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
Philosophy and world-views are always the foundation of ‘The Science’ past or present. In the confused, anti-reality modern clown-world of secular materialism and nihilism, the dogmas of ‘settled science’ are religious gospel to those who believe, and to the powers that benefit. ‘Cui bono’ as the Roman lawyer Cicero supposedly asked. In our world, as evidenced by the Corona scamdemic, the Climate cult, and the flying virus (‘intracellular parasite’) mythology, following money and self-interest is the shortest path to find ‘The Science’. Enrichment and power matter far more than truth or real science.
Scientism’s religious dogma is built upon unceasing propaganda and financial largesse. Within every domain of ‘The Science’ a religious liturgy exists, replete with miracles (Evolution, Relativity), apparitions (non-existent viruses, Co2 causing climate), and virgin births (the Big Bang, life on this planet). ‘The Science’ is far more religious and prone to superstition than any mainline Christian church. Newtonian physics and Einstein’s fantasy world of relativity, which has been extensively excoriated and debunked on this substack, are examples of this truism. Both are venerated, both at the core, are quite wrong.
Starting with Copernicus and Galileo, science turned from mechanical proofs to philosophical and mathematical treatises (the execrable Galileo myth is dealt with here). The heretic can list thousands of mechanical experiments which do not find either the rotational speed of the Earth, nor its 30 km/second canter in space. None can be offered by those who believe in both. This is rather curious given that nearly everyone believes in the 1000 per mile diurnal rotation and the 108.000 km per hour zoom through space. The only defense of Copernican dogma are mathematical representations of physical phenomena, but never mechanical-physical proofs or physical answers. Yet few know this for it is never taught or rarely discussed. And of course, if you question any of it, you will be fired, failed, or declared a lunatic.
Newton developed a physics that interpreted, in mathematical terms, the force of interaction between two bodies. Newton’s theories however, are not independent of the reference frame in which those bodies are contained. The formulas F = ma and F = Gm1m2/r2 will only work in unaccelerated reference frames. This is not how reality operates. Most of reality as Einstein realised, sits within accelerated reference frames of motions and bodies in movement. When Newton’s formulas are applied to accelerating frames of reference they simply do not work unless compensations are added. This obvious error was one that Einstein attempted to resolve with his Relativity magic show but failed to do so as many posts in this substack have outlined.
Within an accelerated ‘frame’ or grid of physical locations, two bodies begin to accelerate or move relative to each other, with a force either being applied to generate the motion (or in the case of universal forces, no force is directly applied to the object per se, but movement occurs). In the image above the frame of reference is the box car. Whether the woman is moving and how fast, depends on your viewpoint or position as the ‘observer’. This philosophical premise leads to the fantasy world of ‘relativity’ which was created by Einstein to fix the flaws in Newtonian physics and to ‘save the phenomena’ and disprove thousands of experiments which could not find the Earth’s movement through space at 30/sec or its diurnal rotation.
Newton never developed the underlying mathematics to explain accelerated motion, or accelerated frames of reference (eg a moving bike and a person running behind it), so he added to his equations ‘fictitious forces’ which we now identify as the centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces. Physics names these as ‘non-inertial forces’ since they produce motion and acceleration. However, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, even though they are measurable, are not products of matter or energy in the Newtonian system. Newton could therefore never explain where these ‘fictitious’ forces came from or why. They are simply thought experiments and used to make equations balance. Physicist C. Møller described this problem 70 years ago:
…. so-called fictitious forces (centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, etc.) which have no connexion whatever with the physical properties of the mechanical system itself….It was just for this reason that Newton introduced the concept of absolute space which should represent the system of reference where the laws of nature assume the simplest and most natural form. However…the notion of absolute space lost its physical meaning as soon as the special principle of relativity was generally accepted, for as a consequence of this principle it became impossible by any experiment to decide which system of inertia had to be regarded as the absolute system (Møller, pp. 218-219).
