vacuum energy.

 

 

Why are we lucky enough to be born at the right time when the vacuum energy is comparable to the matter in the universe.  [30%/70%]

 

 

That’s the Coincidence Scandal.

 

 

I actually don’t have any good ideas as to why that might be the case.”

 

Sean Carroll

Dark Matter, Dark Energy:

The Dark Side of the Universe

The Great Courses #1272

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”

 

 

“X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”

 

Lord Kelvin

 

 

 

 

“… In 1900, Lord Kelvin gave a public address, in which he referred to how far Science had come in the course of the 1800s, and that it seemed as though that we were, in effect, approaching a definitive account of Nature. 

 

‘There are,’   he said   ‘two small clouds on the horizon.’ 

 

Now, these two clouds were:  the inability to explain the black-body radiation problem, and the peculiar inability to measure the speed of the Earth relative to absolute space.  Now, of course, that first cloud turned into Quantum Mechanics, and the second cloud turned into Relativity theory, which totally transformed physics in the 1900s, compared to the 1800s.

 

So, again, if History teaches us anything: now we should be forewarned, not to be dismissive of little clouds.  And, Dark Energy, is, I suspect, a big cloud, which may require a fundamental change in Gravitational theory.  So, the General Theory of Relativity may need to be modified, or replaced, as we collect more information about Dark Energy. 

 

The whole thing could be a colossal misinterpretation, or, it could be that we are learning something fundamentally new about the universe, that will retroactively require that we modify theories that we think are in the bag – theories that we feel very confident about.

 

 

 

A second area in Astrophysics, that could be construed as a cloud on the horizon, is that recent observations, in the years 2002-2003, suggest that, uh, not just suggest – recent observations tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters.  Not only were the galaxies… – so, we think that stars started forming when the universe was only 100 or 200 million years old, that the first galaxies formed at about a billion, but here astronomers have discovered a modest galactic cluster – I believe that it has 30 some-odd galaxies in it – that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang.

 

That’s much too much structure to have after only 2.5 or 2.7 billion years of expansion.

 

So, that is another problem that Astrophysics needs to come to grips with.  It’s not a small problem either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether Big Bang and Inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe.  So, it may seem like a small problem to non-specialists, but, within Astrophysics, it’s a significant challenge.

 

 

 

And then there’s the question of whether in fact we are reading the Microwave Background Radiation correctly!  Because all of this theory is empirically supported by interpreting extremely minute ripples in the Microwave Background Radiation.  And from those ripples – ripples in temperature inequalities on the order of a ten-thousandth of a degree Kelvin – that’s the basis to try to explain why there is as much structure in the universe.  If we’re mis-interpreting the Microwave Background Radiation data, then really, we have a whole new picture of the universe that might emerge.

 

 

 

So, that’s one set of clouds that one can anticipate that over the next decade, we will potentially be seeing significant modifications in our conceptualisation of the universe, and of its origin, and maybe even of its fate, because, according to some physicists, if the acceleration continues, then, at some point (although we and our grandchildren don’t have to worry about it), this [Dark Energy] will eventually tear the whole fabric of space-time apart.

 

It [The Entire Universe] will simply, so to speak: dissolve.”

 

Stephen L. Goldman

Science in the 20th Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey

The Great Courses #1220

2004

(a long time ago)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“… … this was the first quantitative thought that we could extrapolate our knowledge from the current universe, all the way back to moments after Creation.”

 

Sean Carroll

Dark Matter, Dark Energy:

The Dark Side of the Universe

The Great Courses #1272

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That last line was not sarcastic at all, in fact, it was delivered with serious enthusiasm.  Even if Sean Carroll is truly an atheist, and he simply misspoke here, even so, this is still indicative, is it not, in a symbolic and ironic way, of how truly childish and religious-minded big-bangism really is.  And, even if his heart is truly “atheist”, as a very public science-educator, he should, at the very least, know better than to employ that term.

