Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Hydrocarbons are another example of $cientism and the distortion of reality which emanates from the complex of corporations, governments, regulators, and various interest groups who benefit from the paradigm of convincing the peasants that plentiful hydrocarbon energy and fuel ‘evolves over time’ from dead animals and plants and is scarce and ‘toxic’. For 120 years we have been mis-educated on this issue by ‘experts’ and ‘the science’. Believing that plentiful energy is non-renewable is an essential propaganda claim in the war on reality and to eliminate hydrocarbon energy to save Gaia.
In the Darwinian-Big Bangian-dogma of endless time and uniformitarian deposition, we are taught from childhood that petrol, coal and natural gas are created by fossils and the remains of animals and plants. Softly and slowly over hundreds of millions of years, this grinding magical process has existed. No cataclysms, no changes, with the ‘climate’ set at 21C with a slight breeze from the West. Uniformity and the unnatural law of ‘stuff happens’. From these never-observed, never proven long-age processes, hydrocarbon abundance is somehow generated.
In 1892 there was a purported meeting held in Geneva by a group of scientists to define what an organic substance meant. The outcome was that an organic substance was defined to be a composition of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. If the substance was alive it was ‘biotic’ or with life. A-biotic (or ‘without life’) is the opposite in which the subtance may be include hydrogen, oxygen, or carbon, but does not display life or biotic existence.
A theory has been forwarded that the Rockefeller’s, who owned the oil behemoth Standard Oil, funded an entourage of ‘scientists’ who attended this meeting and persuaded the convention to accept oil as an organic substance, or material from once-living and now dead organic creatures. From this deception, so the claim goes, the Rockefeller energy cartel could present oil as a scarce resource to inflate and control the price of oil.
It is unlikely that this story is true, and it might be one of the few cases where the fake gestapo ‘Fact Checkers’ are right. ‘Fossil fuels’ as a term of ignorance and usage may have existed as far back as the 18th century, created by Caspar Neumann in 1759 in his book, ‘The Chemical Works’. ‘Fossils’ as a body of analytical work and investigation was only developed in the 18th century so this is plausible.
However, the important point is about the term ‘fossil fuels’ itself and not who invented it. Here is yet another example, where we have modern metaphysics and ‘scientific’ gospel based on 18th century dogma with no querulous or curious update to the original. A 250-year-old term is just taken for granted as ‘scientific’. So much for the ‘evolution’ of intelligence.
The official definition of ‘Fossil Fuels’ is the following:
any of a class of hydrocarbon-containing materials of biological origin occurring within Earth’s crust that can be used as a source of energy.
Fossil fuels include coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils. All contain carbon and were formed as a result of geologic processes acting on the remains of organic matter produced by photosynthesis, a process that began in the Archean Eon (4.0 billion to 2.5 billion years ago)
This definition is not even testable and thus is not scientific. Witness the following obfuscation: ‘Geological processes ‘acting’ on the ‘remains’ of dead animals, trees, plants and flora?
What processes are we discussing here? Why and how would a decomposing plant or tree turn into coal or natural gas? Compost does not create hydrocarbon energy. We are told that peat fields and swamps, over long periods of time, under great pressure and due to enzymic reactions, decompose the compost into coal and oil. This is utter nonsense and sophistry. Not a single experiment, observation or replicable process exists or has existed, to support this official narrative of how hydrocarbon energy is generated. Many of us have had compost heaps and dumps and never once, was oil, coal or gas created. Instead, a type of humus or rich soil is produced. The defenders of the corrupt narrative will of course invoke one of their Trinitarian Gods – Time – to explain the creation of hydrocarbon energy from a compost.
From the definition above, the observant individual notices the complete absence of fossils. An elaboration is required from the sophists who call themselves ‘the science’:
“Most of the fossil fuel material we use today comes from algae, bacteria, and plants—some of which date back even before the Devonian Period, 419.2 million to 358.9 million years ago.”
When you see such specific numbers from people whose C14 dating can give a future age (ie negative C14), we can emit a chuckle. As if these people know anything beyond a few thousand years. They do however admit that fossils are not involved.
Although these carbon compounds are very old, they are not fossils. Although fossils can be the actual remains and traces of ancient plants and animals, they also might be mere impressions made in the rock.
