'The Science', its cosmological dogma and a few tough tough questions that are never answered.
'The Science' cannot answer even the most basic of questions concerning its gospel claims or liturgical declamations.
(many posts discuss Michelson-Morley’s failure to detect the Earth’s motion)
Einstotle’s Axioms
The above quote sums up ‘The Science’. Einstotle philosophises that the Michelson-Morley experiment along with the Fizeau, Airy and the thousands conducted by Miller and others, should simply be dismissed because, obviously, heretofore, ergo, the Earth is racing around the Sun at 60.000 miles per hour.
As he wrote many times, Einstotle’s axiom is to accept Copernican theory as the starting point, without needing to prove it. This is unscientific. Many posts on here discuss the lack of proofs for Copernicanism and why it is a philosophical program, if not an outright sophistry.
Some Questions
Einstotle and his friends cannot answer the most basic questions. I list a few below out of hundreds. Let us consider some general dogma from physics and cosmology on planetary motion and the ‘expansion’ of the universe. Many of the claims from ‘the science’ disprove their own theology. I submitted the following questions to PhDs in physics and cosmology some years back. I have never received an adequate explanation, nor proof. Just hostility or appeals to authority and consensus.
1. Alpha Centauri. This star is said to be 4.25 light years or 25 trillion miles from Earth. Every 12 hours Alpha Centauri makes it across our sky (southern cross for example). If those distances are correct, Alpha Centauri must be doing in excess of 1.8 billion miles per second, or 976 times faster than light to make it across cross our 180-degree sky in twelve hours from a distance of 25 trillion miles from Earth.
Question: How is this possible? How can a star travel 1000x greater than the purported invariant speed of light?
2. Sun’s Distance. We are told that the Sun is 93 million miles from the Earth (on average per annum). Yet if I use basic Euclidean maths and calculate the height of a triangle in relation to the Sun, I get nowhere near this number.
Take 2 cities one directly south of the other,
Calculate the distance between the 2 cities (they should be separated by a long distance),
Create two lines pointed at the Sun, from both locations, at the same time (say 12 noon),
Measure the angles from the 2 cities to the Sun, and calculate the angles of the two lines pointing at the Sun, at the same time (12 noon)
Use basic maths to calculate length from the Earth to the Sun,
Adjust this for the Earth’s curvature using 69.2 miles per single degree of curvature,
You will get ~500.000 miles as a distance, not 93 million. You can maybe stretch this into the low millions.
You can try this at home using www.timeanddate.com which helps you find 2 cities on the same longitude (one directly south of another).
Question: Besides falsified light speed calculations, what is the proof that the Sun is 93 million miles away? Why doesn’t 3-dimensional-Euclidean mathematics support that claim? Or is it back to the fantasy of Einstotle et al that ‘space is curved’ and 4 dimensions ….which it is not.
3. Draco (to take but one example out of dozens). Consider the view that the Earth is moving at roughly 60.000 miles per hour, or 585 million miles per year (60.000 x 24 hrs x 365 days). Over 3,554 years the Earth should have travelled about 1.8 trillion miles.
Now look at the constellation of ‘Draco’ or the Dragon. This was well known to ancient astronomers. In the Egyptian tomb of Senenmut (or Senmut), circa 1500 B.C. we have accurate drawings of Draco. In this tomb we can estimate that Draco’s stars range from 11.5 light years to 490 light years from Earth because the maps are similar to our own.
Question: How is this possible if the Earth is moving and has traveled 1.8 trillion miles over 3,554 years, yet the distance to Draco and its celestial mapping has not changed?
4. Gravity. If the stars really are as far apart as ‘The Science’ claims, how does ‘gravity’ work? There is not enough gravity to overcome a centrifugal force and hold the stars in their orbit around the centre of their galaxies given their massive distances. ‘The Science’ admits that gravity is far too weak to hold galaxies together. Gravity is declared to be a ‘weak force’.
To make equations balance and explain how constellations and orbits remain intact forever, ‘The Science’ invented ‘dark matter’. It is a tautology. ‘Dark matter’ must exist to support the ‘standard model’ and to explain constellations and orbits. Yet no one can describe what this ‘force’ is, where it comes from, or how it works?
