http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Cosmology Quest What We Don't Know This page may be slightly technical for the layperson; however YOU MUST MAKE THE EFFORT to understand it. Complicated questions tend to have complicated answers. If you don't understand a portion, just keep reading. You may find another portion makes perfect sense. There's a lot that goes into understanding what makes the universe tick and we all have an obligation to at least learn enough to ensure we aren't being lied to about it by anyone. I've tried to make the details as simple as possible and have included links to explanations where I feel it’s necessary. Your tax dollars are going to fund projects in archeology, cosmology, astronomy, and a host of other fields to the tune of hundreds of billions. As a tax paying citizen of any country that participates in public funding of these fields, it is your duty to at least learn the basics of what all that money is getting spent on and why scientists feel it’s necessary. *Calling Einstein Into Question* ** Cosmology today has taken on a near religious belief structure where hypothetical matter and multiple dimensions are cited as fact in most reputable journals. The word "hypothetical" is rarely used anymore in press releases or even in scholarly journals. Let us be clear. The following list of items are all HIGHLY hypothetical and have only the slimmest of ties to real world testable physics. Many of the items on this list, as they are currently modeled, contradict known laws of physics and nuclear chemistry that can be directly proven in laboratory experiments. -Black holes -Neutron stars -Quasars -Pulsars -Supermassive black holes -Multiple dimensions -Dark matter -Dark energy -Cosmic inflation -The Big Bang -The Big Crunch -Quark Stars -Magnetars -Strange matter -WIMPs -MACHOs -Magnetic reconnection -The hydrogen fusion model of stars -Gravitational waves -The Higg's "God" particle ...the list goes on. In fact nearly every aspect of what we "think" we currently know about how the universe works is based on hypothetical physics that have loads upon loads of "adjustable" parameters to equations that can be made to say nearly anything the physicists dream up. If something totally unexpected crops up, they assume it must be some new unknown force and label it a "dark" force, like dark matter or dark energy or dark flows. The way it currently works is physicists have a set of "constraints" they like to place on their fictional variables based on what is observed. Then they create a story using math to try and explain the observations. For instance, the standard "cold dark matter" model that is all the rage these days has no less than 5 "adjustable" parameters that go into its equations. Prior to the modern age, physicists used what were called epicycles to try and explain the movement of the planets in their orbits. When a planet was observed to get slightly out of line, a new epicycle was added to account for the error. This cycle of adding layer upon layer of "fixes" and corrections to current models has led us down the path of developing our own modern version of epicycles. Einstein and Schwarzschild ** *A Few Facts* -Did you know Einstein wrote a published paper in a scholarly journal arguing against black holes? He never believed in them, with good reason. Should they exist, they would have invalidated his theories. It is a great heresy of modern physics to tie his name to these hypothetical objects. Einstein's paper showing black holes can not exist based on his own theories is posted in the peer reviewed papers section. In fact Einstein fully agreed with Karl Schwarzschild's solution to his Mercury orbit problem which shows that there is no way a black hole could exist and be in agreement with the principles of relativity. Shchwarzchild's original work, in English, which leaves no room for black holes can be found here . This fact should be astounding in itself. Two of the founding fathers of modern physics did not believe in the possibility of black holes and wrote published papers showing as much. -Did you know despite hundreds of millions spent in the search for gravitational waves (a wave of gravity that is required by Einstein's relativity) not one has ever been observed? In fact just about every aspect of current cosmology when put to the test has failed to pass muster. Black holes can be proposed to exist, yet we can't test for them. We can't see them, touch them, sense them, or in any way detect them. This leaves us with an untestable hypothesis. The same can be said of dark matter, dark energy, quark stars, and nearly everything else. Theoretical physicists can postulate their existence and we are left with no way to prove them wrong. This is not science. Making an observation and then dreaming up an untestable conclusion is not science. *Classic Tests* A few tests Einstein's relativity has failed miserably: The LIGO (gravitational wave observatory) has never detected a gravitational wave after 8 years of trying. The CDMS project has never detected dark matter. Gravity Probe B could not confirm frame dragging ; nor has any other satellite which has attempted to look for it. The Pioneer anomonly can not be explained and is found to be effecting all spacecraft not bound to earth. In fact every /major/ test of Einstein's relativity has for one reason or another failed. Scientists blame this on a myriad of causes, anything but the fact that Einstein's version of relativity might be wrong. If we look at wiki's list of classical tests we can see that: 1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit - can be deduced using steady state mechanics. In fact as I posted earlier, Schwarzschild's solution to the problem rules out the existence of black holes. 