Thanks ‘Science’. The huge brains admit that our hydrocarbon fuel has nothing to do with fossils. Apparently 400-million-year-old decomposed algae is filling your vehicles’ tank, calibrated by the ‘science’ to be 419.2 (not 419.1, not 418.67) million years ago. Of course, we must believe that energy systems, complex convection systems, and equilibrium’s last millions and billions of years. Teacher say. Science say.
A question the curious might ask would be:
‘Where does the plentiful, self-replenishing, omnipresent seams, strands, lakes, and deposits of oil, gas, and coal, saturating the planet in almost every location, really come from?
Are we to believe that the endless sources of hydrocarbon energy come from ‘Devonian Era’ algae? Is that even sensible?
Consider coal. All over the world we can see vertical coal shafts running at strange angles, for hundreds of feet or more, in many cases full of detritus, petrified trees, and even human artefacts. Such formations are deposited and detailed and we have probably uncovered only a small fraction of such formations. These can only be created by catastrophic events. Uniformity cannot explain coal creation, and neither can it explain hydrocarbon fuels, which like coal, exist in such vast quantities that it defies uniformitarian creation myths.
Petroleum, composed of hydrocarbons and heteroatomic molecules (not carbon, not hydrogen), is the most complex mixture occurring in nature. Apparently, this complexity is arrived at by uniformitarian-stuff happens and chance. For mainstream ‘Science’ the creation of Petroleum must include the following miracles:
(1) The magical formation of organic-rich sediments (they name this as a source ‘rock’ though this formation is just a layer)
a. (why, how, where would they form?)
(2) These sediments are buried to a sufficient depth (how, why?) by overburden rock (what?) so that petroleum is generated and expelled
a. (how is organic matter turned into petroleum, what is the process?),
(3) Some ‘pathways’ (permeable strata and faults) allow the petroleum to ‘migrate’,
a. (how does a crushed liquid ‘migrate’ what propels it, is it gravity alone and where does it migrate to?)
(4) Reservoir rocks which are sufficiently porous and permeable allow an accumulation of this material,
a. (where do these magically appear from, how are they formed, why are they in the same area at the same time?)
(5) Somehow there is apparently a ‘seal rock’ (low permeability) or other ‘structures’ which contain and retain the petroleum
a. (created how, when, and why does it close over a ‘reservoir’?)
All of these miracles apparently arrive in a uniformitarian, unchanging, never-cataclysmic Earth history. Gentle, slow, and regal.
In the official fantasy-narrative how many Gods of the Gaps are there? The above is declared the ‘Science’ but looks more like a gospel of faith. How would the many assumptions in the above 5 steps comport with reality? What is the chance that any of the steps would occur naturally? What are the chances that all the steps occurred all over the world at the same time in a uniformitarian model? Next to zero. Do we see any evidence of these processes in our observational reality today? No. Can any of this be replicated in an experiment. No.
There are 2 main theories to explain the formation of hydrocarbon energy based on the miraculous steps above. The mainstream ‘science’-view looks only at: 1-biogenic (animal life) and 2-abiogenic (chemical). There is a third theory, much derided but which satisfies Occam’s razor and that is abiotic.
Biogenic: is where oil is generated by the thermal conversion of sedimentary organic matter derived from living organisms. Most geochemists support this theory. An example is oil creation from sediments of dead algae on the ocean or sea floors (see objections above).
Abiogenic: where oil is formed from minerals, in a catalysed reaction of nonbiological carbon, deep within the Earth. Most geochemists reject this theory.
There is a third theory developed over 100 years by Russian scientists in the energy sector. Western audiences have for the most part never heard of these endeavours. Some of these insights and proofs are however making headway in the ‘West’. The abiotic theory of hydrocarbon manufacture as a natural process is supported by what is observed and conforms to Occam’s razor around explanatory models and common sense. This theory is far more likely to explain why hydrocarbon energy is so plentiful.
