Fact Checking and story making

‘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’. 

Bias

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?

An imploding Star

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.

What are Supernovae?

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.

Any objections?

So, there you go.  All the ‘science’ you can eat!  Or to be more accurate, all the metaphysics.   More here