Return to Free Library

Return to Science Menu

Previous Article                                                                         Next Article


“Teaching a student one theory suggests memorization.  Critical thinking – which results from a process of comparing and contrasting – does not truly begin until the student is taught two competing sets of ideas.”1

“Beliefs can be their own form of prison, and we often don’t know how imprisoned our minds are until we see the world from a variety of different perspectives.” ~Gary B. Meisner


This is why we discuss many viewpoints of cosmology and creation myths in Cosmic Core so that the reader can draw their own conclusions without being manipulated into believing one theory over another.

In the last article we introduced the new cosmology, a unification of the physical and metaphysical with geometry at the core of this new cosmology.  But why do we need a cosmology?



Why We Need a New Cosmology

As Keith Critchlow states, “The paradoxes of increased material wealth and energy greed, natural resource destruction and the increase of mental illness all point to the fact that never before in human history has a culture been attempted without a spiritual dimension: in fact one could go further and suggest that a society is not correctly definable as ‘human’ without such a dimension.”


In the past, data was gathered from both the inner world – that of our intuition – and our outer world – that of our immediate sense perception.  In modern times, we have been cut off from the truth that can be found in our inner world.

“A man of science,” states Critchlow, “was defined as one who observed, theorized and tested solely exterior phenomena in the attempt (albeit self-contradictory) to establish objectivity by the subject.”

What we are increasingly finding, is that to arrive at a more unified and broader understanding of the Universe, we must once again turn towards our inner selves – that metaphysical reality – and learn how to reconcile the truths found within, with the experiential data found without.


Just as there are dogmas in religion that prevent a comprehensive and unified picture of reality, so there are dogmas in science that do the same.  Currently, at the extreme ends of mainstream science, a new religion has been formed – a religion of science.  This has formed as a direct result of the dogmatic institutions of religion, but instead of attempting to find a common middle ground between spirituality and science, between intuition and reason, the entire spiritual experience has been essentially thrown in the garbage resulting in a ‘soul-less’ science where humanity feels like an outsider to nature – a victim to random chance – a stranger in the universe, helpless and powerless to affect reality.

As Rene Dubos points out in So Human An Animal, this age of affluence and technological achievement is also an age of anxiety and despair.


Corey S. Powell, in God in the Equation, claims Academia practices a faith called “science/religion” and details how Einstein, the most popular genius of the century, became the prophet of a cosmological revolution.

Note how Einstein is usually portrayed as a “god” or “god-like”.  His image psychologically resonates with the images of a Judeo-Christian god that have been planted in our psyche since birth:  the wise fatherly figure; the white wild hair as halo; the impression that his intellect is so expansive the normal human could never comprehend his ideas in full…etc.

To put it simply, Einstein has been deified by the mainstream scientific establishment.  To question and doubt Einstein is to question and doubt ‘God’ himself.

While Einstein was a brilliant man and contributed greatly to our modern culture, to claim he had the full picture of reality would be to widely miss the mark.  It is inconceivable to think about the scientific evolution of ideas that has taken place in our human history and to believe that Einstein is the apex of that evolution.

As Herbert G. Dorsey III writes, “Physical theory must move on past Einstein.”


The evolution continues.  And while Einstein had much of it correct, he certainly didn’t have it all.  Who can?  This is why the importance of cooperation and collaboration is stressed over competition and divisiveness.

As a society we need to appreciate and respect Einstein’s contributions but always look ahead to the contributions of others that came after Einstein so that we may continually redefine our conception of the Universe in the most correct and unified way possible – a way that includes the importance of humanity and the importance of consciousness.  We are each integral parts of the universe, and mainstream science does humanity a great disservice by removing human consciousness from the picture and essentially demanding humans to believe they are powerless victims to the random and chaotic forces of the universe.

To return again to Keith Critchow, he says, “It is not only the balance of nature that has suffered from our ‘modern’ industrialized culture with its mechanistic and materialistic criteria but, possibly most important of all, we have suffered the loss of dignity and self-confidence by this same mechanistic attitude toward human nature.”



The Overuse and Over-reliance upon Complex Mathematics to Describe and Understand Reality

Amy Edmondson writes, in A Fuller Explanation, “Although confronted daily with ‘incredible technology,’  which to Fuller includes the natural phenomena of Universe as well as the ever-expanding inventory of human invention, the vast majority assume such phenomena to be out of their reach. Fuller attributes this widespread discomfort to both the ‘invisibility’ of science and the devastatingly complicated mathematics without which, scientists claim, their findings cannot be described. The dangerous chasm between scientists and lay people, with the truth guarded by an élite few and the rest resigned to ignorance, thus seems inevitable.”


Today we live in a mathematical universe – a mathematical abstraction.  Mathematical universes can be worked out on paper with equations, but they do not necessarily represent the real Universe.  During the first half of the 20th century, writes Nigel Calder in Einstein’s Universe, cosmology was “a theory-spinning branch of mathematics.”

“It all started with a geometric interpretation of gravity via a four-dimensional space-time.” writes Conrad Ranzan.  “This so-called curved space interpretation became the foundation of the abstract mathematical universes.  But since no one could say what was actually ‘curving’ (what was behind the curvature relationship of space coordinates) the resulting cosmology was merely an abstraction.”

It has become blatantly obvious to many brilliant minds just how abstract and divorced from reality science, particularly cosmology and physics, has become.


Dr. Harold Aspden writes, “Modern physical theory has become abstract.  The starting points of the original papers on the subject are mathematical, the treatment is mathematical and the conclusions are mathematical.  In many instances there seems to be no relation whatsoever to the phenomena which make up the world of experimental physics… [Physics] must be founded well and present a truthful picture of the inner workings of nature.  Yet it does not…Sometimes one cannot trace the facts which the mathematics are supposed to be explaining.”


Much of this abstraction is a result of the rejection of the Aether in the 1890s.  Einstein’s concept of aether was abstract and mathematical, as is all cosmology based on Einstein’s flawed idea of gravity and flawed concept of 4-dimensional space-time.

This rejection of aether and the incomplete theory of gravity “has led theorists to propose highly speculative universes of mathematical genre – abstractions devoid of reality.”2


Dr. Harold Aspden writes, “I wish to give my view that the mathematical theories of our universe, highlighted by Einstein’s Relativity, have given too much rein to the mathematician.  His skills in providing one of the tools needed by the physicist have been set aside and he has tried to become a philosopher in his own right…superimposing a man-made vision of Nature and confusing us rather than recounting nature’s ordered structure with clear language.”


To that Dewey B. Larson adds, “Closely connected with the use of obscure and incomprehensible concepts is the utilization of unusual and complicated methods of mathematical treatment. This device itself is perfectly legitimate. There are a multitude of applications in science and technology where the use of complex mathematics is essential to solutions of the existing problems.  But this is another tool which lends itself very readily to misuse, and there is a definite tendency in present-day practice to call upon complicated mathematical procedures as a means of forcing the observed facts into conformity with preconceived basic concepts, rather than adopting the logical but distasteful alternative of giving up these basic ideas that are erroneous or inadequate.”

Larson continues with, “The misuse of mathematics has not gone unrecognized.  [Alfred] Lande tells us, for example, ‘The mathematical sign language with its complex symbols and non-commutative matrix algebra has become a veil shielding the simple meaning of the quantum laws from the scrutiny of common sense,’ and [Percy Williams] Bridgman calls our attention to the fact that the statistical methods may be used to ‘conceal a vast amount of actual ignorance.’  But the general tendency has been to glorify the complex and the abstruse.  A liberal use of non-commutative mathematics, non-Euclidean geometry, and complicated statistical procedures has come to be regarded as the hallmark of erudition, and any publication, in the field of physics at least, which does not bristle with integral signs and complex equations is looked upon as lamentably deficient in scholarly quality, irrespective of the actual need for anything more than simple arithmetic.”


Understanding how the universe works and humanity’s place in the universe is not, and should not be treated as ‘rocket science’ accessible to the elite few.  While useful in many applications, complex mathematical equations and complex technical literature is not necessary to understand how the universe works.  Modern mainstream science does an incredible disservice to humanity, alienating it from nature and the cosmos, and essentially demanding humanity view itself as powerless victims in a chaotic universe of random forces.  The new cosmology reinforces the idea that each human is infinitely valuable, not only in creating and evolving in their own life, but in the creation and evolution of the universe as a whole.  Consciousness is the key, and consciousness is sorely lacking from the mainstream fields of mathematics and science.

“The fact that 99 percent of humanity does not understand nature,” writes Bucky Fuller, “is the prime reason for humanity’s failure to exercise its option to attain universally sustainable physical success on this planet. The prime barrier to humanity’s discovery and comprehension of nature is the obscurity of the mathematical language of science.  Fortunately, however, nature is not using the strictly imaginary, awkward, and unrealistic coordinate system adopted by and taught by present-day academic science…I am confident that humanity’s survival depends on all of our willingness to comprehend feelingly the way nature works.”