The abiotic theory argues that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. Hydrocarbon energy is thus a-biotic, or unrelated to carbon life forms. The theory posits that hydrocarbon energy ‘seeps up’ through bedrock cracks to be deposited in sedimentary rock. This model makes more sense than the standard model of many Gods and miracles outlined above. Traditional petrogeologists have confused the layers of rocks as the creator of energy and the depository of hydrocarbons. Rocks cannot manufacture anything. More
Moloch and Climate Fascism
The Climate-Cult is a $1.5 Trillion per annum market. As with drugs and pharmaceuticals, it is a growth industry and useful as a policy tool for the endless array of governments and their agencies, to emasculate populations, control them, and reduce their collective power. ‘Science’ and saving Gaia is used as the casus belli. Climate Change, Globaloney Boiling, Saving Gaia is a hoax, built around money, power and anti-humanism.
The splendiferous corruption and ignorance of the Climate Cult is on display on an almost weekly basis. Every week there is seemingly yet another billionaire-elitist-international confabulation on saving Gaia from human-emitted plant food. Pace the Corona Fascism, the latest Climate demand is to lock-down society. ‘The Science’ is fully onboard with the totalitarianism running rampant through a pathetic, demoralised, effeminate, irrational ‘West’ (called the ‘West’ since Christian Europe was the western rump of a once massive Christian civilisation, most of which was consumed by the Musulman Jihad). Anti-human determinism is the golden thread of this $cientism, which is a mortal threat to civilisation and human welfare. Humans are the virus and must be sacrificed on the pagan altars of $cientism. ‘Carbon Emissions’ must be ‘net zero’ cries the totalitarian, with no scientific evidence to support such an insane position. There is no ‘climate crisis’ or ‘warming’.
It is obvious that ending ‘emissions’ of plant food would simply end modern life. Locking down the planet which reduced ‘Co2’ emissions during the Corona fascism did nothing to stop the non-existent ‘Climate Change’. Here we are post the Corona fascism and the hue and cry from the same suspects is ‘Climate Crisis’. Locking down the globe and ending the use of clean hydro-carbon energy within a generation would assign the vast majority to impoverishment and quite likely mass starvation. That seems to be the entire premise in the Age of $cientism – or ‘Science’ used a pre-text by the elite to control, manipulate, enrich themselves and exterminate our species en-masse. The New World Order is simply a totalitarian dystopian-World Government and Climate-hysteria, and its attendant Fascism is a key component of the NOW.
(WEF Book, ‘The Great Reset’, this page summarise their entire philosophy)
There are several channels to sacrifice humans to Moloch or Baal, being deployed by satanic cults in our not-so-modern-world and include:
1. De-hydro-carbonisation (the ending of clean burning hydrocarbons and industry)
2. Toxic injections for ‘Health’ and Scamdemics (mandatory stabbinations)
3. Toxins in food (MSG, Fructose, White Sugars, heavy metals)
4. Chemtrails and chemical sprays in the skies (heavy metals, aluminum, barium, blocking the Sun and reducing vitamin D)
5. Fluoride in the water (fluoride does not exist naturally, it is aluminium and fluorine)
6. Abortion and the slaughter of unborn babies (called ‘health care’)
7. HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is a US DoD initiative to weaponize climate and use it as a weapon of mass destruction
All of the above are about debasing and annihilating the essentials of life; our babies, our food, our energy, our bodies, the air, and our natural weather systems. All of these initiatives reference to ‘science’ in their models, but no actual science supports any of it (you don’t need HAARP to ‘understand’ and ‘control’ the atmosphere, you don’t need fluoride which destroys your bones etc). $cientism is a better description, or the nexus of power, government, corporations, and profits, mixed in with materialist-anti humanist ideology.
(Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, based on Satellite records)
Plant food is 0.04% gas by weight, 95% emitted by Gaia, it does not control climate any more than the carbon, nitrogen or water cycles control climate. Plant food falls out of climate and Co2 is at very low levels when compared to past epochs, including the Roman and early Medieval periods. Plant food is necessary for life and is a part of photosynthesis producing oxygen. Plant food is not a toxin. There is no correlation between plant food emissions and weather – none. Plant food is not Satan.
As for ‘climate’ from 1945-1975 the fearmongering, based on plant food ‘emissions’, focused on the coming Ice age. 50 years later, this is inverted to declaim against ‘boiling’. All from the same trace chemical. We know that the data ‘proving’ the non-existing ‘warming’ is ‘cooked’ and ‘fraudulent’. As with $cientism at large, we need to follow the money to find the ‘science’. The ‘solutions’ to the non-existing problem always ends up being a very lucrative and profitable market for governments and their corporate-billionaire allies and associated firms and organisations, not to mention universities, research institutions and academics.
