Big Bang, or Big Hand?
“[The scientist] thinks that our galaxy and universe is expanding, and this leads to the most ridiculous of all assumptions—the Big Bang theory.”
Of Atoms and Astronauts, Lesson 6—Continuation of Einstein’s Theory. Ernest L. Norman
Big Bang, or Big Hand?
Is the universe expanding, rotating, or reacting to unknown cosmic currents yet to be discovered? Today’s prevailing opinion is slowly receding away from the scientific ruling minority much the same way they have suggested that all galaxies recede from us. In addition, recent cosmological and theological discoveries are playing a significant role in likewise disfavoring the fundamentalist creationist majority.
The universe no longer appears to astronomers as an ever expanding cosmic balloon but rather a series of confusing maze-like directional vectors comparable to magnetic lines of force around a magnet. Still, outdated heliocentric theories continue to dominate educational and media channels for reasons that are not outright obvious to most, though deeply rooted in matters of national security, civil control, occupational assurance, and smear evasion. This is not a personal opinion but what I was told in 1982—at the university and JPL where I was an intern—when I challenged atomic mechanics and the Big Bang. Then again, controversial cover ups are nothing new to our world, but unfortunately blind masses rally behind popular perception without much effort and thus deception goes on unchecked.
So what is the real truth behind the cosmos we inhabit, and is there more than meets the eye? There is. The Legacy episode series goes into these details, supported by the Unarius science of life.
“All peoples as they have so evolved upon the planet earth have conducted or incurred the total consensus of this evolution on a strictly third-dimensional basis, and except for certain inspirational values or occasional paranormal phenomena, the earthman has only recognized this interdimensional cosmos through such vagaries as superstitious beliefs, religions, etc, and has succeeded to some degree in strengthening such beliefs through the necessity to relieve and alleviate the fear of death, always incumbent in this mortal life about him.”
“All familiar earth forms about us and even including our own personal bodies are all reducible to the energy forms classified by science as atoms, and these atomic forms, universally so far as the third dimension or terrestrial world is concerned, form a surface plane or a curtain if you will of energy upon which surface man is beginning to learn the combination of certain factors not heretofore relevant in the more primitive stages of his evolution.”
Of Atoms and Astronauts, Lesson 5, Electromagnetic Waveform Fields—Atoms and Mass. Ernest L. Norman
Where did the Big Bang theory come from?
Combining these separate conclusions established above, acceptance for the Big Bang theory grew exponentially. However, as shown below, methods used to evaluate these findings were seriously flawed.
Our view of cosmology is based on predetermined ideologies that evolved from medieval heliocentric dogmas, seventeenth century classic astronomy, physics, and primitive measurement tools. These evolved from archaic cosmological models compromised by even older fundamental and philosophical beliefs. At first, the Earth was the center of the universe, then the Sun, then the galaxy—what will it be next?
Today, science views the universe as an expanding vacuum composed of countless miniature similar marbles, yet can’t explain why these marbles are universally alike and expanding outward on a macro level—not micro—something a mega explosion is incapable of accomplishing.
The universe is a really big place, much larger than mainstream science is willing to admit for reasons steeped in tradition. Just how big does science claim it to be? Not big enough, some would rightfully argue, admitting that key supporting cosmic inflationary models no longer coincide with present day observation. Religion, on the other hand, originally led the charge in misinterpreting scripture and violently suppressing scientific research to keep status quo. In our days, it leads science by conceiving a creative infinite fold without bounds, though it still limits creation to 6,000 years. Science sets a size and time limit, religion sets a time limit and no size. So, who is right? Neither, shown as follows.
To properly establish the true size of the universe, a factual understanding of the nature of light and the cosmos where it unfolds must outweigh old earthly axioms originally founded much in the same tenor as transformative alchemy. In other words, science and religion must both be willing to reconsider existing theoretical and scriptural conformities, and understand without bias the true nature of space itself—a medium that is filled not with all-illusive dark matter but various energy states that are polarized, originate from higher dimensions, and actually do rotate according to powerful lines of force they leave in their cosmic wake.
Biblical accounts are mistranslated
The book of Genesis states that ‘the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the surface of the deep.’ That is a coarse mistranslation of the Hebrew words ‘tohuw’ and ‘bohuw.’ The passage actually states that the earth was destroyed and in vague ruins prior to the first day of creation, but fails to explain why. However, Jeremiah 4:23 not only quotes Genesis but goes on to add further details that speak of Earth civilizations existing “prior” to the supposed creation event.
Jeremiah states, ‘I saw the earth and it was destroyed and in vague ruins, and the heavens had no light. I saw the mountains and they trembled and all the hills moved swiftly. I saw there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were gone. I saw that fruitful places were uninhabitable, and all its cities were destroyed.’ Isaiah 45: 18 states that “He created [Earth] not devastated.” One must then ask, who or what destroyed Earth and its inhabitants prior to creation? When? Legacy Episode I provides these answers, explaining the meaning of pesha shamem, “Boker,” and Daniel’s 2,300 Bokers or evenings.
How old must the universe be if, in Job 38: 6-7, the “sons of god” on other worlds rejoiced when Earth’s cornerstone was laid? If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, does that imply that space aliens “witnessed” the Earth as it formed long ago? If so, when were they created? The answers to these questions are found in the Legacy book series, answers that demonstrate creationist timelines are incorrect.
There was NO Big Bang
In conventional terms, the universe (matter, energy and space) is expanding symmetrically from its Big Bang point of origin. But this is not so. According to recent celestial observations, it was noted that there is NO preferential expansion direction vector within the cosmic inflationary bubble, meaning that objects are NOT flinging away from Earth as previously believed.
To satisfy the Big Bang theory, light must propagate toward us the same way radially from any direction. However, polarization measurements from distant radio galaxies emitting strongly polarized waves show that the polarization plane (wave vectors in the space medium) is actually “rotating” about a common far-off center, indicating that space is in fact birefringent (). Lensing and the demodulating properties of prisms may also provide further examples of this behavior, demonstrating that all manifested forms in space—matter, gravity, and light—are birefringent.
It has been shown that the universe has an anisotropic axis and is circularly birefringent, behaving much like an optically active crystal by rotating the polarization direction of linearly polarized light. Thus, we live in a type of polarized universe where energy patterns act as a grid lattice or magnetic compass affecting the polarized plane (). It is conceivable that this plane changes as it reaches the “last mile” per say before we measure it, but all galactic objects observed show this behavior. In either case, the concept of rotational light is not synonymous with an expanding universe but rather a vast revolving chamber of galaxies.
Observed cosmic birefringence has a rotational factor in the tens of billions of years—an indication that cosmic energy is not expanding outward from a central point as is believed but rather rotates about a standing plane or common nucleus whose anisotropic axis is marked by a line running through the Aquila-Sextants constellations. Bottom line is, light “turns” about a super galactic hub: not what one would expect from an expanding universe. Likewise, linear and rotational Doppler effects are also modified by this rotational effect.
Galaxies are not receding
It was recently discovered that the vast Laniakea supercluster evokes deep wonder by witnessing how Centaurus, the great attractor, defies Big Bang cosmic expansion expectations, sucking rather than ejecting countless galaxies into its fold. The Laniakea galactic bubble shows galactic movement toward Centaurus as if these rode along powerful magnetic currents or cosmic prominences toward a central hub, unlike the Perseus group that paints an opposite picture. How does this finding affect our concept of the Hubble constant and background radiation?
Monolithic ideas that brought us to conceive an exploding cosmos has now been blown away by this discovery, showing how the Perseus group (in red) is receding from us, but the Norma-Indus group (in blue) is approaching. We’re caught between the two super clusters (blue triangle), watching them swing past us. The universal Aquila-Sextans axis is approximated in the graphic below:
The Big Bang’s faulty foundation
Science faces numerous challenges, all equally significant, trying to measure the immeasurable with limited instruments that work well in our earthly environment, but don’t take into account the physics of space that surpass worldly boundaries. A poor foundation leads to less than factual results:
- Established standards such as the speed of light and Hubble’s constant are taken verbatim by the scientific community, though stellar observations do not support it
- Red shift is taken as a deviation in light wavelength rather than local changes in energy and a wavering Planck’s constant
- Gravity is seen as the work of mass, but it could be related instead to the gravitational constant or the work of dimensional forces beyond our comprehension
- Time clock referential synchronous loss between ground and orbit is attributed to relativity, but is it, or could it be the nature of a much grander time/space phenomena, a dimensional energy carrier environment that gives both the effect of time gradation as well as gravitation?
The cosmos is not an easy thing to conceive mathematically, much less when striking down established constants and theories, pillars that add some semblance of order to our perception of creation. In this study, such pillars are being mathematically challenged and repurposed by stating that it is energy loss rather than light source movements that is responsible for the Doppler shift phenomena.
