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.