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! 😁

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
David O'Halloran's avatar

Excellent summary - many thanks. I have never believed all that nonsense about galaxies accelerating away from us. Nor do I believe in the distance scale or the age of the universe theory as currently spouted as gospel truth all over. These chaps have some gall thinking they understand the universe. It is just a theory boys and girls, just a theory.

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 1
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment