The Big Bang Is A Load Of Junk Science

As some of you may or may not know, one of my side hobbies is the study of cosmology (the study of the universe and its origins).

I initially got started on my quest for answers after watching a video made by some renegade electrical engineers presenting scientific evidence against the big bang.  I have no religious stake in this game.  This is NOT about religion.  I’m talking strictly on the merits of real laboratory proven science.

It may surprise to you learn that most of what cosmologist tell us is not based on laboratory proven experimentation.  It’s based on hypothetical theory with a distinctly unproven foundation.   Theoretical physicists base their conclusions on observing things through telescopes and other mechanizations and then twisting their mathematical models to agree with what is observed.

One of the biggest frauds in science is the notion that space is “expanding.”  Scientists tell us that when they look at distant objects like galaxies and quasars the light they see is “red shifted”.  That is to say, if you break down the spectrum of light with a prism, certain elements in the light source absorb light in the spectrum.  So you’ll see little dark lines in the light spectrum where these elements are blocking the light rays.  When we look at distant objects light, those little absorption lines are shifted toward the red end of the light spectrum – hence the term red shift.

Scientists tell us that this red shifting is due to something called the Doppler effect, which is similar to a train whistle changing pitch as it goes past you.  This effect is caused by the velocity of the sound source moving by you.  They then extrapolate this effect to conclude that the universe is “expanding” because the velocity of galaxies moving away from us gives the light a Doppler effect, which in turn causes the light to be red shifted.

The Hubble space telescope is named after the man that discovered this phenomena.  If you take a plot of red shift over the apparent brightness of galaxies, you’ll see a smooth trend.  That is to say, as red shift increases, galaxies appear to grow dimmer.  This relationship is how scientists concluded that red shift essentially provides us with a measure of distance.

Now, there is little doubt that red shift itself is in some way related to distance.  However there are some wildly huge problems with the assumption that this red shift is caused because space itself is “expanding” or “dark energy” is pushing galaxies apart.

On its face, the argument that space “expanding” is causing galaxies to fly apart is illogical.  If the space between galaxies is nothing but a vacuum of nothing, it is impossible for that nothing to expand.

If we say space can “expand”, then space must not be nothing. It must be something, and that something must have properties that allow for expansion.

If space is simply a volume and time in which matter resides, expansion of this volume would not lead to a visible expansion or dislocation of matter unless space also had properties that allowed it to act upon matter with force.

For example:

Imagine a partially filled balloon in zero gravity.

Within that balloon is a grain of sand directly in the middle of it.

If I was able to inflate the balloon (without disturbing the grain of sand), the volume of the balloon would have expanded, yet the grain of sand would remain unmoved itself since no force would be acting upon the sand to move it.

Thus, space as volume expanded, but no visible effects of this would be imparted to the matter within that space.

In order to move the sand by expanding the balloon, the sand must have a mechanism of force to act upon it. Thus space expanding by itself is not enough to explain why matter should be visibly moved by this expansion. In the balloon example, the grain could only be moved by air pressure. Air which has real mass and volume.

Now, let us say that all matter within the space of the balloon expands as a function of the volume of the balloon.

For example, as I inflate the balloon to twice its size, the grain of sand also expands to twice its size.

If the grain of sand were to represent galaxies suspended in space, we would still see no mechanism of movement or velocity away from each other. In fact, all we would see are things increasing in size.

Galaxies would appear to grow in size, not move away from us.

Again, a mechanism of force is required to explain why an expansion of space (which is nothing) should result in the movement of matter.

Newtons laws make it abundantly clear that in order for movement to occur, a real physical force must act upon that matter.

The illogical nature of “expanding space” aside, there’s an epic boat load of evidence refuting the argument that red shift is caused by galaxies flying away from us.

If scientists were to discover a property of light that caused it to red shift without space “expanding,” it would certainly undermine the argument that red shift is caused by expanding space.  Well guess what?  Such laboratory proven mechanisms do exist.

In fact, two well known properties of light acting in a plasma vacuum can account for all astronomical red shifts.  Space itself is a gigantic plasma vacuum.  The vacuum of deep space is far more perfect than anything we could ever create in a lab here on Earth.  We also know space is jam packed with charged particles.  This means space is essentially a plasma vacuum.

The two effects that specifically account for all observations of red shift are called the Wolf effect and the CREIL effect.   The Wolf effect states that light can become red shifted due to the scattering of light in certain situations.  A paper showing how this effect can account for very high red shift objects called quasars can be found here.  The Wolf effect accounts for a certain set of quasars that are very problematic for scientists.

