The Science Delusion. Big Bang Theory as an example of $cientism or the Religion of Irrational Belief.

Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Modern 'science' cannot explain the universe or the world of the 5 senses.

Bottom line: 

In truth, we have no real understanding of the origins of the universe or life; of matter, light, magnetism, gravity, quantum behaviour, subatomic particles, stars, galaxies or even what is under our own feet if we look at materials, hydrogen energy, gold, silver and water abundance. 

Much of what Newton, Einstein and others positioned as ‘science’ is wrong. However, given the massive industries which have been erected around their principles, no dissenting opinion or research is allowed. $cientism.

Stuff Happens and ‘The Science’

The Religion of Evolution concludes that random processes, over endless billions of years resulted in a universe of perfect design, form, function and sentience.  From nothing to the shrew, and then to you, all arising from natural and material processes.  This religion espouses a dialectic of chance and the magical creation of matter, code and natural laws, not to mention the coincidental creation of complex cycles and the inter-dependencies of systems and creatures.  Only endless time, stability and chance are needed, along with electrical energy and random compounds.  In reality there is no proof whatsoever supporting the religion of Evolution. Just metaphysics, hand-waving and money.

The Big Bang Theory, originally developed by the Catholic Priest and quasi-scientist Lemaitre in the 1920s and 30s, theorised that the entire universe erupted from a singularity of power and material. This was for Lemaitre a conception of God’s creative power.  It was immediately appropriated by Atheists and ‘the science’ to postulate the origin of life and the universe which was a gaping hole in Darwin’s religion.  Lemaitre was an astrophysicist of some renown, but much of his work reads like a tract of philosophy. In his 1931 Nature paper, Lemaitre discusses the nature of time and space:

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta.

The above is meaningless.

Lemaitre is largely forgotten, mostly because he was a Catholic priest and ‘the science’ of cosmology had moved on to ‘Redshifts’ and ‘Relativity’ and other disproven ‘science’.  Lemaitre had however gifted the religion of materialism a divine offering, a faith-based theology given that the Big Bang theory is not based on science, or observational evidence.

Big Bang theory summarised

According to Big Bang religious, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy, Lemaitre’s quantum dot) which exploded and has been expanding ever since.  Out of the chaos of this irruption the perfect order of the cosmos including its ‘natural laws’ formed. 

The Big Bang religiosity is based on two enormous assumptions.  First, gravity and gravity alone determines the structure and movement of stars and galaxies.  Second, the ‘Redshift’ of objects in space are a true reflection of their distance and that these objects are receding.  To achieve mathematical completion the BB religious have had to add Dark Matter and Dark Energy to their theory (more nonsense summarised below).

Does any of this make sense?

In the early 20^th century polymath Tesla made an appropriate observation about ‘the science’:

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Indeed.  Arcane maths, equations and conclusions littered with assumptions and hopes.  What created the quantum energy ‘egg’ in the first place?  Why would an explosion of a small energy source lead to structure and life?  How could all the elements in the universe be contained in a quantum egg and who put these illimitable number of elements there (10⁸⁰ or 1 followed by 80 zeroes)?  No answers are forthcoming.

Ex Nihilo?

The religion of the Big Bang and Evolution hates Christians or anyone who believes in the ‘supernatural’, miracles or the unexplainable.  Yet here they are with their own theology and long list of miraculous births, revelations, resurrections and supernatural acts. 

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.  Matter cannot simply create itself and in the ‘real world’ matter cannot spontaneously arise from nothing, whether or not the instigating event is an explosion.  There is no observational evidence to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics.  Further, the only ‘evidence’ for the Big Bang religious is the ‘Redshifting’ of light from expanding galaxies.  But again, what ‘force’ could propel a body outward and how would that force be manufactured?  It cannot arise out of nothing. 

Redshift?

Redshift (or the Doppler effect) is purportedly the phenomenon of the displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is a change in wavelength that occurs when a given source of waves (e.g., light, sound, or radio waves) and an observer are in rapid motion in opposite directions to each other. But the ‘Redshift’ theory is also wrong as there is no confirmed way in which a galaxy may increase its alleged acceleration through the cosmos.  This contradicts all of mainstream science’s beliefs (astronomer Halton Arp is a good resource on this fact).

