5 Comments
User's avatar
Harri Ahonen's avatar

Good stuff! Isn’t it amazing that the present day scientism spends so much time and energy avoiding anything that contradicts or doesn’t support the narrative. One might be led into thinking that someone is bankrolling this effort! 😁

Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Thanks - yes indeed. Seems 'coordinated' to say the least. Cherry picking what they want, ignoring what they don't like, especially mechanical proofs which contradict the narrative.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 1, 2025
Comment deleted
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

This is correct. The issue would be Arp’s argument on element / photon mass and frequency and what ‘red’ actually entails.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 1, 2025
Comment deleted
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Thanks David. Stellar parallax if false would give us far smaller distances between planets, constellations, galaxies. If Arp et al are correct, than we have a far smaller steady state universe, not an endless galloping into eternity.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 17, 2025
Comment deleted
Dr Ferdinand Santos III's avatar

Yes, all of these ideas and concepts - unproven but surmised - around endless movement, circling and expansion are historically quite new - maybe 80 years old. The standard model by default, has to fall back on such assumptions.