2. The deflection of light by the Sun - can be explained by various electrical plasma effects 3. The gravitational redshift of light - can also be explained in steady state models. I cover this subject extensively here . There are several peer reviewed papers in my library covering this. Halton Arp's site also goes into great detail on this subject. These are not tests. They are observations. There is no way to prove that the observed phenomena are caused by effects of relativity because they have possible alternative explanations. *Other tests, Gravitational lensing* Gravitational lensing - has been shown by numerous astronomers to have serious flaws. Its another observation attributed to effects of relativity that also has a simpler alternative explanation. Halton Arp's site covers this extensively. Gravitational lensing was created to explain why so many quasars with high redshifts are found in and around galaxies with low redshifts. Since a high redshift = great distance to standard cosmologists, they had to find a way of accounting for why so many objects that are supposedly far far away seem to be grouped in and around galaxies that are much closer due to their low redshift. This is an image of the famous Einstein Cross (quasar Q2237+0305) - What you are looking at is supposedly ONE quasar with an extremely high redshift (way behind the foreground galaxy) gravitationally lensed into FOUR objects. Seriously folks, if that isn't the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard in my life I don't know what is. Standard cosmologists actually believe this stuff. If this isn't one quasar lensed into four objects, we must discard Einstein's relativity. There is observed rotation in the cross, the objects are point like and not oblong, and they are variable in their emissions. NONE of those features are predicted or accounted for by any current theory of gravitational lensing. You be the judge. original cut out image G. Lewis (IOA), M. Irwin (RGO), William Hershel Telescope image credits to NASA and the Thunderbolts team. It takes true denial to turn a blind eye from the facts of this photograph. Again, its implications are profound. If this image is not a gravitational lens, it would COMPLETELY INVALIDATE our ideas of what redshift is, the age of the universe, and the big bang. All it takes to do that is just this one image. Nothing else. Scientists however have been turning up HUNDEREDS of examples just like this one where it is obvious that redshift (the shifting of light towards the red end of the spectrum) does not equal distance. Those who speak out have their funding cut, their telescope time removed, their papers rejected, and are ostracized from the academic community for SPEAKING THE TRUTH. 1999 J. Rhoads (STScI) et al., WIYN, AURA, NOAO, NSF Comparing the 1991 to the 1999 images blink comparator 1990 to 1996, here you can see radial expansion, variable emissions, and some rotation. Click image for animation. Taking any multi year set of images and trying to line up the light points will not work. If you line up one quasar, the other three will be off center because they are moving. Don't expect too many more high rez photos of this object to be taken in the future. Lord knows what it looks like now. They are probably waiting for it to make a full rotation so they can claim it never rotated at all! Frame dragging tests - failed Cosmic Background Radiation - alternative simpler explanations exist that fit observation better, again more papers covering this in the peer review section. The ONLY effects of Einstein's relativity that could not possibly be explained in a steady state model are* gravitational waves * and *frame dragging *. That is it. Neither one of those effects has ever been proven despite hundreds of millions spent in an effort to do so. No matter how many tests the fans of Einstein may throw out there, the fact remains that the /definitive/ tests of relativity have all failed for one reason or another. We've had 100 years to prove without any doubt that Einstein's version is the real deal. To date, it still has not been proven beyond any doubt. It’s important to have doubt and skepticism when searching for the truth. The more you dig the more you will find that most standard cosmologists are fantasy fiction writers rather than actual scientists. *Gravity Is Not Constant?* I encourage you to dig more on your own. You will find that some very odd things keep rearing their ugly head over and over as scientists try to wrangle nature into Einstein's obtuse theory of warping space. One notable item is the fact that we can't pin the universal constant of the gravitational force down with any degree of accuracy. Determination of the gravitational constant G by means of a beam balance (cached) The variation of the gravitational constant inferred from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae A measurement of Newton's gravitational constant Measurements of the gravitational constant: It doesn't look too "constant" to me. Einstein's theory declares that gravity must be a supremely constant force that does not change, just as the speed of light does not change. Einstein in fact ties the two together by stating gravity may not propagate at a speed faster than light. When gravity is measured by something as large and simple as a beam balance it was found to vary by nearly 1%! Scientists finally got sick of it and tied it to light using an atom interferometer. The effect of which is to say the yard stick itself is variable. Then they just simply "declared" what G is and all debate on the matter has ceased. For comparision, the 2007 atom interferometer test said /G/ = 6.693 x 10^–11 But wait! Here's another 2008 atom interferometer test that says G=6.667 x 10^–11 Does it make any sense that gravity is measured using atoms beamed through an interferometer? Of course not! If you want to measure gravity you do it by measuring objects that are strongly affected by it! The nuclear and electromagnetic forces dominate at the scale of the atom. In fact particle physicists use an entirely different set of physics equations to deal with them! If this wasn't so serious it would almost be comical. How can the force of gravity not be known to any high degree of accuracy if it is supposedly a universal constant? 100 years of testing, still no solid data.