Hubble and humility

One of the main objections Edwin Hubble had to the Big Bang theory derived from his study of the brightness of stars (or Redshifts and Blueshifts).  He maintained that if stars were receding at the rate indicated by their Redshift, their brightness would appear to be diminished.  Instead, he observed that there was no such diminishing of brightness.  NASA sees the same today. Yet online or in schools you will hear nothing about Hubble’s reservations about the Big Bang or the fallacy of Redshifting. He is simply acclaimed for discovering the ever-expanding universe.

If the galaxies were accelerating away from us and that this rate is also accelerating, in the long term, the sky will be totally dark at night as the stars will all have moved away, and the only visible galaxy will be Andromeda.  For this discovery, a US-born Australian citizen Brian Schmidt and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011.  Yet the sky is not dark and there are billions of visible galaxies. 

Accelerate how? Mass attractions?

For the Big Bang theology to work, and for acceleration to occur, invisible Dark Matter of an unknown nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.  The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, as-yet-undetected, theoretical ‘Dark Matter’ to maintain the theory’s viability.  Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something never yet detected in any way.  There is no proof that Dark Matter exists.

We do know that objects with mass attract each other.  They produce a gravitational field that pulls them together, so they do not push away from each other. Expansion at an accelerating rate is impossible based on what we know about mass and attraction, negating ‘Redshift’ and the Big Bang.

What about Einstein, mass and gravity?

In opposition to the Big Bang religious, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity states that the universe must be contracting.  He originally believed that the universe was static and introduced a cosmological constant as a correction factor, but he later referred to the constant as, “my biggest blunder” after accepting the Redshift theory.  Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity never supported an accelerating expansion.  It is from Einstein’s ‘constant’ that ideas about Dark Matter were developed.

We can infer from the Big Bang religious that Einstein’s entire life’s output was wrong. 

Newton neutered

Newton observed an apple falling to the ground and theorised that a ‘force’ was pulling the apple off the tree.  This is rather ridiculous.  The apple was too heavy for its conjoined twig and fell off.  An object dropping to the ground is due to the mass of the object being greater than the air resistance.  Newton’s ideas cannot explain why objects rise, or fly.  Objects fall due to the variation in density and the mass of the object.  They can also rise. 

Newton ideas cannot explain why there is more oxygen closer to Earth than say twenty miles up, there is a great density change in composition.  Oxygen is however a denser gas than nitrogen and the other majority elements in our atmosphere.  Where is the ‘pulling force’ pulling the oxygen down?  Obviously, the rate at which objects rise or fall depends on the resistance (or lack thereof) in the medium surrounding the object. 

Gravity is real but it is a very weak ‘force’.  There is no way that such a weak force can structure what see in the universe or the world around us.  Gravity must play a much lesser, indeed very minor role behind the much greater force of electromagnetism, which dominates our universe. 

Newton’s ‘laws’ also fail to explain the way that galaxies rotate.  Nor can changes in the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field, for instance, be explained by Big Bang religious or Newton.  More than two hundred polar reverses have allegedly taken place in Earth’s history (if you believe in the endless long ages) and at least four have occurred in the last four million years (if you believe in that sort of thing) according to the mainstream version of ‘history.’  These reversals by themselves would destroy the Big Bang theory. 

‘The Science’ is entirely inconsistent and at odds with itself. 

Newtons theory pulled apart

By the late 1800s, many astronomers had discovered an excess of errors in Newton’s theories, the most well-known of which are the errors with the movement of the planet Mercury.  By 1915, Einstein believed he had fixed the errors in Newton’s work, with his Special Theory of Relativity.  He theorised that gravity is what occurs when space and time is curved or warped around a mass, such as a star or a planet.  Thus, a star or planet would cause a dip in space so that any other object that ventured too close would tend to ‘fall into’ the dip.  Einstein basically explained how gravity is more than just a force, it is a curvature in the space-time continuum.

In fact, the theories of both ‘Special Relativity’ and ‘General Relativity’ have now both been thoroughly destroyed over and over again by numerous scientists.  But of course, the theory is still presented as fact (as with so many others) because it does not suit the prevailing agenda to accept that it is thoroughly unreliable and disputed ‘science.’