Some quasars that we measure have extremely high red shifts.  If those quasars are at the actual distance their red shift indicates, it would mean that those quasars must have the mass and energy of hundreds of millions of Milky Way galaxies combined.  Since such an argument is highly illogical, it stands to reason that the Wolf effect is the most likely explanation for their incredibly high red shift, as the paper points out.

However, the Wolf effect alone does not account for why galaxies and other near by quasars appear to be red shifted.  The second effect solves this problem.  Its called the CREIL effect.  The CREIL effect says that when light passes through a diffuse vacuum of hydrogen, it becomes evenly red shifted without distortion.   This is a laboratory proven effect of light in a vacuum.  More on the CREIL effect can be found here.

Scientists then like to argue that the CREIL effect doesn’t account for why we see light curves of super nova agreeing with the “time dilation” theory.  Time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed.  In fact, the CREIL effect DOES account for why see time dilation in the light curves of super nova, a paper on the subject can be found here.

Indeed every single piece of evidence that standard theory adherents claim proves space is “expanding” can be accounted for using laboratory proven physics.  Even “gravitational lenses” which claim space itself is bending into a lens shape that allows us to see distant objects can be accounted for.

In fact, gravitational lenses were concocted by scientists because they were FORCED into such a situation.  Astronomers observed lots and lots of extremely high red shift quasars in and around galaxies, so much so, that in order to account for them all without blowing up their bogus theories they had to invoke the magic of bending space lenses.

Allow me to provide you with an example of a so-called “gravitational lens

In the image, you can see that just over the course of a few years, the quasars in question have changed in location and intensity.  They are also round and point-like in appearance.  We can also see plasma streams physically connecting them all.  ALL of those properties refute the standard theory of gravitational lenses.  None of those properties can be accounted for by space “bending” into a lens.

Scientists claim that image your looking at is supposedly ONE quasar being “lensed” into four images.  – I’m not joking. If that image is not one quasar, but four distinct quasars, then the entire theory of the big bang is a bunch of nonsense.

Continuing on with my diatribe, a man named Halton Arp documented an epic boat load of evidence proving quasars are ejected from galaxies at a high red shift, then as they mature their red shift diminishes to match that of the host galaxy that ejected them.  Papers showing the relationship of quasars to their host galaxies are on the order of 1.5 million to one.  That is to say, the odds are 1.5 million to one that quasars are related to their host galaxies.

This fits extremely well with the plasma cosmology model of quasars, which invokes the Wolf effect to account for why certain quasars have such a high red shift.

I could go on and on and on about the ridiculousness of the standard model, but if this article peeked your interest at all, you can learn more about plasma cosmology and REAL science by watching this video and reading this web site.

More videos on cosmology can be found in my video library and more links to real science can be found in the sidebar.

Its important to point out WHY you never hear about stuff like this.  The Climategate scandal has given us a window into to how the peer review process works.  It is tightly controlled and highly manipulated.  Climate science isn’t the only field like this.  You’ll find the same scientific supression in economics, particle physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, and biology.

Here’s an example of what happens when you try to submit a paper that finds fault with the “mainstream” standard theory.

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • mouser98

    theoretically, the entropy of a black hole turns out not to be related to its volume, but its surface area. this leads to the notion that all of reality (as we perceive it in our three dimensions) is a holographic projection of information contained in 2 dimensions into the third dimension. that means that things that appear to be matter to us, are really energy wave interference patterns… if our brains were adapted to perceive additional dimensions, we would see the world in a vastly different way, and be able to walk through walls and trees and such.

    as it is, the real question to me seems to be does consciousness exist within us, or have our brains evolved to a point where we perceive a field of consciousness that exists outside of us. as Bill Hicks put it, are we “all one conscious experiencing itself subjectively”?

    oh well, none of it matters, lets lynch all the banksters!!!

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • Jimmy

    I was beginning to think I was the only that rejected evolution and young-earth creationism. What really drives me crazy about the debate is the either-or nature of it. The gripping hand, as it were, is simply ignored.
    I’ll have to take a closer look at the science stuff you posted, but you just made my intellectual day, man. Thanks.

  • http://eternian.wordpress.com/ Daniel Knight

    it doesn’t appear to me that u linked to your youtube vids on the big bang here, and if u don’t know or forgot, google video is shutting down in may. for convenience and for those that have trouble reading, please link to those videos here.

    Also, were you aware of this?: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml