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
“Among the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfven, 1950). This prediction follows from the fact that volume wise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. For the most part, plasma consists of particles at high temperatures, i.e. an energetic state…the volume of plasma is inhomogeneous.”
(Anthony Peratt, ‘Plasma and the Universe’, Astrophysics & Space Science, 1995, 227:97)
The aether exists. Plasma is a part of this aether. Most of the universe might be composed of plasma. When the thin-armed wizards and necromancers offer incantations and sacrifices to various gods including ‘dark matter’, do they not mean plasma and the aether?
In the previous post we stated that the plasma-electromagnetic universe disproves Relativity and the Biggest of the Bangs. Given the elastic-ontological and philosophical nature of Relativity and the Big Bang, this statement needs more explication. More here
“To put it very simply, plasma is matter that is made of ‘incomplete or partial atoms’, known as ions, and the much smaller particles known as protons and electrons. Plasma has sometimes been called the fourth state of matter, after solid, liquid and gas, but finer even than gas…the Sun is entirely composed of plasma and the stars are plasma too.” (Robert Temple, physicist, p. 3 in ‘A new science of heaven’)
If ‘the science’ invents untruths about ‘viruses’, ‘vaccines’, ‘climate’, geo-engineering, DARPA, HAARP, ‘evolution’, physics, ‘relativity’, the biggest of bangs, cosmology and ‘space travel’, what else do these institutions lie about? Or to phrase it more logically – is there anything they don’t lie about?
If the Americans had really gone to the moon from 1969-1972, the actornauts would have passed into, and died within, highly charged spheres of radiation and plasma which dominate the regions in ‘space’ between the Earth and the Moon. Space is not a vacuum as sermonised by the philosopher-comedian-maths torturer Einstein and his cult.
As R. Temple (quoted above) and posts on this substack describe at some length, ‘space’ is suffused with ‘ionised plasma’ along with neutrinos, sub-atomic particles, electro-magnetic energy, gamma rays, cosmic rays and other materiality, within an aether medium. All of this is still formally rejected by ‘mainstream science’ which still prattles on about a ‘vacuum’.
Interestingly, one searches in vain for any data or information from NASA or any of the other worthies of ‘the science’ in the 1970s, on the reality of an aether and plasma. Supposedly they launched missions through these ‘dust clouds’. So where is the evidence and telemetry that they did?
In fact, researchers who ‘discovered’ these attributes of near space were either censored or their work concealed (the Hungarian scientist Albert Saint George is an example). Using the law of parsimony, we can logically conclude that the sojourn to the moon was also a fraud. The Americans and their film agency NASA know full well we are not zooming to the moon or mars.
More here
“Arago submitted the matter to the test of experiment (in 1810) and concluded that the light coming from any star behaves in all cases of reflexion and refraction precisely as it would if the star were situated in the place which it appears to occupy in consequence of aberration, and the earth were at rest; so that the apparent refraction in a moving prism is equal to the absolute refraction in a fixed prism.” (E. T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Dublin University Press, Longmans, Green and Co., 1910, p. 116)
The Arago failure in 1810 to find a moving Earth, was a galvanizing impetus for Copernicans to find a solution to the travesty of not being able to mechanically measure the movement of this planet. Contrary to myth, not since the time of Copernicus or Galileo had mechanical proof for the mobility of this planet ever been manufactured. Enter the Relativists and the Einstotle, the Jewish theologian and philosopher, skilled with confusionist maths.
The current cosmological model, based on Relativity and the Big Bang is most certainly invalid. Newton, not the Einstotle, was far more accurate in his cosmology and he had little to say about endless expansion, fantastic galaxial speeds or the phantoms of ‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’ (another term for the aether, a word which cannot never be uttered).
Newtonian physics, with its flaws, is still the basis of cosmology. A main problem with the hermetic Newton, is the ‘mechanisation’ or ‘clockwork’ model of the universe. This is an impossibility in reality and is a philosophical not a scientific contention. More here
“…scientists announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever….Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593)….
Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything inside. [Spergel adds]: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth- shattering. It would really change our view of the universe” (Hazel Muir, “Does the Universe Go On Forever,” New Scientist, October 11, 2003, p. 6)
WMAP is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (discussed here). Over the past 20 years, the observational data coming in contradicts Relativity and the Big Bang.
Recent JWST data supports the WMAP observations, as outlined in 2 previous posts (here and here). ‘The Science’ does not discuss any of this, or as usual, makes the obscene claim that both WMAP and JWST support their ‘standard model’! What else would someone expect from the propaganda mills which support the narrative?
Launched in December 2021, the JWST is the largest telescope ever deployed, with about 6 times the Hubble Space Telescope’s light collecting power. The JWST is comprised of a mirror with 18 hexagonal mirror segments, made of gold-plated beryllium, across some 270 square feet (25 square meters). It was sent 1.5 million km (930.000 miles) from Earth in the opposite direction from the Sun. More here
“E. Hubble has shown that the observational data which he has obtained do not agree satisfactorily with the homogeneous relativistic cosmological models [Big Bang models]…the homogeneous models give an unrealistic picture of the physical universe.
Perhaps this should not be too surprising, since Tolman [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, 169, 1934] has shown that, subject to certain simplifying conditions, a homogeneous model is unstable under perturbations in density. Any local tendency to expand would be emphasized by further expansion. Likewise, any local tendency to contract would be followed by further contraction. Thus if a homogeneous model is disturbed, it becomes nonhomogeneous.”
Guy C. Omer, Jr., “A Nonhomogeneous Cosmological Model,” Journal of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 109, 1949, pp. 165-166.
Omer is right. It was known back in the 1930s and 40s that Hubble’s claim of endless universal expansion did not comport with the data. The universe does not display the ‘homogenous’ characteristics demanded by Hubble, the Big Bang, or Relativity. Yet the ‘Standard Model’ of cosmology is entirely constructured around these false declamations. Why?
Modern cosmology is a new domain which does not make it ‘The Science’. It is just over 100 years in age and is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which is fundamentally invalid; Hubble’s ‘law’ (more below) and the ‘Big Bang’ model (‘The Science’ delusion) which is incoherent and suffers from any number of defects. The ‘gravitational effect’ promoted by GTR is unproven and lies outside any possible physical proof, provides the mathematical-philosophical foundation for much of Big Bang cosmology, along with Hubble’s law (discussed below). Neither are ‘scientific’ or ‘proven’. More here
