In this article we will begin to take a look at various aspects of the Big Bang scientific creation myth, presenting alternative viewpoints to some of the paradoxes that arise.
“Creating a universe in three seconds from an atom-sized speck while breaking all the laws of physics is just pure magic, and they say that is the best theory they have?”1
One key hypothesis of General Relativity (GR) is gravitational lensing. The theory of gravitational lensing supposes that “the gravitational field of a massive object will extend far into space, and cause light rays passing close to that object (and thus through its gravitational field) to be bent and refocused somewhere else. The more massive the object, the stronger its gravitational field and hence the greater the bending of light rays.”2
In 1919 a controversial experiment was conducted during a solar eclipse to see if the lensing of light predicted by general reality could be detected. This was conducted by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington on the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa and in the town of Sobral in northern Brazil.
According to Einstein’s theory, “While traveling through space-time and nearing the warp induced by an object’s gravitational field, light should curve – but not much. A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a miniscule 1.75 arcseconds.”3
Eddington used “a series of complex calculations to extract the deflection estimate from the data, and came up with an estimate of 1.6 arc-seconds. Data from two spots in Brazil from that same eclipse were 1.98 and 0.86, but Eddington threw out the 0.86 measurements…The null hypothesis, set up by standard Newtonian Physics, was that there should be a 0.85 arc-second deflection in light from stars behind the sun, while Einstein predicted a 1.7 arc-second deflection.”4
Eddington got two radically different observations that could be used to ‘prove’ vastly different theories. Scientifically speaking this experiment was not nearly accurate enough to claim anything.
Eddington was obviously biased towards general relativity.5 That fact is so well established it is not even debated. Whether he intentionally fudged the data, or whether the methods were too primitive to discover the actual truth, is not important at this point in time. The point is, the experiment itself was faulty and did not deserve to be presented as a truthful cornerstone proving the validity of GR. Yet this obvious bias and the faulty results of the experiment did not stand in the way of Einstein being turned into an international superstar.
In Article 81 we discussed how Einstein became the most popular genius of the century, transformed into a prophet of a cosmological revolution. We noted how Einstein is portrayed as god-like, with his halo of wild white hair and his expansive intellect that far outreaches other humans.
Peter Coles writes that after the 1919 experiment, “Gradually, the press reinforced the role of Einstein as genius and hero, taking pains to position him on one side of an enormous intellectual gulf separating him from the common man. He emerged as a saintly, almost mythical character who afforded great respect by scientists and non-scientists alike.”6
The London Times wrote of the situation on November 7, 1919, “To a world wearied by a terrible war, and still suffering in its aftermath, this funny little man and his crazy theories must have been a welcome distraction, even if his ideas themselves went way over the heads of ordinary people. Here too was a token of a much-needed reconciliation between Britain and Germany.”
“Arthur Eddington was a World War I pacifist, and so had a predisposition to mend the rift between German and English academics.”7
The political motivations for pushing one theory over another after World War II should be obvious. Politics has always bent science to its Will and this was no exception.
Not until 1979 were the plates reanalyzed by one Geoffrey M. Harvey. “In 1978 most of the Sobral plates still survived intact (It appears, by that way, that the Principe plates have not survived). One eclipse plate and one comparison plate taken with the 4-inch lens were missing, and one of its eclipse plates was broken. A few of the Astrographic plates were discolored.”8
Despite these obvious setbacks the analysis was carried out. It was purported that the re-analysis proved the validity of Einstein’s myths.9 However, they did not prove Einstein’s theory was correct. The best that can be said of them is they proved Newton’s theory of gravity was incorrect.
As noted by Kennifick in his paper, “In any case [the] real point is that the eclipse measurements, all of them, not just the 1919 ones, do not particularly vindicate general relativity.”10
By 1979, however, the idea of Einstein’s theories as unalterable truths was so firmly entrenched in the consciousness of humanity, the reanalysis was scarcely noted.