Let’s now listen to his detailed explanation of how Dark Energy was “discovered”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The reason why we can detect the vacuum energy in cosmology is because the effect accumulates.  When you are looking at the motion of a galaxy [redshift] or a supernova in some galaxy [redshift], there are many many cubic centimeters between us and that galaxy [lots of redshift].  And every one of those cubic centimeters is expanding just a little bit faster because of the presence of vacuum energy.  It’s that accumulated effect over cosmological distances which enables us to detect the fact that vacuum energy is there [deduced from a velocity-only interpretation of redshift].

 

The first way the physicists starting thinking about this concept of the vacuum energy was actually going back to Einstein himself.

 

Einstein, soon after inventing General Relativity, started thinking about cosmology.  He knew he had a very different way of thinking about space and time than Newton did.  Isaac Newton had a picture in which both space and time were fixed and absolute; Einstein had a picture in which space and time have a geometry.  They are dynamical and they can change.

 

So, he started thinking about the entire universe.  As a simplifying assumption (we’re talking 1916, 1917, 1918),  long before we knew the universe was expanding, Einstein took as a simplifying assumption that the universe was the same everywhere.  He found that within this possibility (that the universe was pretty much the same everywhere), he was not able, with his equation governing the curvature of space and time, to find a solution in which the universe was static, in which it was smooth everywhere, and more or less staying the same as time went on.

 

Now, we know today the reason why:  because the universe is in fact expanding.  It is not static.  And that makes perfect sense.  If you have galaxies spread throughout the universe, they’re going to pull on each other.

 

In the context of Newtonian Gravity, if you try to ask the question: “what could happen if you filled space full of galaxies the same number [density] everywhere, would they pull on each other or not, it’s very hard to get an answer.  On the one hand, you might think that yes, they’re pulling on each other therefore they should come together, but there’s an equally plausible-looking analysis that says:  “Here I am”, this galaxy, “Every other galaxy is pulling on me”, but they are all equally distributed, so the net force is zero, “I don’t move”, nothing moves.

 

Within General Relativity, there’s a different answer, that says: you can think about nothing moving but space itself can get bigger or smaller.  So, in General Relativity, if you have nothing but matter in the universe, the answer is unambiguous:

 

Space better be either expanding or contracting.

 

Now, there’s a little bit of a false story that goes around about Einstein, thinking about exactly these issues, that:  Einstein was blinded by his philosophical pre-suppositions.  He wanted to believe, this false story goes, that the universe is static, for some religious or philosophical reasons.  And, therefore, when he found that his equations didn’t describe a static universe, he was upset and tried to change them.  The truth is, he did believe the universe was static, but it wasn’t because of a philosophical disposition, it’s because he asked his astronomer friends.  At that time, in between 1915 and 1929, as far as anyone knew, the universe was static.  That was what the observations were telling us.  It wasn’t until Hubble in 1929, discovered the fact that there is a relationship between the velocity [redshift] of distant galaxies and their distance, did we realize that space is expanding and dynamical.  So, what Einstein was trying to do was to fit the data.  He thought the universe was static.  He showed that his own equations did not allow for a static solution, he just imagined a universe full of galaxies, or even full of matter of any sort.

 

So what did he do?

 

In 1917, he changed his equation for General Relativity.

 

He added a new term called The Cosmological Constant.

 

Now, these days, we consider changing Einstein’s equations to be an interesting step, but a dramatic one.  We’ve had very good success with those equations.  But, you have to remember that Einstein himself was coming up with new equations all the time.  In fact, the final version of his equation was not anywhere near his first version of it.  He was changing it to fit things both philosophical and experimental all along.

 

So, finally, in 1917, he said “Well, I can add a term to the left-hand side of my equation”:  

 

 

On the left-hand side, you see the term that tells you how curved space and time are.

 

On the right-hand side you see the term representing Stuff in the universe – Energy and Momentum and so forth.

 

 

Einstein put a new term on the left-hand side, for which he could then find a solution in which the universe could be filled with galaxies and yet:  not expanding or contracting.

 

The solution that he called The Cosmological Constant, we now know that you can move to the right-hand side, and it’s exactly the same as Vacuum Energy.

 

In fact, there’s some people who like to argue whether or not this term deserves to be on the left-hand side with the spatial and space-time curvature bits, or deserves to be on the right-hand side with the energy bits.  Of course, the truth is: it absolutely makes no difference, whether a term in an equation in on the left side or the right side, it functions in exactly the same way and has the same interpretation.