More than 1 Trillion metric tonnes of Co2 exists in the atmosphere, with 95% or more from Gaia and natural processes (a tonne is 1000 Kg, a ‘ton’ is 907 kg). In fact, it is fair to say we don’t know the actual concentration level of Co2 in the atmosphere, in-toto, given that measuring chemical elements in the atmosphere is very much modelling and guess work. We also know that the statistical modelling of human emitted Co2 is largely guess work. Global data coverage for emissions does not exist and different ‘methodologies’ all laced with endless assumptions and riddled with gaps are used. When the ‘science’ says that humans emit 50 billion tonnes p.a. of Co2, take it with a pinch of salt assuming an exaggeration of 50% or more.
Similar to the fraudulent climate models and their hysterical anti-science forecasts and temperature claims, the models estimating how much Co2 is actually in our atmosphere and emitted by human output can be torn to bits. You won’t find much analysis of these online. The $cientism of Climate present their data with absolute certainty and confidence. More
‘Fact-checkers’ are the new Gestapo deployed by ‘the Science’ to remove objections to the dogma. They are paid to dissemble if not lie. The Theology of the Big Bang remunerates and deploys these creatures to push the NASA-Scientism rhetoric and to redefine words, observations and basic reality. It would be interesting to map the payments and relationships between ‘The Science’ and the journals and websites that preach and promote the gospel. The corruption and stench of such nepotism and vested interests would likely make a sewer smell sweet. When real world evidence gets in the way of the narrative dogma, then simply ignore the data, or contort it to fit ‘The Science’.
An example of Fact Checking ‘bias’ within Banging theology is the issue of ‘Supernovae’ and a recent 1987 explosion of a planet, which the Bang model cannot explain (more below). However, the gymnastics employed by the Bangers to fit what the model does not predict, or support is very impressive. The definition of the 1987A Supernova according to the Big Bang narrative is the following:
Supernova: Supernova 1987A, first supernova observed in 1987 (hence its designation) and the nearest to Earth in more than three centuries. It occurred in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way Galaxy that lies about 160,000 light-years distant. The supernova originated in the collapse and subsequent explosion of a supergiant star, and it is unique in that its progenitor star had been observed and catalogued prior to the event (Written by John Donald Fernie Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Who doesn’t trust John and the army of ‘Fact-checkers’ at Encyclopaedia Britannica in defining the death of a ‘super giant star’. They would never distort or obfuscate. They love you and they spend day and night searching for and defending the truth.
But what does an exploding supernova really tell us?
On August 31, 2023, the James Webb Telescope at NASA released a fantastic and startling image of Supernova 1987A, 1.5 light years away (roughly 7.5 trillion miles), the nearest supernova since Johannes Kepler observed one in 1604.
Supernova 1987A ‘exploded’ in 1987. As with their opposite and incomprehensible phenomenon Quasars which are new galaxies appearing from White Holes, NASA, the gatekeeper of money and the Big Bang gospel, has no explanation and cannot reconcile either phenomena with their 14 billion years narrative of the universe. An exploding star does not mean it is billions of years in age. If you read through the Bang model of how supernovas are formed (below), upending or inflecting any number of dozens of constants, assumptions and fine-tuning could easily mean that a star (which may or may not be a fusion bomb), could explode at any time. However, if you search online about supernovae, you are confronted with confident assertions that these events ‘confirm’ the Bang Model, long ages, and fusion energy stars. It is rubbish.
The official narrative on Supernovae goes something like this.