Newton’s first ‘law’ is the law of inertia which was ‘discovered’ in the 14th century. A system of inertia means a system at rest or a body with no changes in motion (i.e. no change in acceleration). If we want to compare ‘systems’ composed of bodies we need a reference point. If the box car is at rest and moves, and we are in it, we can measure our acceleration and speed even though we are at rest, or appear to be at rest in the box car (we are not moving but standing still). The frame of reference is the original state of the box car at rest.
However, for Bangers and Relativists no absolute frame of reference or baseline can exist. In Copernican theory the Earth cannot be a frame of reference given that it is in motion around the Sun and has a diurnal rotation. Newton never allowed the Earth to be at ‘the centre’ as a frame of reference. Instead he imposed ‘space’ as the frame of reference which, as given below, is wrong. Einstein removed space as a frame of reference and imposed relativity - where all objects are in relative motion to one another.
Newton was a pious Copernican and deist (not a Christian). In his philosophy a fixed Earth as an absolute reference point was and is anathema. This led Newton to nominate space as a form of absolute reference from which to derive his equations. But this is disingenuous. How can the vastness of the universe be a reference point especially if as the Bangers sermonize, it is expanding at the rate of 46 miles per second per megaparsec (3.3 million light years)? Fixed absolutes are anathema to Einstein and the Relativity cult. Modern cosmology is therefore at its very core, beset with philosophical and logical confusion. Who is right, Apostle Newton, or Saint Einstein? Physicist Dennis Sciama, a student of Fred Hoyle, explains the underlying conundrum:
Newton’s second law can be expressed in the familiar form: force is mass times acceleration. When we look carefully at this law we find a curious difficulty. For, while the force acting on a body is objectively determined by whatever is exerting the force, the value of the acceleration depends on how it is measured, that is, on which body is taken as providing a standard of rest….
..Newton’s second law applies only if the accelerations of bodies are measured in a special way. Since Newton believed his law to be fundamental, he supposed that accelerations measured in such a way that his law applies are of particular significance, and he called them absolute. Newton’s second law should now be amended to read: force is mass times absolute acceleration. …Consequently for Newton’s second law to be satisfied accelerations must be measured relative to an inertial frame of reference (Sciama, pp. 85-89).
The above statement is entirely sensible. Newton ignored inertial frames of reference. Artificial satellites provide an example. Lower altitude satellites can circle the Earth within 1-2 hours. The higher the altitude, the longer the orbital navigation takes. At about 20.000 miles in altitude, a satellite will take 24 hours to orbit the Earth. If the satellite was moving west to east, following the Earth’s rotation, it would appear to an observer on the ground to be a stationary and fixed object, hanging there, never moving. The Earth is the fixed inertial frame of reference. This example contradicts Newtonian mathematics. More here
This substack has outlined in many posts why the Big Bang theology is broken and discredited. This short post discusses ‘Gamma ray’ bursts, a phenomenon which by itself negates the Copernican principle which states that this planet and its human occupants are of no importance in the vastness of the universe and that random chance and luck are the only verities. Curiously the ‘gamma ray burst’ effect is rarely discussed within the Church of ‘The Science’. It is simply ignored.
We will take as our premise and starting point a book written by Copernican astrophysicist Jonathan Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, 2002. Surprisingly Katz has a chapter entitled The Copernican Dilemma, a scientific exploration of the key philosophical principle which informs all of modern cosmology.
Katz’s studies have found that, when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and catalogued, they show Earth to be in the center of the universe.
Katz’s work has stood the test of time, yet as a devoted Copernican-Einsteinian he could never bring himself to recognize what is for him and his religion, the god-awful truth that the Copernican principle, the Big Bang, and Einsteinian relativity are science fictions. Many posts on this substack have provided scientific proof as to why that last sentence is factual if entirely upsetting and disconcerting.
What are gamma rays? According to Katz’s glossary, a Gamma ray is “an electromagnetic radiation whose photons have energies greater than about 100,000 eV. Sometimes lower-energy photons (often as low as 10,000 eV) are also called gamma rays, overlapping the definition of X rays...”
A gamma ray is in essence a form of electro-magnetic radiation, generated by radioactive nuclei, with a short-wave, typically shorter than an x-ray, and possessed of high energy. This ‘ray’ is a form of electro-magnetic wave radiation found in space, along with other radiation forms including alpha, beta and neutrino or neutron radiation. Radiation in space is at least 15 times more powerful than radiation found on the Earth and it is one reason out of many, why UFOs and space travel are impossible. All spacecraft would need to be coated in feet of lead and no carbon based life form would long last the travails of endless radiation, not to mention cosmic flares and other apocalyptic events in space including Gamma Ray Bursts.
However, pace our ‘modern culture’, gamma rays are rendered agents of change – mostly as a support for Darwin’s religion. According to the non-science pop-culture, these high energy bursts of radiation can turn a man into the Incredible Hulk, or a lizard. In reality a gamma ray burst (GRB) would destroy your DNA and kill you and all of life on this planet. GRB’s contain massive amounts of energy, equivalent to 1045 watts of energy, which is over a million trillion times more powerful than the Sun. Ouchy.
GRB’s in space occur at the rate of about one per day, but are fast-fading and random, never occurring in the same place twice. During the faked July 1969 Apollo moon mission, not only would the daily GRBs have decimated the crew, but solar flares and cosmic flares, which occurred during that period of time would have annihilated the spacecraft. For example in 1979, much to the chagrin of Bangers, an extraordinarily powerful super GRB emanated from the Large Magellenic Cloud, which is a satellite of the Milky Way and very close to Earth. It would have destroyed everything in its path. Many similar observations have been recorded.
In the context of cosmological theology Katz explains why GRBs are important.
“The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma.” (Katz, pp. 90-91)
These facts have been known for some 30-50 years but are rarely discussed or emphasized. The entire theology of the Big Bang or its competitor the Steady State theory, once championed by Einstein who created his fraudulent constant to make his equations balance, both pronounce with few exceptions, that the universe is both isotropic and homogeneous. Yet all the evidence from their own observations, known since the 1960s in fact, prove that the universe is not isotropic unless viewed from the Earth, and it is not homogenous.
Copernican apostle Edwin Hubble, whose astronomical discoveries were heralded as proof of the Big Bang and an expanding universe, laid a foundational gospel within the Big Bang Religion that must be followed:
“There must be no favoured location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions.” (Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, p. 54).
Modern cosmology is fully supportive of the Hubble gospel revelation. Logically however, if the universe is not isotropic, or if it is not homogeneous, the Copernican principle, and even the Copernican theory is disproved. If the universe is isotropic but inhomogeneous the same applies. If the Earth is isotropic but not homogenous it means that from an isotropic center the universe will appear the same in all directions, but the universe will appear different when not observed from the center. Either way, the Big Bang is debunked.
To define the terms:
Isotropic refers to an environment that looks the same in all directions, excluding the observer’s location. For example, if an observer is perched on top of a symmetrical sand hill in the middle of a flat desert, as he looks around the whole circumference of his view, he sees the same grade of hill approaching him, as well as a vast flat desert in all directions.
Homogeneous refers to an environment that appears the same in all locations, but also includes the observer’s location. In this case, the observer is not seated on a sand hill but on the flat desert itself, and as he looks out he sees a flat desert in all directions, including his seated position.
In his studies Katz admits that the universe’s gamma-ray bursts appear to be isotropic, or the same in all directions from Earth but not homogenous.
“To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated” (Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: p. 84).
Viewed from the center there is isotropy but the view from outside the center is as Katz admits, inhomogeneity. As Katz goes on to explain, the “Copernican dilemma” for astronomers is that they are required to explain why there are no faint gamma-ray bursts, since, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 13.7 billion years old and expansive. If so, then more distant bursts should register more faintly when compared to closer bursts. This is not observed.
Philosophy is always the foundation of ‘Science’. In large part you are your worldview. ‘The Cosmological Science’ and its religious theology of ‘The Big Bang’ are proof of this. Sundry underlying philosophical assumptions always determine the interpretation of data. Other parameters which deform interpretation include data fraud, censorship, money, power, fame, the allure of being published, professorships, awards, and ego-stroking. Scientism and human corruption.