 

 

Einstein called it The Cosmological Constant.

 

We will call it The Vacuum Energy.

 

But it is the same thing.

 

 

So, vacuum energy acts to make the universe accelerate [in its expansion].  It basically pushes things apart as the universe expands.

 

Ordinary matter pulls things together.

 

So, basically, all that Einstein did was to:  find a solution where those two effects exactly balance.

 

 

Now, it’s true, you could find a solution in which the universe was neither expanding or contracting.  But, of course, his solution was unstable.  If you perturb it a little bit – if things just started moving together a tiny bit – the pulling-together force would win, and it [the universe] would collapse.  If things started expanding a little bit, the pushing apart force would win, and things would start accelerating [expanding out of control].

 

So, Einstein found a solution that fit the data, but, it wasn’t a physically plausible solution.  It wasn’t robust to small changes in what happened.

 

Then, of course, in 1929, Hubble comes along and says “Well, the universe is not static, it’s expanding.”  Just as Einstein could have predicted in 1917.  According to George Gamow, who was one of the primary thinkers about the Big-Bang model, Einstein later claimed that his biggest blunder as a scientist was to introduce the cosmological constant into his equation.  If he had not done this, he would’ve made a prediction – he would have been able to say, around 1917: “Despite what the current observations say, I predict the universe should be either expanding or contracting.”  But, he blinked and he wasn’t able to do that.

 

He then said: “Away!!! with The Cosmological Constant!”  “I’m sorry I ever invented it!”.

 

 

But, once you do that, you can’t undo it.

 

Pandora’s box is not so easily closed.

 

These days we realize that what Einstein called The Cosmological Constant, is what we call The Vacuum Energy.  And we can start asking questions like: “If there can be energy-density in empty space, how much should there be”.  Can we make some sort of reasonable estimate, for how much energy there should be in every cubic centimeter of space.  The minimum possible value.

 

Well, it’s a very fuzzy story that goes back and forth.

 

There is no precise answer to this question – what should be The Vacuum Energy, according to our current theories.

 

The true answer is:  It can be anything at all.

 

It is a constant of Nature.

 

It’s like asking: What is the mass of the electron?  There is no ahead-of-time answer to what it should be.  You have to go out there and measure it.

 

On the other hand, there are reasonable answers and unreasonable answers.  We can do a pretty good job of estimating – order of magnitude – how big The Vacuum Energy should be.

 

We would have both: what we call a classical contribution to The Vacuum Energy – the value it should be if you ignore all of quantum mechanics; and then, as we’ll explain, quantum mechanics adds new contributions on top of that.  Together we get an estimate, and we can compare it with what we see.  The answer is: it’s nowhere close.

 

The estimated value of The Vacuum Energy is much much larger than what we observe.  And, in terms of numbers, it turns out to be 10 to the 112 ergs per cubic centimeter.  That is a lot of Ergs.  An Erg is a measurement of energy.

 

If you ask: “Given the data, how many ergs per cubic centimeter are there?”:  10 to the minus 8 ergs per cubic centimeter.

 

In other words: our best guess, our best estimate on the basis of modern physics of how much energy should be in the vacuum is 10 to the power of 120 times bigger than the amount that we actually see.

 

 

… One trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times bigger than what we actually see. [and in the wrong direction!!!].

 

That’s a theory that does not match the data.

 

This is called The Cosmological Constant Problem.  It is probably the largest unsolved problem in theoretical physics. 

 

We had known, for a long time, that there was a Cosmological Constant Problem, long before we actually detected the vacuum energy [the 1998 discovery that more distant galaxies have more redshift – that Hubble’s constant is not a constant].  It was [already] known that The Vacuum Energy wasn’t nearly as big as our naïve estimates said it should be.  So we had that problem.