“As always seems to be the case, the press present these observations as bald facts but as astrophysicists know very well they are far from unchallenged by the astronomical community…They prefer instead to portray scientists as priests, laying down the law without equivocation. The more esoteric the theory, the further it is beyond the grasp of the non-specialist, the more exalted is the priest…The distorted image of scientist-as-priest is likely to lead only to alienation and further loss of public respect. Science is not a religion, and should not pretend to be one.”11
Gravitational Lensing – An Effect of Fluid Dynamics
In Cosmic Core we are asserting that there exists a fluid-like medium that connects all in reality called the Aether. This Aether is ‘vibrated’ as a result of fluctuations in consciousness. These vibrations and oscillations in the Aether create standing waves of geometry that matter precipitates upon. We will see this on the galactic level and the subatomic level and everything in between.
The Aether will be the subject of the next series of detailed articles.
In mainstream science, gravitational lensing is supposedly evidence for GR that demonstrates space-time is bending. However, if the Aether exists, and it is fluid-like, “then gravitational lensing provides a very real example of the fluid nature of gravity and is entirely consistent with the behavior of light passing through a fluid that is distorted.”12
The website Liquid Gravity discusses this concept in a clear and easy to understand way. It says, “Liquid has long been known to distort and bend light, so to see light bending around stars or galaxies would provide a high degree of evidence for a luminiferous aether that conducts light waves through space and as it turns out is distorted by gravity fields.”13
It is discussed that Einstein’s theory does not match the evidence. The images seen are split and flipped to produce the lens effect we see. The flipping of the images is not accounted for in his theory.
“Based on Einstein’s model we would see the new slit images showing both arrows remaining the same way up.”14
In reality, a mirrored pair of images result with one arrow down and one up. This aligns with the fluid-like Aether model.
“This image disproves Einstein’s fundamental idea that space-time bends light because the evidence suggest that gravity mirrors light which goes onto prove that light is passing through layers of increasingly dense liquid to produce this lensing affect.”15
The increasingly dense layers of liquid, noted above, are concentric shells of varying density of the Aether that surround every massive body. These concentric rings that increase in density as they get closer to the center are the quantized shells that surround bodies on all scales: atoms, plants, humans, planets, suns, and galaxies. These quantized shells are discussed extensively in Article 93.
“These layers of increasing density refract the light in the same way that light would refract through water, by bending its path as the light slows down through each layer…just as light will do through a critical angle where it will split into two to become a reflection and a refracted split beam.”16
This results in two mirrored images, not a double image as predicted by Einstein’s theory.
“A central lens position will have the result of spreading the light source around the lens object like a halo. As the light hits the outer layers of the lens object it slows down with resistance of increasingly denser Liquid Gravity. This has the result of bending the light around the object and then pushing it away from the lens object and back through each decreasingly dense layer which progressively speeds up the light. These principals of light bending through liquids are well established and understood optics, not mysterious Space-time bending mysteries.”17
Clearly we can see that these gravitational lensing effects can be caused by refraction and not gravity.
The Liquid Gravity site is not the only place this information can be found.
Professor R.C. Gupta at the Institute of Engineering & Technology in Lucknow, India presents this theory in a paper, Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on the Refraction of Light.18
“It is a plausible theory based on the presence of plasma atmospheres that pervade stellar and galactic formations at every scale. Dr. Gupta shows that a stellar, or galactic atmosphere will bend light, the same way it is refracted by water as the light passes from lower density to a higher density medium.
It is the kind of simple answer based on classical physics and the known behavior of electromagnetism that Electric Universe (EU) Theory rigorously requires, unlike the General Relativity concepts that require theoretical, unproven mass and energy.”19
The term ‘plasma’ is used in modern science in lieu of the term Aether. They both refer to the concept of there being a ‘medium’ of space. Scientifically speaking these terms must be explicitly defined. We do this for ‘Aether’ in Articles 98-119 and we also explain why we still use the term Aether though it has been dismissed in modern science.
“At the time Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity, the pervasiveness of plasma was not known nor had neutrinos been observed. It was thought that there was no medium to cause refraction in the vacuum of space. Now, we know about the electromagnetic plasma environments of stars and galaxies. We know neutrinos pervade space. In accordance with the classic physics of light and optics, it is inconceivable that light passing through a medium does not experience refraction.”20
Examples that do not fit Gravitational Lensing
The Twin Quasar (Q0957+561)
The Twin Quasar was used to try to prove gravitational lensing in 1979. It was the first identified ‘gravitationally lensed object’. It consists of an elliptical lensing galaxy that is supposedly in front of a quasar. This galaxy supposedly bends the light of quasar around itself creating a double image of the quasar.
Twin Quasar in center. Credit: NASA
No one really knows what a quasar is. Quasar comes from the letters QSO referring to quasi-stellar object. They are extremely luminous active galactic nuclei.
In Cosmic Core, the esoteric science essentially teaches that quasars are baby galaxies being ejected from the center of a galaxy. More on this in later articles.
With the Twin Quasar “we are told that the lensing galaxy lies almost in line with the B image of the quasar, being only about 1” off. That is strange because we would expect both images to be about the same distance from the lens. To get a lopsided bend like this, the lensing galaxy must be highly uncentered.”21
Normally galaxies are not uncentered. This means the center of galaxies lie in the ‘center’ not off to one side. This should be obvious.
Furthermore, the lensing galaxy in this case is elliptical. Elliptical galaxies are very homogeneous with the mass centered in the ‘center’, as would be expected.
This lopsided result is explained away by proposing that globular clusters around the galaxy contribute to lensing. Thus these lopsided bends are actually multiple bends it is said.
Another problem results in the double image itself. Rings or arcs of light would be expected in gravitational lensing, not two points of light. These two points could only be produced in a very specific and highly improbable way.
“Light from the quasar is emitted in all directions, so it must be passing the galaxy all around.”22 Yet this is not seen.
“The standard model of lensing wants us to believe that very imperfect lenses could focus light from that distance here upon the Earth. Two beams of light are focused, but each beam is bent a different amount. Anyone who knows anything about lenses knows that is highly unlikely. It was unlikely enough when the focusing was done by a centered and homogeneous lens or galaxy, but now that we see that the lens is lopsided and undefined, it destroys the theory in two separate ways.
One, it requires us to believe that the two different bends focus perfectly here on Earth.
Two, it requires us to believe that nearly homogeneous elliptical galaxies can bend two nearly parallel beams of light in very different amounts.”23
“This distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.”24
The Twin Quasar is used to ‘prove’ general relativity. Yet it actually refutes it. This is strange it is still accepted in mainstream science.
The Einstein Cross (Q2237+0305)
The Einstein Cross is said to be composed of a lensing galaxy with a quasar behind it. The light of the quasar is said to be bent around the galaxy producing four images of the quasar. This is highly dubious for many reasons.
There are no signs of arcs or rings. The four images vary in brightness and the brightness has changed over time.
It would be expected that these four images would average the same brightness over time and the maximum brightness should be the same at the same time. This is not the case.
Furthermore, there is a bridge seen to connect the left quasar image to the center of the galaxy. In mainstream science the quasar is thought to be many light years farther out than the galaxy. Yet the bridge is there and the two bodies are physically connected.
Also, the center galaxy would need to be much bigger and brighter to accomplish this highly improbable lensing feat. It would have to be 2 magnitude times brighter than ‘conventional quasars’, the brightest objects currently known.
“Gravitational lenses aren’t offered as proof of light bending by gravity, they are offered as possible examples of bending.”25
The Einstein Cross is discussed in detail in the work of astronomer Halton Arp. He proposed that the galaxy has ejected four quasars which are growing brighter and moving farther from the nucleus as they age.
Dr. Arp’s work will be discussed in detail in Articles 93-94.
It is also very interesting that these four quasars surrounding the galaxy very closely resemble a tetrahedral configuration such as four hydrogen atoms surround a central carbon atom in a molecule of methane.
This geometric viewpoint aligns perfectly with the Sacred Geometry model of the universe in which the same geometry shows up on all scales. In light of all the evidence offered in the 261 articles of Cosmic Core this is very hard to deny.
We will now move onto cosmic microwave background radiation.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
“Theoretically, the Big Bang will have caused huge temperatures that should have left a uniform hot zone imprinted across the universe, but the temperature map shows heat variations and patterns that don’t show a uniform singularity…instead [they] reveal a patchwork of hot and cold splotches that would have more likely come from multiple…explosive events.”26
What is the CMBR or CMB?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a nearly uniform flux of microwave radiation of wavelength 0.05 cm to 100 cm coming from all directions of the Cosmos. It has a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin. The greatest intensity occurs in the frequency of 160.2 gigahertz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. It was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1978. Later that year they received the Nobel Prize for the discovery.