For instance, contrary to Newton and mainstream ‘science’, gravity must be a weak force, given that our Moon does not fall into the Earth, the Earth does not fall into the Sun and satellites do not fall into the Earth, which would certainly be the case if we take gravitational theory as written.  Neither Einstein nor Newton could explain this observational reality.

It is also a nonsense to believe that it is the Moon’s gravitational attraction that ‘pulls’ the ocean tides around (first proposed in the 16^th century by Jesuit astronomers).  The real gravitational pull of the Earth is ridiculously weak and that of the Moon weaker. The Earth-moon relationship is more likely based on electromagnetism – a force Einstein denied, and Newton did not know about.

Even celestial bodies defy Newton’s concepts.  Jupiter has at least sixty-three moons and five of the smaller moons rotate in the opposite direction to Jupiter.  Clearly, this indicates that the moons could not have formed from the same ‘accretion disc’ as proposed by the official Big Bang theory, as their angular momentums would all be in the same direction.  A similar situation applies with Neptune and its moon, Triton.

Other ideas $cientism won’t investigate

Some concepts to explain our universe that might well have merit but are never discussed or investigated by ‘the science’ include:

·       Electromagnetism and electromagnetic particles, or ‘plasma’ as the most common element in the universe (not ‘Dark Matter’)

·       Electromagnetism would explain why one face of the Moon is permanently presented towards the Earth and explain how the Moon affects the Earth’s ocean tidal systems

·       Plasma is a mixture of neutral and charged matter suffused with electromagnetic fields and the proportion of ions is quantified by the degree of ionisation

·       99% of the visible universe is charged due to the loss of electrons from atoms, leaving positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons

·       The electromagnetic force is 1,000 trillion, trillion, trillion times stronger than the (alleged) gravitational force which according to mainstream science is the foundation stone of the entire universe

·       There is an ‘Electric Universe model’ or EUM, that no one has heard of, where the Sun is dominated by electrical and magnetic properties, implying that it possesses a massive, positive electrical charge (first proposed by Kristian Birkeland, 1902-10)

·       In the EUM the Sun is a ball of plasma, charged positively by a gravitationally-induced flow of electrons towards the surface and it is the electrical repulsion which will prevent its collapse and not the conversion of hydrogen into helium, which is alleged to be the cause of it

There is plenty more ‘alternative science’ which should be investigated so we could better understand our reality, but even the short list above, gets short shrift.  No money, no funding unless you are a Big Bang religious.  

There are a wide variety of detailed explanations to be found online, as to why the official stories of Red Giants, Neutron stars, Supernovae, White Dwarfs, asteroids, and in particular the comets and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which classifies stars according to temperature and cosmic rays, are completely wrong.  But the ‘Science’ does not want to investigate and perjure itself. 

Big Bang and Big $cientism

Many scientific academics have staked their entire careers the Big Bang religion, including Stephen Hawking, George Gamow, Brian Greene, Paul Davies, Alan Guth, Sir Martin Rees, Neil Tyson-de Grasse, Brian Cox and John Wheeler who first mooted the existence of Black Holes, besides thousands of other lesser-known mathematicians.  The scientific and mainstream media is well paid to push the narrative. The Big Bang is a massive industry with tens of billions in funding.

In his 1991 book ‘The Big Bang Never Happened; A startling refutation of the dominant theory of the Origin of the Universe,’ Eric J. Lerner alerted the public to the reality that the Big Bang was not a ‘set-in-stone’ scientific premise, but merely an insubstantial theory.  Cosmology relies on money and lots of it for expensive toys, labs, observatories, people, processes and tools. 

Here is the key to the Big Bang religion, its true revelation:  NASA has an annual budget of $15 billion per annum and has openly proclaimed that it simply will not fund any cosmological research that contradicts the Big Bang theory, which for them has assumed a religious devotion. Every national, international and global scientific operation has the same religious belief.

The Big Bang religion is another example of $cientism hard at work, the merger of money, corporate and state interests.  If you are a heretic, you will not get funding and any published work will be eviscerated by the Establishment.  So, tell me again about the medieval Inquisition?