 

But, before we detected the acceleration of the universe[1998], the best idea was that there was some secret symmetry of Nature, some secret mechanism, that took this huge Vacuum Energy that you should have, and exactly cancelled it – made it equal to zero.  Even though we didn’t know what that symmetry was, it didn’t seem like such a stretch that we would finally detect it, but now that we found some Vacuum Energy [the 1998 discovery that more distant galaxies have more redshift – that Hubble’s constant is not a constant] – now that we’ve found some Dark Energy that we can attribute to the energy-density of empty space, the problem has become much harder.  We don’t want to multiply the real number zero, we want to multiply it by 10 to the minus 120.

 

 

 

It’s as if you see someone on the street who’s flipping a coin.  And they flip a coin and ask if you think it will be heads or tails, and you say heads, and they flip it and its tails.  And they flip it again and it’s tails.  And they flip it 299 times in a row, and it’s tails every time.

 

You don’t know why.  You don’t know what the mechanism is, but if they then say, “I’m gonna flip it again, what do you think it will be?”, you’re going to say tails.  And they flip it and it’s heads.

 

Something made something go away.

 

Something made The Vacuum Energy disappear, 2 to the 299 times, but there’s a leftover there that 300th time.

 

This tiny amount of Vacuum Energy, by all rights, should not be there, or, should be bigger.

 

We’re stuck with a situation where it’s there.

 

 

So,

 

It might be right.

 

It might be that:

 

Once we finally understand everything, then we would get a better formula for what The Vacuum Energy should be, and we get the right answer.

 

Right now, we’re simply at a loss.  If the cosmological Dark Energy is the energy of empty space, it’s an idea that fits the data but about which we have no understanding.”

 

Sean Carroll

Dark Matter, Dark Energy:

The Dark Side of the Universe

The Great Courses #1272

 

 

 

 

 

Woah, woah, woah, woah…………

 

So.

 

Let me get this straight.

 

First, Einstein’s time-travelling, time-bending, time-starting, time-ending trippy new-agey-beatnik equation required an unstable universe (either expanding or contracting).

 

OK

 

So, that was a problem.  The solution?  Just sprinkle-in some dark energy to cancel out the instability – nothing experimental – just mathematics – no such force had been detected in Einstein’s time, and the vacuum of empty space was understood to be just that – only a vacuum (not able to push out at all - hence the minus 8 ergs per cubic centimeter estimated in our time).

 

Then, an Astronomer-Priest informs Einstein that the redshift of distant galaxies must represent velocity alone, and that this must surely indicate that there was a Beginning to the universe, and that this must confirm the literal interpretation of the creation myth in the Book of Genesis.  Einstein was thrilled to finally get rid of The Cosmological Constant.  Hubble disagreed with their use of his findings, contrary to what Sean Caroll claims above.

 

With physicists still trying to balance out Einstein’s equation, still waiting for some “secret symmetry of Nature”, in 1998, a 120mm wrench was thrown in: the redshift was not a constant – the redshift was not exactly proportional to distance, so, there must be, they asserted, a force that kicked in to accelerate the alleged Big-Bang expansion.  “By all rights!”

 

But, their other physicist friends wouldn’t loan them any Dark Energy.  Big Bangers were informed that all of academia had come up short on any Dark Energy.  In fact, they were informed by scientists that the vacuum is actually a vacuum after all:  minus 8 ergs per cubic centimeter, and doesn’t support an expansive/pushing-out force at all, let alone a force that doesn’t thin itself out as it expands itself.

 

 

 

How can a theory “about which we have no understanding” survive so long?

Alternative crackpot theories are actually worth much more – because at least there are so many crackpot theories out there to choose from.  Like, I would say, out of all of the crackpot books I read, around 1 in 10 reveal something truly amazing, and almost all ask at least one good question.  Well, those are better odds than investing further in Big Bang crackpotism, eh?

 

 

 

Not only this, but The Coincidence Scandal alone had already invalidated this whole theory of Dark Energy/The Cosmological Constant!  It is a proper, highly convincing, very “elegant”, undeniable invalidation of both General Relativity and Big Bang!

This is Big Bang for your Buck - The Coincidence Scandal – a simple, straight-forward nugget of logic, explicable with just a few words, undermines all of modern mainstream cosmology:

 

In the Big-Bang model, built upon Relativity:

 

 

“In the past it was almost all matter.