Current Cosmological Models are rife with Holes, Inconsistencies and Irresolvable Paradoxes

A new cosmology would not be needed if the current one worked.  However, even in the mainstream science community, among those who most strongly advocate the current flawed model, there exists many an irresolvable paradox and they are not afraid to admit it.


Physicist Lisa Randall discusses our ignorance about gravity and the shape of the universe in her book Warped passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions.  She states, “We are clearly still missing the big picture.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson, populizer of the flawed accelerating universe model, calls it “The Inexplicable Universe.”  Because how could it possibly work that way?  Perhaps we should admit it doesn’t.

American astrophysicist Sean M. Carroll calls it “The Preposterous Universe”.  He states, “If any system should be natural, it’s the universe.  Nevertheless, according to the big-bang perspective, the universe we observe seems dramatically unnatural.”  In fact, it “staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness.”


 Dewey Larson writes, “The present attitude of the scientific profession toward the subjects under discussion, the incomprehensibility of modern physical science is a constantly recurring theme.”


Larson tells us that physicist Herbert Dingle says that the word “unintelligibility” is an apt description of current science in its totality.

Mathematician Cornelius Lanczos tells us that the only aspect of the Bohr theory of the atom that has remained unchanged through all of the revisions and modifications is its incomprehensibility.

Percy Williams Bridgman says the world as a whole is not intrinsically understandable, on the basis of present-day concepts.

Renowned theoretical physicist and pioneer of quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg makes it plain that an understanding “of the first order” is impossible if the theory which he champions is correct, and quantum physicist Alfred Lande adds, “Quantum mechanics has the reputation of being incomprehensible to all but a select group of theoretical physicists. . . .”

Solvay Conference, Brussels, 1927


The problem we see is not with the universe itself but with our understanding of the universe and our inability or unwillingness as a society to break down our dogmatic barriers and push forward towards a broader, more comprehensive, clearer and more unified understanding of cosmology and physics.  Finding and understanding the truth is easily within our grasp, but first we must drop the dogmas, whether religious or scientific, and cooperate and collaborate with one another to achieve that truth.



There are 80 Unsolved Questions in Physics on Wikipedia

Wikipedia page, List of unsolved problems in physics, illustrates just how fragmented and patched-together mainstream cosmology is.


Dewey Larson writes, “All too often we find statements of pure theory introduced by “It is now known that…”, “It is certain that…”, “Modern science has proved that…”, etc., when the introduction should be “We think…,” or some equivalent.”

He then continues with, “One of the major tasks involved in carrying out this present program of investigation has been to separate fact from assumption and inference.  But this is no reflection on science; it merely means that some scientists, by no means all, have succumbed to a characteristically human but definitely unscientific tendency to accept presumably authoritative pronouncements without adequate analysis and critical appraisal.  One of the particularly subtle arguments that has helped to confuse the issues and to blur the line between factual and non-factual material is the contention so often raised that the theory under consideration is able “in principle” to explain all details and to reproduce all experimental values, and that inability to achieve this result in actual practice is merely due to mathematical complexity beyond the capabilities of existing faculties.  In reality, of course, this “in principle” argument is a means of evading the issue, not of meeting it. Unless and until a hypothesis can be tested against facts it remains a hypothesis, no matter what it can do in principle.”


Here we will go through several of these mysteries and paradoxes of mainstream cosmology.  We will provide commentary for some, not all.


  1. Mystery of the primordial Atom

  • The primordial or very first atom was said to transform in the Big Bang Universe.
  • New Cosmology: There was no Big Bang – the Universe always was. The physical universe dynamically moves through this steady-state Universe.
  • The primordial ‘physical’ photon came from the infinite, timeless metaphysical reality that always was. This means the metaphysical source always existed.  Physical realities are created; they grow; evolve and then die out.  New ones rise in their place.  The Universe remains.


  1. Black holes, or gravitational collapse

  • New Cosmology: gravitational collapse occurs but does not imply the formation of black holes as traditionally thought.
  • Black holes are the boundary points for the exchange between the physical and metaphysical.
  • Black holes are of any size.