-Enormous Stars, created at the time of the Big Bang and many times the size of our Sun, die a violent death
-When these gigantic stars explode, we should be able to use them as a ‘clock’ looking back at the creation of the universe given we can measure the distance from the event to Earth in light years (the light emanating from the explosion occurred in the deep past according to bangers, even if we see in 1987 for example)
-The Star collapses on itself creating a Black Hole (which cannot be seen)
-It then explodes outwards with the energy of ‘billions of stars’ (somewhat at odds with Banging theology which states that nothing is emitted from a Black Hole)
-But these emissions of energy do not always occur, given that different types of supernovae exist (Types I implode, Types II explode)
-There are hundreds of supernovae in our galaxy
-The mechanics are interesting - supposedly everyone knows that all stars convert hydrogen into fusion at their core (a theory much in dispute, but confidently alleged by ‘The Science’)
-The fusion process releases photon energy or light and this pushes against the force of gravity which is pulling on the star itself
-Our own Sun, the poor thing, does not have the mass to support fusion reactions beyond the use of helium or hydrogen, so when the helium is used up it will become a ‘white dwarf’ and cool down
-But if we view a star that is say 25 times the mass of our Sun, it can fuse its heavy elements at the core, so when hydrogen runs outs, the Star will somehow switch to helium, then neon etc and when it reaches iron, the fusion reaction takes more energy than it produces
-At the stage of iron fusion, the outer layers of the star collapse and detonate in a Type II supernova explosion
-A dense neutron star would be left, unless the mass was more than 25 times the mass of our Sun, then the inward collapse creates a Black Hole (which cannot be seen)
-If the mass is 100 times greater, they simply explode and that is that, nothing remains, no structures, no neutron stars, just debris issued in every direction
-Type I’s are different and rarer than Type II’s; with a dead white dwarf former star, ‘paired’ with a ‘red giant’ star or another white dwarf, where the white dwarf sucks in matter from its companion star until it explodes and vaporises
In these supernovae explosions matter is created. This process is replicated in part by expensive particle accelerators which are used to create more massive elements on the Periodic table. The creation of matter takes incredible energy lasting only a few seconds. In supernovae these elements are manufactured through the crunching of matter and supernovae are much better at creating matter ex-nihilo than a particle accelerator. Matter creation is used as partial evidence for some of the steps listed above.
So, there you go. All the ‘science’ you can eat! Or to be more accurate, all the metaphysics. More here
“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues.” Einstein
Atheism asserts that there is a latent conflict between religion and ‘science’. Ironically this theorem has little historical support and ignores the epistemological data to the contrary. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and within this domain broadly speaking, there is a paucity of inclusive treatments within the realities of both the scientific and the religious experience and their often intertwined if not inter-dependent dimensions. In short, they are not mutually exclusive and when a layman analyses and critiques the ‘scientific truths’ of the day, he will often remark that what is offered seems rather religious.
The ‘Big Bang’ theorem is religiously held by its adherents as proof of material dialecticism and endless time. The most rabid proponents are Atheists, though many religious also believe in and support the doctrine. The Bangers hang their hats on ‘science’ which they rarely define beyond referencing a ‘scientific method’, an explanatory framework of scientific discovery that has many different interpretations and implementations. However, the Bang theology in many forms, has a very long history.
Aristotle’s work ‘On the Heavens and Meteorologica’ (4th century BC) is a pantheistic view deifying nature and assigning various Gods which had been invented in most ancient cultures, including the Greek, to explain the marvellous creation and design of life and the Earth and related natural phenomena. Socrates had previously taught that all matter, whether animate or inanimate contained a ‘soul’ which forced the object to ‘achieve is purpose’. In Aristotle’s work, the deification of nature used this concept to develop the ‘Prime Mover’ idea, or divine source which directs the physics of motions and planetary states.
In this model all activity is naturally induced to reach a ‘natural place’, both sublunary and superlunary (below and beyond the moon). Aristotle’s universe is pantheistic, not geometrical or mathematical and it differs in significant ways from the Christian and medieval view.
Pantheism is naturalism or ‘the universe’. It is the theological belief that nature and the universe reflect Gods (plural not singular) and nature in general. These deities or forces are the controllers of the mysteries found in natural phenomena, physics, states, matter and energy. Humans are just a part of this naturalist-pantheist creation and no anthropomorphic principle or concern is at work. Pantheism offers no theological insights into humans or the creation of sentient creatures. The Big Bang theory is very similar in this regard.
For Aristotle and his pantheistic eternity, the Prime Mover created the Universe, but it was not created ‘out of nothing’ as the Bangers believe. Motion and physics were assessed but no mathematics was deployed to explain motion. Gods of many gaps were built to sustain the planetary and universal frameworks of motion, energy and life.