 

In the future it will be almost all vacuum energy.

 

Why are we lucky enough to be born at the right time when the vacuum energy is comparable to the matter in the universe.  [70%/30%]”

 

 

 

So, there is more pushing-out force than contracting force?

We have passed the middle time-point of the universe?

 

Black holes?

Nope.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

Space-time curvature?

Nope.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

Time-Travel?

Nope.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

Big-Bang Science-Creationism?

Nope.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

Redshift = velocity only?

Nope.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

Dark Energy?

Absolutely not.

Why?

The Coincidence Scandal

 

 

Howbout that for a pure golden logic-nugget at work!

 

 

 

But, we:

 

 

 

“… …  are still forced to the conclusion that Dark Energy exists.

 

The constraints that we have right now over-determine the kind of universe in which we live in.

 

You can’t wriggle out of the conclusion that there is a lot of Dark Energy.”

 

Sean Carroll

Dark Matter, Dark Energy:

The Dark Side of the Universe

The Great Courses #1272

 

 

 

Science has no business constraining and over-determining possibilities while admitting to having absolutely no understanding of the forces at work in the things constrained and over-determined by sticking to the mainstream model.

Science defines itself as theory-based, and prides itself on this.  In this case, it is clear that this definition of Science is not being employed.

No alternatives, which do exist, were presented.  And, more importantly, not a single shred of doubt about Big Bang and General Relativity is evident throughout all of Sean Carroll’s work, which is telling, seeing as he admits to all these numerous and significant flaws out in the open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sooooooooooo.

 

Let me get allllllll this straight:

 

First: Science beats Religion.

 

Then, we declared electrons and their friends to be indivisible fundamental building blocks.  The true primordial “atoms”.

Then, we declared galaxy clusters to be the largest things assembled in the universe.

In so doing, we declared ourselves to be residing in the middle slice of ham in a flat tasteless universal sandwich, enjoying center-stage views of the top and bottom of the whole universe.

 

Then, within this flat universe, we imagined ourselves being able to travel through time, having finally isolated Time into a variable in a math equation, a variable we can now manipulate.  Yay!  I mean, like, finally!  The discovery of this equation allowed, for example:  wormholes – semi-stable portals through Time and Space.   Wow!  Fantastic!  Truly fantastic!

What wasn’t stable, or even semi-stable, however, was Einstein’s equation itself.

To fix this problem, Dark Energy was invented by Einstein – an unseen force to balance out the gravitational attraction between galaxies – to balance it all out across the entire universe.

 

But, when the distance of a galaxy was observed to be directly proportional to its redshift, Einstein got embarrassed for having invented Dark Energy – there must have been a Beginning explosion!  That’s the ticket!

(And, also: Time must have started at that point.  Let’s just throw that in there for good measure.)

 

This was all confirmed later, on a spinning Earth, with a giant horn, piercing through to between the most distant galaxies to observe the background of space – the true reflection of God’s creation – microwaves of creation.

 

Then, Halton Arp discovers that redshift is not proportional to distance alone – not by a long shot; while those who discovered Quasars also insisted that their redshifts were being interpreted incorrectly by Big Bang Boasters.

 

Then, in 1998, the more distant galaxies had exploding stars which indicated that redshift increases at more than a steady rate as you go out.

So: Hubble’s constant was discovered to not be a constant after all, but, this time, by mainstream people.

 

No problem.

Let’s all double-down on Space-Time and Big Bang.

Let’s constrain the argument.

Let’s add some more Dark Fudge to The Cosmological Constant Problem – let’s just add more fudge to this factor.

 

 

 

Dark Energy is a 120-order-of-magnitude invalidation of both Relativity and Big Bang.  Its “discovery” should have ushered in a revolution in mainstream cosmology.  No “secret symmetry of nature” will resolve The Cosmological Constant Problem, because the underlying theory that gave birth to the problem is ridiculous.

Relativity and Big Bang are both invalidated by the Coincidence Scandal.    100%    Cases closed.