One of the many intemperate and unsolvable scientific issues for ‘The Science’ of cosmology is that of anisotropy, or the heterogeneity of the observable universe. Cosmic Background Radiation is not homogenous throughout the universe, as predicted by Bangers. This cannot be easily dismissed or explained away, cutting as it does, right into the heart of their model, namely a magical explosion of the cosmic egg which contained all the matter in the universe, a nuclear fusion explosion, a massive acceleration thousands of times the speed of light, a cooling period and then uniformity and homogeneity in CMB (cosmic microwave background), with CMB being ‘a relic of the Big Bang’ and the universe’s temperature now a cool 2.725° Kelvin.
If nothing else ‘The Science’ loves uniformitarianism, endless time, slow and gradual, and eventually an equilibrium and stasis. Yet no evidence exists for CMB isotropy or homogeneity. It is all jumbled up. The implications for the Scientism of modern cosmology are momentous and shattering.
[COBE mapping, NASA which supports WMAP observations]
CMB heterogeneity was known back in the 1970s and 80s and this insidious problem prompted a response. In the late 1990s ‘The Science’ with its $25 billion per annum budget created a new project called WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, named after the original discoverer of the CMB anisotropies in 1981, David T. Wilkinson. It was launched by NASA in 2001. The real objective was to disprove Wilkinson’s observations. What WMAP actually uncovered astounded and further perplexed ‘The Science’. If Wilkinson was correct, the anisotropy of CMB by itself would disprove the Big Bang. So what did WMAP uncover?
The WMAP images have shown the exact same results as the earlier probe named the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), only with more clarity. COBE was launched in 1989 and is always used as ‘proof’ of Banging. But the actual data collected by COBE reveals quite the opposite picture, confirmed by WMAP. Both COBE and WMAP show that there is anisotropy in the universe, and that the Sun-Earth ecliptic plane (the black line in the image below) was precisely in the centre, between the red poles (hotter regions) and the blue poles (colder regions). There is a difference of 50mK or 50 millionths of a degree Kelvin from the 2.725° Kelvin of the remaining CMB. This is not what the Bangers predicted or wanted.
(WMAP data and geo-centredness)
One of the first scientists in WMAP to analyse this data was Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was astounded at the data. The usually reliable mouthpiece of propaganda, the BBC, reported what he found:
“We [WMAP] found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB. We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case.” (BBC, 2003)
What Tegmark and others found was a pattern and one that pointed to the Sun-Earth ecliptic plane (Tegmark, et al July 26, 2003). In geek-speak the symmetry of the CMB containing octopole and quadrupole components revealed a curiosity.
“The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird. We don't think this is due to foreground contamination,” Dr Tegmark said. “It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it.” (BBC, March 3, 2003)
Note:
Octopole: A multipole configuration with eight equal charges arranged in a circular pattern.
Quadrupole: A distribution of either electric charge or magnetization equivalent to two dipoles that point in opposite direction.
In essence these ‘poles’ are based on a monopole; an analogy would be a musical instrument where there is a fundamental note (say the base A string) but variations or poles of different notes that can be played on that string, more below).
These facts comport with the COBE data. But consider this epiphany. WMAP observations have shown that the 93 billion light year diameter universe was in direct alignment with the 93-million-mile distance between the Sun and the Earth – a ratio of 10-17 to 1. Just another coincidence. In fact, cosmological statistics show that an alignment of the CMB quadrupole and octupole with the Earth is a 0.1% probability equivalent to the death rate from the Corona ‘pandemic’. In other words, not a coincidence.
In a 2004 publication, the ‘Copi team’ of Craig Copi, Dominik Schwarz, Glenn Starkman, and Dragan Huterer admitted that the CMB poles were not only aligned with the Sun-Earth ecliptic, but also hint that they are aligned with the Earth’s equinoxes:
The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology…the quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded from being a chance occurrence in a gaussian random statistically isotropic sky at >99.87%….The correlation of the normals [perpendicular vectors] with the ecliptic poles suggest an unknown source or sink of CMB radiation or an unrecognized systematic.
…If it is a physical source or sink in the inner solar system it would cause an annual modulation in the time-ordered data….Physical correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the inclination of the Earth’s spin axis (Copi et al, November 26, 2004).
[The CMB Dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equinoxes]