  1. Anomalous Redshifts

  • These have been so thoroughly collected by Halton Arp they have overthrown conventional Big Bang cosmology and the mainstream view of redshift.
  • The universe is not expanding.
  • The Big Bang never occurred in the way it is taught.
  • There is continual creation in the Universe.
  • Even Edwin Hubble, the supposed father of the expanding universe theory was unsure of the idea.
  • “Hubble withdrew his public support for the expanding universe theory in 1935, arguing that the evidence did not favor his original interpretation of red shifts as Doppler shifts and challenging theorists to provide a better interpretation.” Making 20th Century Science: How Theories Became Knowledge by Stephen G. Brush & Ariel Segal

Source: NASA – Arp 273


  1. Cosmic Edge Riddle

  • If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
  • What is beyond the cosmic edge if there is an edge?
  • If the cosmos are infinite, there is no edge.


  1. Curvature of Space Mystery

  • positive (closed), negative (open) or flat?


  1. Entropy Paradox

  • Open and flat universes violate the thermodynamic law.
  • In a Big Bang expanding universe entropy supposedly decreases as temperatures decrease and galaxies die out.
  • Yet the 2nd law is clear: entropy must only increase or remain constant.


  1. Homogeneity/Uniformity Paradox

  • There exists a near uniformity in the Universe in both space and time.
  • This should not be in the case of a random and chaotic Big Bang.
  • The answer to this is geometric cosmic cellular structure, a key component of the new cosmology.

  1. Flatness/Oldness Problem

  • This problem is rooted in the universe’s total matter density.
  • If the matter density ratio deviates from the critical value the universe will collapse or expand.
  • The same density has an effect on the Big Bang universe’s life span.
  • Conrad Ranzan explains, “If the density is slightly above criticality (by as little as 1 part in 1024during the first nanosecond of the primordial genesis) the universe would already have ended. While a lower density leads to a universe without end.”


  1. Age-of-the-Universe Paradox

  • Certain objects found are older than the Big Bang universe estimates they should be.
  • “The universe is thought to be 13.8 billion years old yet the most distant galaxy discovered so far is 13.4 billion light years away…so the universe [would have had to expand] in less than 3 seconds at a blistering speed of 8 Billion light years per second. Yea right! That sounds a lot quicker than God’s claim of 48 hours to create the universe…”3
  • “If the Big Bang started with an atom sized particle and expanded out at the speed of light then it would have taken 13.4 billion years to reach the furthest end of the universe (discovered so far). Then the light from that location will have to then take another 13.4 billion years to reach earth. So the round trip takes 27 billion years which is 12 billion years older than the age of the universe. Either the universe expanded 33 times faster than light or the suggested age of the universe is wrong?”4


  1. Horizon Riddle

  • The 2.73 K temperature observable in any direction of the cosmic horizon does not deviate by more than 1 part in 10,000.
  • How is such coordination possible in a random, chaotic Big Bang universe?


The famous map of the CMB anisotropy formed from data taken by the COBE spacecraft.


  1. Structure in the Universe

  • How did an originally unstructured universe evolve into a highly structured one where the same patterns and proportions continually show up on all scales?
  • Well, it’s not because the Big Bang theory is correct.
  • The universe was always ordered. Without order, it would be impossible for life to exist.


  1. Cosmological Constant (Lambda) & The Vacuum Catastrophe

  • Lambda has to do with the energy associated with the ‘vacuum’ of space.
  • Lambda is a term Einstein added to avoid having the universe collapse in on itself. It balances the force of gravity contributed by all the matter in the universe.
  • The measured value is miniscule: 10−9joules/m3
  • The theoretically predicted value is unimaginably large: 10113joules/m3
  • This illustrates a breakdown between classical and quantum physics.


  1. Galaxy Formation

  • Mainstream science does not know they are formed.
  • We will discuss this in detail at a later date.
  • Space has shape. Geometry is the key.

Source: NASA – Messier 101


  1. Rotation of Galaxies Mystery

  • What starts galaxies spinning?
  • How do they keep spinning?
  • In an expanding Big Bang universe galaxies are supposed to be heading in the same direction, not bouncing off cosmic walls or changing direction on their own.


  1. Galaxy Morphology-Density

  • In dense galaxy clusters spiral galaxies are relatively rare.
  • In isolated and less-dense regions spirals are abundant.
  • Why is this so?


  1. Infinite Universe Riddle

  • The Big Bang allows the universe to be both finite and infinite.
  • The mainstream can’t commit either way.