Relativity and Big Bang had already been both invalidated by the redshift of quasars (quasars would have impossible energies at the distances proposed by Big Bangers), as well as how quasars had been clearly demonstrated to be associated with parent galaxies – they are the children of galaxies, which are more energetic than their parents, something very natural to expect.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is almost certainly from our galaxy and also from other galaxies, which pervade the observable universe, in all directions.  Its “discovery” did not, in the least, “confirm” Big Bang over all other possibilities.

The need to invent Dark Matter simply demonstrated that, on galactic scales, Gravity is not the only force at play, whereas both Relativity and Big Bang require Gravity to be the only force at work on large scales.

 

 

 

A birthday to the universe?

 

Starting, bending, travelling through, or ending Time?

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Not a shred of evidence.

 

And plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The symbolic interpretation of the Bible, with infinite beginnings occurring throughout an infinite tree of life, in an eternal universe – can be demonstrated to be the obvious rational conclusion about the nature of nature; while those who today promote Science currently believe in a flat, finite, physically impossible and highly nonsensical and clearly irrational theory of the nature of nature: Big Bang, while complaining about the irrationality of the Bible and churchgoers because they don’t believe in Science!  They complain about Bible thumpers not looking at observational evidence, while the ways in which observations have been interpreted by Big Bang Boasters (skewed beyond recognition) make less integrated sense than the various early church fathers writing about the Trinity.

That much irony could cure all the anemia in the whole wide world!

 

Not only this, but, the stale view on offer by modern academic tonsured cosmologists, disallows living sentience below the cellular level, because electrons are 1-dimensional and indivisible, according to them, and, obviously 1-dimensional indivisible things cannot be alive, right?  And, with nothing smaller than electrons and their friends (indivisible), what possible explanation for the activity of our living cells and of our living selves, would be available?  They have no explanation for the living nature of our living cells, so they have to resort to Artificial Intelligence.  It is so hard for mainstream cosmologists to conceive of living activity below the cellular realm, with their flat view of the universe, that for so many senior popular professionals, cells themselves are not alive – not sentient, they are instead:  “just robots”!  Such an artificial view of our inner lives is forced upon them by the limits imposed by Big Bang, which limits diversity and complexity in things we see in the depths.

In their craving for a simplistic universe, with fundamental simplistic 1-dimensional indivisible lego-blocks (easy for the calculator to process), having existed only for a limited number of years (easy to envision and comprehend and explain), childish physicists looking for “elegance” (simplicity) in their cosmology, have severely constrained their own imagination of what is possible within us, as well as outside of us; while personally forcibly blocking any professional development of well-reasoned cosmology, for well-over 50 years now, by doing things like taking telescope time away from those who don’t agree with Bonkers Big Bang Boasters’ Brew of Briny Bullshit-Broth about the Beginning Ballooning Boom-Boom Birthday!

 

 

 

In 1998, Halton Arp, the guy who discovered that galaxies give birth to baby galaxies, and that the child galaxies have a very different redshift, which clearly disproves Big Bang – which requires that the redshift of any galaxy be precisely proportional to its distance; he had this say about why Big Bang continues to persist with clear evidence to the contrary, in the concluding remarks of his book Seeing Red – Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science :

 

 

“How is it possible for a scientist to look at a startling piece of evidence — say a nearby quasar of high redshift — and say ‘Well that is puzzling but I have to get on with my research on distant quasars.’ I would suggest that this (training rather than learning) starts in grade school and accelerates as the degrees become more advanced.  I had only one year of formal schooling up to the seventh grade when I discovered a wrong answer in the back of the book.  I was amazed at the reaction of the teacher and the class who could not believe that the answer in the book was not correct.  Right from the beginning in science, authority tends to override independent judgment. 

 

When it comes to a degree in advanced research most students earn their fellowships by assisting a senior staff member.  Then an advisor suggests or approves a thesis.  Finally an exam is given in which correct answers must be supplied.  As if these are not sufficient hurdles to original thinking the graduates then face the most excruciating crisis of all, finding a job in the subject they have committed a good part of their lives to, but in a market where there are fewer and fewer opportunities for permanent employment.

 

Moreover, along this path the most vivid lesson has been that influential professors hold the key to the most desirable positions for those they consider the best students.  But what senior faculty consider “best” is usually the research they themselves have undertaken and where they are known for their contributions. 