“The CMB also contains tiny temperature variations, which signify areas of different densities.”27 These small intensity variations (pictured below) are called patchy anistrophy.
In Big Bang cosmology CMBR is thought to be photon radiation left over from the primordial hot Big Bang which has cooled by expansion to a temperature slightly less than 3 degrees above absolute zero.
In DSSU cosmology, developed by Conrad Ranzan, CMBR is the radiation received from distant galaxies (emitting light at a peak intensity temperature of about 5800 K) after being red-shifted by a z factor of about 3800 during a journey of 133,000 MLY. In other words, the source of CMBR is ordinary, everyday, generic-brand starlight.
This means the source of CMBR is not evidence of a Big Bang, but only the light emitted by extremely distant hydrogen atoms.
“When we observe the cosmic background radiation,” states physicist Joel R. Primack, “we see…what started out like sunlight now reaches Earth as short-wavelength radio waves.”
“Main sequence stars fuse hydrogen atoms to form helium atoms in their core. About 90 percent of the stars in the universe, including the sun, are main sequence stars.”28 This means the overwhelming source of radiation in the universe is from stars with surface temperatures of 3000 K to 6000 K.
“If main-sequence star’s starlight (the source radiation) is the most abundant, then whatever this radiation transforms into, that transformed radiation must display a corresponding high abundance.”29
Star Chart from Dwarf to Hyper Giant – Credit: NASA
Conrad Ranzan goes on to explain the process in great detail in his paper, The Cosmic Background Radiation in the DSSU at www.CellularUniverse.org. It is recommend reading for a full understanding of these concepts.
In essence, the dominant photonic flow comes from main sequence red and yellow stars, and everything in between.
Therefore, the maximum intensity of the source radiation that dominates the Universe is a yellowish-red light of wavelength 660 nanometers. This maximum intensity manifests as a peak in cosmic radiation, the ubiquitous CMBR.
The background radiation was found to have a maximum intensity at a wavelength of about 1.88 mm.
Stretch the starlight by a factor of 3800 and the source starlight of wavelength 5.0×10-4 mm becomes the observed CMBR of 1.9 mm.
Take ordinary sunlight (intensity peak of 5.0 x 10-7 meters in the yellow portion of the light spectrum), stretch it by a factor of 3800 and you end up with microwave radiation identical to CMBR.
Starlight that started out as 3000-6000 K temperature radiation has been weakened to a 3 degree temperature.
The source starlight has been red-shifted by a factor of 2850 to become the measurable background radiation.
Redshift will be covered extensively in Articles 93 & 94.
The following is a chart compiled by Conrad Ranzan in the previously mentioned paper, The Cosmic Background Radiation in the DSSU:
|Characteristic||DSSU Cosmology||BB Cosmology|
|Nature of Source||Ordinary starlight||Starlight from a hypothetical “fireball” featured in mythical primordial genesis|
|Distance of Source||Real distance of 133 billion lightyears||Temporal “distance” of 15-20 gigayears|
|The flux: CBR-source photons are the most abundant photons in the Universe||The most abundant radiating objects in the universe are ordinary stars. Naturally, the most abundant photons will be starlight.||The great abundance is necessarily the product of the greatest thermal explosion in the entire history of the BB universe.|
|The flux: appears to be almost the same in all directions||Because the sources lie in a spherical and concentric shell||Because the visible universe is spherical|
|The patchy anistrophy||The consequence of the cellular structure of the universe||The consequence of the chaotic inhomogeneity of that same hypothetical “fireball”|
|The temperature (and the thermal spectrum that defines it)||Forever remains the same||Decreases as the BB universe expands and evolves|
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Images
The following image is the detailed all-sky picture of the universe created from nine years of WMAP data. According the mainstream cosmology, the image shows the 13.77 billion year old temperature fluctuations (shown as color differences) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. This image shows a temperature range of ± 200 microKelvin.
Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team WMAP # 121238 Image Caption 9 year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2012).30
The image below shows the CMBR WMAP image wrapped onto a sphere.
Upon further reflection, this all-sky map reveals many anomalies that should not exist if the universe was indeed born in a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.
The CMBR & the “Axis of Evil”
The “Axis of Evil” is a mysterious and controversial pattern found in the radiation supposedly left over from the Big Bang. Temperature variations are neatly separated in the northern and southern sky relative to the geometry of the ecliptic plane of the solar system.
It was discovered by Kate Land and Joao Magueijo at Imperial College London in 2005.
They called it the “axis of evil”. Why ‘evil’?
“It undermines what we thought we knew about the early universe. Modern cosmology is built on the assumption that the universe is essentially the same in whichever direction we look. If the cosmic radiation has a preferred direction, that assumption may have to go – along with our best theories about cosmic history.”31
To put it another way, it is ‘evil’ because of the damage it can do to the current Big Bang and standard cosmology theories. It should have already destroyed the Big Bang theory, yet here we are, running ourselves in circles for no good reason.
The image below shows dust patterns in the visible universe that are far more concentrated at the Equator of the Universe. Once again, this should not be in a Big Bang expanding universe. There should be no Equator. Yet there it is.
So What Do These Patterns Mean?
The pattern appears to be a spherical octahedron tilted at 45° once it is wrapped onto a sphere.
The Octahedral Dust Patterns: The Universe as an Octahedral Super-Galaxy
The galaxies are constricted by geometric patterns. There is a galactic disc. All the galaxies are found in the Equator (see images above with high concentration of dust – red color – in the Equator).
There is also a spherical galactic halo.
This could mean the universe is a super-galaxy with a north-south movement caused by a spherical torus. There are two forces – one going up and one going down. They push against each other and keep the galaxies in the ecliptic plane (the Equator).
When the original photons and dust emerged, they adhered into the shape of an octahedron at a 45 degree angle. This 45 degree tilt is the exact angle of an octahedron within a star tetrahedron.
Credit: matematicas Visuales
The octahedral dust patterns can be seen as temperature fluctuations at the corners of the octahedron, shown as the red and blue areas in the “axis of evil”.
There are six points on an octahedron and six major areas on the “axis of evil”: one at the North Pole, one at the South Pole and four equidistant points along the Equator. These six points correspond to the six vertices of the octahedron.
Certain sides are cold (blue areas) and certain sides are hot (red areas). These cold and hot areas alternate. This could represent the inflow and outflow areas of the torus.
These concepts often bring up more questions than they answer. But that is the point of science – to discover new things and change existing theories to more appropriately reflect the truth.
We are beginning to see some of the many holes in the Big Bang Cosmology Myth that, hopefully, will encourage each person to question the official mainstream story and demand better answers. Next we will look at black holes, stellar evolution, Olber’s paradox, redshift, and the expanding universe fallacy.
The most important thing to learn here is the importance of questioning. The old scientific paradigm – the mainstream view – is in serious need of an update and make-over. If the scientific establishment remains in denial, it is up to the students, the people and brave open-minded professors and researchers to do the work instead.
One person, or even several people, calling attention to these inconsistencies on the internet is not enough to make a different. We need brave scientists to step up to the plate and fearlessly search for the truth. That is what scientists are supposed to do. With collaboration we can find a more appropriate model of astronomy and physics that can lead us in a prosperous peaceful future for the greatest good of all.
- https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727672-000-general-relativity-physicist-superstar/ & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
- Coles, Peter, Einstein, Eddington and the 1919 Eclipse, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, 27 Feb 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102462v1
- Kennefick, Daniel, Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition, 5 Sep 2007, https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0685
- Coles, Peter, Einstein, Eddington and the 1919 Eclipse, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, 27 Feb 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102462v1
- Gupta, R.C. Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light, Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lucknow India, arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124
- Hill, Andrew, Lensing by Refraction…not Gravity? 26 November 2015, https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/
- Mathis, Miles, Against Gravitational Lensing, http://milesmathis.com/lens.html
- Ranzan, Conrad, The Cosmic Background Radiation in the DSSU, CellularUniverse.org 2005 rev2009-02