  1. Mystery of Gravitation

  • The mainstream has no real explanation of what gravity is, why it works or how it works.
  • Matter tells space how to curve, while the curvature of space tells matter how to move.
  • But why? And how?
  • Conrad Ranzan explains, “If gravitation, the acknowledged most important effect/force in shaping the universe, is not understood, then the resulting theory of the universe is simply a mathematical exercise and not a representation of the real world.”


  1. Shape of the Universe

  • The answer is lost in mathematical complexity.
  • A string theory with 10 dimensions? What does that even mean?
  • In physical reality there are only three dimensions and there will always only be three.
  • Psychological, metaphysical reality is a different story. In the metaphysical realm there are both zero dimensions and infinite dimensions.


  1. Planck Scale Space-time Mystery

  • One of the mysteries of quantum physics: No one really understands what happens on such a small subatomic level.
  • This is where cosmology meets particle physics – where ultimately large meets the ultimately small.


  1. Dark Matter & Dark Energy

  • In mainstream cosmology, dark matter was needed to explain the spiral galaxy anomaly and the cohesion of galactic clusters.
  • Without dark matter, spirals and clusters would fly apart…so they say.
  • Not if space had an inherent geometrical shape and was built on a geometric blueprint.
  • Dark energy – “an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.”
  • Dark matter – “an unidentified type of matter distinct from dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic (EM) radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire EM spectrum.”
  • Dark matter is supposedly invisible and non-interactive, has never been detected, and serves as a critical repair patch for a failed cosmology.

  • Gravitationally-powerful dark matter was invented to account for the cohesion of major galaxy clusters in an expanding accelerating universe.
  • The standard model of cosmology indicates dark matter plus dark energy constitutes 95.1% of total mass-energy content of the universe.
  • Yet dark matter has NEVER been detected.
  • Dark matter is a name for Aether when the word Aether is forbidden!


  1. Inflation Mystery

  • If universal inflation were occurring it would mean there was a super-fast Big Bang genesis faster than the speed of light.
  • Oh the fickle laws of physics…Inflation is a make-believe mystery.


  1. Accelerating Universe

  • Why? How?  What force caused it?  What does it expand into?
  • Expansion of the universe models are disconnected from reality.
  • If the absurd accelerating universe theory were correct:
    • The universe went from zero to 13.4 billion light years in under a second.
    • Then it slowed down to almost a stop in 3 minutes.
    • Now it is accelerating past the speed of light.
  • “These events would require magic because no laws of physics could achieve these results.”5
  • The Universe does not expand! There is only regional expansion and contraction of the space medium.
  • Conrad Ranzan writes, “Not only is there a profusion of expansion models including many conflicting versions, but also the important details tend to be incomprehensible except to the ordained specialist. All that the average thinking-person really wants to know is How does the theory connect with reality?


  1. The Mass Question

  • What mechanism bestows the property of mass?
  • A Higg’s particle? Then what bestows mass onto the Higgs particle?




“Science is not certain,” writes Mark Booth.  “It is a myth like any other, representing what people in the deepest parts of themselves want to believe.”


Each of the above questions will be explored in detail in the upcoming Science series of Cosmic Core.  For now, it is important to realize just how much mainstream science does not know.  In order to move forward as a society it is important for each person to keep an open, questioning mind, and to let limiting dogmas fall by the wayside.  The truth is certainly out there, and it is waiting for humanity to harmonize in order for that truth to be put to use for the greatest good.’’


            As Manly P Hall said, “The end of science is not to prove a theory, but to improve mankind.”

“In theory,” writes Dewey B Larson, “new scientific ideas are always welcome and most of the vast amount of effort now being devoted to fundamental research is aimed at the discovery of new facts and relations.  In actual practice, however, the welcome is reserved for those discoveries which are in essence extensions of minor revisions of the existing body of scientific thought, and an altogether different reception awaits a discovery which challenges any of the fundamentals of currently accepted doctrine.  Max Planck once said that new scientific truths never succeed in convincing their opponents and must wait for a new generation of scientists to grow up before they can triumph.”


As Keith Critchlow wrote in Time Stands Still, “As our perceptions are inevitably influenced by what ‘experts’ tell us – an unavoidable conditioning – if we wish to see freshly a special effort is required to keep our minds open to alternative frames of reference.”



  1. Alfven, Hannes, commenter at
  2. Ranzan, Conrad, DSSU
  4. ibid.


Return to Free Library

Return to Science Menu

Previous Article                                                                         Next Article