 

 

 

University Departments never go Bankrupt

 

The ultimate justification for the economic system which the world is currently embracing is that the best way for the consumer to be supplied with what he wishes, is to let the good supplier prosper.  If the producer does not make a good or desirable product it is best that he should go broke.  But one seldom hears of a department being dissolved with the University saying “Their product is just not good enough, we've had too many complaints or not enough demand.” The law of natural selection up to now seems to be suspended for academia. 

 

It is not that scientists are not competitive.  I have had reports of lecturers from the most prestigious institutions, in front of large audiences, being asked “What about the evidence for non-velocity redshifts?”  With a patronizing smile the answer comes back, “Oh those claims have been completely disproved.”  One Nobel prize winner confided to an audience of several thousand, “Oh, Arp did not get anything right in my course, I should have flunked him but I could not bear to have him repeat the course with me.”  When I volunteered to give new X-ray results at my alma mater the answer came back, “The committee feels it would not be appropriate for Arp to give a colloquium here.”  I do not take this personally because they are also destructively competitive among themselves.  But I do cry for the science.

 

 

 

Big Science as the Medieval Church

 

This is far from the first time this parallel has been noted.  The church, still in Galileo’s time, was the ultimate authority on most important matters.  The church hierarchy was handsomely supported by princes and working people, and the life style of the cardinals depended on having people believe that their pronouncements were important and profound.  Due to a complex of political, economic and internal events, the church gradually lost power to those who protested.

 

After the ideals of the enlightenment and the heady rise of astronomy and physics, however, we have the present day situation where all authority on natural law has passed to science.  In return for important and profound pronouncements on the nature of the universe the academics are supported with high salaries, expensive facilities, travel, prestige and life time security.  They also bestow the power of this institution onto successors of their own choosing.

 

 

 

A Good Press

 

An unusually entertaining and enlightening example from one of the most respected news services, the New York Times, is the following laudatory report of some dialogue between leaders in the field:  after one discussant has said that there is no “generic” way in which naked singularities might form according to the known laws of physics, another replies,

 

“Stephen, I am surprised to hear you, of all people, say that.  There is one naked singularity that we all agree existed: the Big Bang—the universe itself.”

 

 

One of the key components of this situation is that academics are generally respected and believed more than other professions in this society.  They are trusted to be competent and objective.  And while many are — amazingly considering the lack of checks — many others, particularly the most influential, in my experience, are not.  I am not maintaining that they are worse than any other segment of society, I am just pointing out that they are perceived to be better.  This, of course, is a dangerous situation which tends to fulfill its potential. 

 

From the many comments, communications and manuscripts I receive, it is clear that there are many independent thinkers, in and out of science, employed and unemployed, amateurs, students, retirees.  Some are not very knowledgeable, others are very well informed.  A range of quality of judgement and ideas from brilliant to crazy are in abundance.  But the common theme which binds them together is their increasing annoyance with the arrogance and complacency of establishment science.  As one group puts it “a discipline so dead set against reforming from within.”

 

Investigative journalism so far as science is concerned is clearly dead in the water.  The media generally take the easy path of handouts and opinions from authoritative sources.  No hard work of checking facts and conflicts of interest.  In the hopes of stirring some critical reporting from the communications media let me just mention some of the more egregious events connected with science that, in my opinion, have not been deconstructed and therefore have inevitably contributed to its slow downward slide. 

 

 

 

The Nuclear Age

 

At the end of World War II Americans were relieved that the atom bombs had ended the war with fewer casualties in their armed forces than they had feared.  Waiting on Treasure Island to go out in the Pacific Fleet, I experienced this relief personally.  But there was also a lingering feeling of guilt that so many relatively innocent people had been incinerated without warning.  There seemed to be two major currents that developed.  One was the hope that the nuclear genie would bring abundant, clean power to the world and somehow atone for its violent entrance.  (Of course it would also make a lot of money for the nuclear power industry.) Secondly, the U.S.  needed to have an enormous nuclear arsenal so that it would feel more secure than any one else.  Both of these goals entailed a lot of experimentation and testing of very dangerous radioactive projects.  Scientists were easily recruited to carry out seemingly endless, unwise and harmful schemes; many of which are just now coming to light 40 years later.