Opposed to Aristotle’s view were other Greeks who were moving from pantheism into hard maths. Pythagoras’ academy in the 5th century BC, which predates Aristotle’s by 100 years, and in the person of Philolaus, formed ideas of earthly sphericity and motions of the planets around the centre of the Cosmos and its ‘central fire’. Such a model was later opposed by Aristotleians. Eratosthenes (275 – 194 BC) moving away from pantheism, used a geometrical model to calculate the size of the spherical Earth. Aristarchus (215 – 145 BC), greatly amending the Pythogorean concept, used a similar geometrical framework to deduce the dimensions of the earth-moon-sun system and proposed heliocentricity as a workable model of what was observed in space from earth, detaching planetary motions from pantheistic controls.
Ptolemaic science (2nd century AD) was built on the above and outlined planetary motions, orbits and time within a structured solar system. However, in this model the earth was stationary and the planets revolved around it, thus upending Aristarchus’ heliocentric model and deploying Aristotleian pantheism to explain structure and motion. Ptolemy’s model was thus regressive and at odds with the maths of Aristarchus. Within the Ptolemaic universe, Aristotle’s animism is also apparent with the coordination of planets described in terms of humans.
The anthropomorphic principle is clearly apparent in Ptolemy’s models, with the earth at the centre of creation, a supporting plank for monotheists and the nascent, growing Catholic Church (2nd century AD). The problem with ancient Greek science and with Ptolemy’s model, was the theological-pantheistic barrier to understanding motion.
A comprehension of motion was only achieved by Christian theism and its scientists as they sought to uncover the ‘Prime Mover’ and how and why objects actually move and why planets keep their orbits. In this search for the ‘5 proofs’ of God’s existence, these men ran into much violent opposition for about 1000 years. Ptolemy’s model was staunchly defended by many in power, especially in the universities and secular-funded observatories.
The reigning paradigm always creates a caste of people who benefit and have power they are loathe to lose. The Catholic Copernicus who rediscovered heliocentricity in the early 16th century, was trained and funded by the Church. Famously it was not the Church or Rome he was worried about when he displaced the earth from the centre of the solar system. His concerns in publishing his theory centred on the violent opposition given by the academics and universities.
St Paul the evangelist, argued for a well-reasoned faith and worship (Romans 12:1). Athanasius the great Catholic theologian (296-373 AD) defended the logos of Christ (which can be seen in the plasma theory of universal matter) and the rationality and logical reasoning of ordered creation. Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) picked up this theme to lay down the principle that if conclusions of science about the natural world contradicted scripture, then scripture had to be reinterpreted. John Philoponus (570 AD) was the first astronomer to argue that since stars shine with a different colour they were composed of ordinary matter (pagans and the ancients gave stars godlike attributes eg Mars, Venus, Jupiter).
As tooling and knowledge improved so too did mathematics and physics. Centuries of observations and calculations led to Jean Buridan (1295-1358 AD). Buridan was propelled by a study of Aristotle’s pantheistic eternity and theorised that God the Prime Mover imparted a certain quantity of motion to celestial bodies to keep them in orbit in a purposefully created frictionless void, or inertial motion (the mover and objects are now separated). Oresme (1320-1382 AD) who succeeded Buridan at the Sorbonne, viewed the universe as clock-work using inertial motion, an idea which would inform Cartesian linear inertia and Newton’s mechanical laws of motion.
Copernicus (1473-1543 AD) used the ideas of Buridan and Oresme to improve on the doctrine of ‘impetus’ and the earth’s motion in space. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 AD) provided the complicated trigonometry to help prove Copernican theory. Newton, Leibniz and popularisers of science such as Voltaire, reoriented science to articulated and provable mathematics fully disengaging medieval science from the Greek pantheistic theories. Heliocentricity, gravity, laws of motion and calculus were produced (see Stanley Jaki, The Road to Science and ways to God, 1978).
The great breakthroughs were in understanding motion and optics (Roger Bacon and others late 13th c). In any event thanks to Christian deism scientific theory had to be provable, replicable, observable and mathematically supported. It was a ‘quantum’ leap in science. More here
· First Post, background and general criticism of the Banging religion here
· Problems and issues with the Bangers ‘proof’ of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation one of the three pillars of the religion here
There are three major pillars holding up the Big Bang theology, none of which stand up to scrutiny. First, gravity and gravity alone determines the structure and movement of stars and galaxies. This is simply untrue given the weak force nature of gravity, and the presence of electromagnetism, a far stronger and more reliable natural law in explaining the construction of the universe.
