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
“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