 

Atmospheric nuclear testing was a particularly insane project whereby radioactive elements were rained down on the heads of ill-informed citizens in the name of protecting them.  It was not until well-known movie actors like Steve Allen broadcast messages such as:  “Mothers, do you realize that radioactive Calcium and Iodine concentrates in the milk which you feed your children?” that public opposition became strong enough to force a halt to the tests.  Of course the scientists connected with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the Federation of American Scientists, etc.  worked heroically to end testing.  The public was more effective, however, because the scientists had a weakness.  There were a number of well-known scientists who were supporting the government's claims that the radiation was not harmful.

 

For example, millions of children were exposed to radioactive Iodine from the Nevada nuclear tests from 1951 to 1962.  The average dose to the thyroids of young children downwind of the tests was in the range of 50 to 160 rads compared to 2 rads for people living throughout the U.S.  Possible cases of thyroid cancer were eventually estimated at between 25,000 to 50,000 (DOE report cited in IHT 30/7/97).  Toward the end of that period, concerned citizens were desperately trying to get the government to release data on radiation dosage from the tests.

 

As a member of a citizen-scientist group in Los Angeles I had headed a group who reported on the biological damage being done as estimated from calculations on the limited data available.  A copy of the report landed on the desk of the Atomic Energy Commission.  One day I returned from an observing run at Palomar and was told that Glenn Seaborg, chairman of the AEC, had telephoned me and would call back.  As a young scientist I waited with some anxiety for this hero-pioneer of nuclear physics to address me.  But he never did.  The government, and those scientists connected to the government, continued nuclear weapon development and continued to downplay the effects of radiation.

                                                                                                                   

Looking at it now, it seems suddenly clear that specialists such as scientists, the military, politicians and financial people have in common a sense of earned power.  They can only conceive of dealing with people of comparable status.  They abhor dealing with citizens who have individually little influence.  But the fatal flaw, it seems to me, is that people who are interested in power are spurred by emotions which interfere with their reason.

 

The most frustrating aspect was that the military, and particularly the many involved scientists, knew what harm was being done to people.  But everyone also knew that not only would they not stop, but that the information would be suppressed until well after those responsible had retired and were no longer accountable.  With poignant certitude this expectation was born out by the fact that a “study” of these events was not commissioned until 1983—and then it took 14 years for the report on thyroid radiation doses to be released. 

 

From cosmology to pharmaceuticals, it is well justified today that people view institutional claims with skepticism and even hostility.  And it is important to always keep in mind who have the vested interests and what they have to gain. 

 

Who can say whether a scientist who has a set of beliefs which coincides with those of politically powerful forces is then rewarded with publicity and money; or whether the opportunity to gain advantages inclines the scientist to see the virtues of the powerful.  Be that as it may, there were a number of moderately accomplished scientists, at Universities and elsewhere, who would argue for such things as a “threshold effect.”  They would say that a well defined relation between radiation dosage and cellular damage suddenly becomes invalid at the point where the current instruments could no longer measure it.  In other words, they used science jargon to argue against a probable danger in order to gain a short term goal.  But a cell damaging radiation hit is exactly that and arguments do not change the fact.  (Excellent summaries of fallout damage and no threshold are given in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Vol. 53, No. 6 pp. 46 and 52.)

 

One scientist with whom I was working on some common projects at the time was effectively educating the public on various radiation dangers.  In spite of his Nobel prizes, there was pressure from his fellow faculty members to oust him because he was “aiding the communist cause.”  The President of the Institute had to issue a warning to the involved faculty to cease and desist.  That was the time of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and their traveling exhibits which showed pictures of people basking on the seashore with captions which read “Atomic radiation is no more harmful than sunshine.”  There was one scientist from an Eastern University who calculated an appalling number of deaths from low level radiation exposure.  He even incurred criticism from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.  His arguments seemed reasonable to me, however, and many years later during a discussion of cosmology I asked: 

 

“What do you estimate the total deaths from radiation exposure in that era to be?”

 

“Nine million” he answered.