The second ‘proof’ for the Bangers is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation or CMB, which is a theory suffering from many issues and anomalies which are obvious when analysing the Bangers own data. This theory postulates that the electromagnetic radiation observable and measurable in space, is a ‘relic’ or umbilic cord from the original explosion of the cosmic egg some 13.7 billion years ago.
There are now theories circulating that the universe is really ~30 billion years old based on some observations in 2023 from the James Webb Telescope. Time is what Bangers and Evolutionists need to make their theories tenable. Regardless of endless time hand-waving, using Big Banging’s own data, the CMB is a theory unsupported by observable data.
The third pillar is the ‘Redshift’ of objects, called ‘Hubble’s law’. Redshift (or a variation of 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.
However the ‘Redshift’ theory is also problematic 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. Hence the use of ‘Dark Energy’ as the ‘propelling agent’ thrusting massive weights of galaxies forward. This is to prevent ‘force of gravity’ and deceleration which in Bang theology, would cause an imploding universe. Bangers maintain that the ‘acceleration’ is a ‘relic’ of the original ‘explosion’. Dark Energy, like Dark Matter (plugging the holes in Einstein’s theorems) have never been proven to exist. But there is plenty of research money available to chase those holy grails. No alternative ideas or observations are entertained by the massive $25 billion p.a. investment machine which funds Big Bang cosmology.
‘The Science’ will have us believe that measuring the distance from the Earth to a Star is a known ‘law’. It isn’t of course. It is all theory and speculation. The most common technique, which is also used in terrestrial GPS and Satellite systems, is triangulation or the ‘parallax’. It is believed that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is 186 million miles. If a terrestrial observer sees a Star on Day 1, he can return 6 months later and see the Star in a different position. He can measure the angle and using trigonometry based on the Earth’s solar orbit mileage, derive a distance between the two points. This seems to be a rough estimation for Stars within 400 light years from Earth. A light year is 5.9 trillion miles in distance. A variation on this method was used by ancient astronomers including Aristarchus, Eratosthenes and Ptolemy.
Since there is no direct method to measure the distance to stars which are more than 400 light years from the Earth (400 x 5.9 Trillion miles), cosmologists use the colour spectrum and the brightness of the Star to guess its distance. In this theory, astronomers view a distant star and determine its colour spectrum and compare this to the apparent brightness seen from Earth (that is, by looking at how dim the star has become once its light reaches Earth).
This is called the ‘Redshift’ effect, first proposed by Hubble in the 1920s and used by the Bangers to ‘prove’ that the Universe is ‘accelerating’ and the galaxies are moving away. However, there is plenty of evidence which contradicts this theory and disproves the entire idea of using the light spectrum to calculate distance. Even Hubble had his doubts about its reality and NASA has recently concluded that far flung galaxies are much brighter than one would expect within the 13.7 billion year cosmogony of the Bang theory. Again, we have theories from 100 years ago (Einstein, Hubble) carved into rock and waved around by the Prophets on Mount $cience as immutable truths. Overwhelming observational proof that they were wrong is simply ignored. This is hardly how real science operates.
When humans on platform Earth survey the Universe and its trillions of stars and galaxies, light is emitted from the distant bodies and sent back to our telescopes. We can look at the body and estimate its distance based on many assumptions as outlined above. One key assumption not mentioned is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is generally accepted to be 180.000 miles per second as determined by Einstein and his theory of relativity. For Einstein the speed of light is a constant. But is this true? There is a growing body of theory and evidence that the assumptions of the speed and constancy of light are incorrect.
It is becoming more apparent that the speed of light is affected by large objects, plasma and varies considerably over time and within the universe (Dicke’s theory). This is just another example of why ‘consensus’ means little in reality. Einstein’s speed of light ‘law’ was always a theory. There was little observational proof that it was correct. Some observations say the speed of light is slower, some maintain that it is faster than Einstein’s calculation. Whatever the case, it is clear that this is another area in which the Bangers are struggling, and the implications are enormous in measuring cosmological age and distances. If the speed of light constant is false, much of modern physics will need rewriting. More here