Question: What is ‘dark matter’ and how is it remotely scientific? Or, is dark matter another name for the aether which Einstein reinstated in his General Theory of Relativity (it was effaced in his Special Theory)?
Aether was the ‘absolute’ reference frame for Newtonian physics, Maxwell’s equations and Lorentz’s equations. Either way, ‘The Science’ and its ‘standard model’ loses given that it does not support any absolutes - including dark matter if that is just another name for the aether. Tautology indeed.
5. Size and age of the universe. The actual radius of the universe is supposedly 46.5 billion light years. Is this a distance? If so 46.5 billion is 3.8 x greater than the purported age of the universe of 13.77 billion years.
Question: If the universe has been expanding at a ‘constant’ rate for most of its ‘13.77 billion years’ of existence, the radius of 46.5 billion light years indicates that this expansion is at 3.8 times faster than the speed of light. How is that possible if light speed is invariant ?
Further Question: There are galaxies which are supposedly anywhere from 4 to 100 billion years in diameter. How is this feasible in a universe with an age of 13.77 billion years?
The maxium galaxy size allowed under the Big Bang theology is about 1 billion years. The model cannot explain these anomalies.
6. Expansion. According to the Big Bang theology, after the magic dot exploded, all the material in the universe rushed forth at greater than light speed, then slowed down.
Question: How can ‘The Science’ claim that light speed is ‘invariant’, yet invoke greater than light speed in its creation story?
Further Question: What scientifically proven process can be shown to support the theory that ‘matter’ was created ex-nihilo and was ejected into space, which also had to be created ex-nihilo, at greater than light speed?
Can ‘The Science’ reproduce this scenario in a laboratory and show how this would work, namely the ex-nihilo manufacturing of all the materials in the universe, light, photons, plus space itself, at the same time?
7. Dark Energy. Post the dot-genesis creation of the cosmos, and after 13.77 billion years, the cosmos is still racing ahead at various speeds according to the James Webb Telescope. Given that the ‘force’ propelling this expansion cannot be proven, ‘dark energy’ is invoked.
Question: Why would ‘dark energy’ result in differing speeds within different areas of the universe, within its purported acceleration, given that the Big Bang preaches homogeneity and uniformity ?
Or is ‘dark energy’ another constant and fudge based on Redshifting which does nothing to support the ‘doppler’ or expansion claim of the Big Bang theory? Is ‘dark energy’ no more than a mathematical requirement to explain the failure of Hubble’s constant which is remarkably inconstant over time (1930s Hubble’s calculation was 500 km/s/Mpc, it is now 50-75) ?
8. Space travel. If dark energy and dark matter exist then ‘The Science’ cannot account for 75-90% of matter in the universe. This must mean that all calculations for spacecraft orbits, probes and trajectories in our local solar system would be based on erroneous assumptions and must be incorrect.
Question: If ‘The Science’ cannot explain 75-90 % of what exists in the universe (dark matter + dark energy) how are calculations enabled for space probes and high-altitude satellites and why or how are these broadly accurate without taking into account the fictions of dark matter and energy?
9. Excess helium problem. There is too much helium in the observable universe which is evidence of the failure of the fusion theory of nuclear synthesis (star creation). The cosmological abundance of lithium is also a problem because in some stars there is an overabundance and, in some stars, there is an insufficiency of lithium.
Question: Energy is produced when helium is combined to make lithium, not at the same rate and this rate is incompatible with the amount of lithium in the universe. Within an explosion of energy and matter, how were helium and lithium ‘created’ and why is there an excess of helium and in some stars a deficiency of lithium, if the Big Bang preaches isotropy?
The above are just a sample anyone can multiply by 1000.
But remember. It is all settled. Everyone knows. Consensus. Teacher say. TV say. Flying bat viruses exist. Watch out for cat pox. Get stabbed.
All hail.
Another excellent post. We know nothing.
Very well done but above my intellect. Dr Jerry Tennant goes into Maxwell's and Einstein's equations and how they are incomplete and wrong in his book Healing is Voltage - Scalar Energy. He also proposes how protons do not exist and at the center are black holes.