The universe is defined by two basic constants; the speed of light, and Hubble’s constant. Books have been written on how these were derived and we need not go into such fine detail. Rather, we look at factors that invalidate both constants. The Hubble constant, in short, indicates that distance is conveniently proportional to recessional velocity. Taking that into account, and the fact that nothing can go faster than light, the size of the universe cannot exceed 13.88 billion light years—without weird time/space stuff happening and horrific looking relativity equations trying to justify it. Later on, we will demonstrate that the Hubble constant does not hold up when we chart its values derived from known galactic measurements. The new Laniakea supercluster flow models alone clearly indicate that the Hubble constant does not hold up.
Red shift is nothing more than the “loss” or “absorption” of energy between emitting sources and us, diminishing along the way as a function of propagated distance. As energy is lost, but frequency is maintained, the resultant is a change in wavelength. As pictured here, galaxies closest to us show less energy loss (red arrows) and therefore have a lower red shift (yellow arrows). Some galaxies produce more energy than others and thus show lesser red shift for their distance. Coupled with the fact that energy does not propagate but rather “transfers” its force unto space energy currents ahead of it enervates the case for the speed of light altogether.
When deriving red shift ratio “z” and recession velocity, either frequency, wavelength, or energy may be used interchangeably, indicating the interoperability of these proportional terms and the fact they are synonymous. Therefore, velocity does not really exist, frequency is the inverse-square of wavelength, and mass is the relative effect of frequency and wavelength.
The Doppler effect
The Doppler effect has been overrated. It compares stars with a freight train passing us by, its sound wakes akin to compressed/expanded light wavelengths. In the case of the train, sound energy strikes and moves air molecules that in turn propagate at a predetermined rate based on atmospheric properties, temperature, and so forth. In space, light energy is assumed to do the same thing, but this is not the case. Space is not the simple wave tank imagined by science, or the passive friction-free environment of a synthetic vacuum. Rather, light energy strikes energy much like a Newton’s cradle and no energy propagates between source and target, but rather the energy is “transferred” between both points over pre-established dimensional energy matrices limited only by energy properties. Since space is birefringent, the polarized plane is an established energy grid, a type of point-to-point conduit that does not propagate but rather transfers energy.
Feasible thought on the idea that nothing can go faster than light should consider then that a blue shift should not exist, yet it does. Walking toward someone with a flashlight, or simply a car’s highway beams approaching a forward target at high speeds, both invalidate the light-limit concept as well. But how about Hubble’s constant? Can mathematical renditions prove both Hubble and Doppler applications incorrect?
Distances where light, X-ray, and Gamma radiations dip below Infrared and become invisible
According to the Hubble constant Ho, receding velocity is proportional to distance from us. While this is not true, we will go through the exercise nevertheless to prove a point.
As an object recedes from us, its wavelength widens but its frequency (fobserved) drops (see picture above, red shift). Just as orange light turns red and blue turns green with increasing recessional speed and distance, eventually even violet will drop to red and, furthermore, into invisible infrared. This occurs when z = 0.83. But let’s consider that, likewise, ultraviolet and x-rays also drop with recessional velocity and become visible until they also dip into infrared and become invisible at higher velocities. Eventually, as speed increases, Gamma rays become visible only to drop into infrared and turn invisible—this happens a bit over 13 billion light years away. The problem is that, even at distances beyond thirteen billion light years, we still “see” galactic forms when we really should not (receding so fast that not even Gamma rays are visible) since their observable radiations should have dipped beneath visible. How does that fact impact the Hubble constant?
To answer that question, we plot some 699 galactic objects showing Vgsr velocity in blue and computed Hubble constant in red against defined distances from Cal Tech’s NED database of galactic data (data source: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED1D/intro.html). Note the vast divergence in Hubble constant values across these observed galactic sources. Also note the variance in object velocities when applying the derived Hubble constant to object distances:
Velocity (left vertical axis) is plotted in blue. Velocity/distance is plotted for H, shown in red. The horizontal axis represents distance in light-years. The green line is the accepted Hubble constant value, compared to the red line which is the computed H constant from actual data. Note variance against computed H values with a standard deviation of 16.2. In the chart below, the relationship between distance and frequency according to the Hubble constant is shown, indicating what range of frequencies at what distances/velocities become invisible to telescopes, yet we still see an object where no light is predicted to be found.
In short, 8 billion light years appears to be the defining line where a significant drop in visible radiation occurs. Beyond that, invisible energies such as x-rays should now become visible and normal light vanish due to recession speed. This is not the case.
Computing the Hubble sphere radius
Determining “Z” from velocity
Computation based on limits that identifies a range problem with the derivation or estimation of Doppler shift wherein an object cannot recede from us at the speed of light but can approach us at the speed of light.
 Optical Birefringent qualities describe light behavior as it propagates through different crystal materials. We are assuming that space acts like a crystal medium, becomes the plasma in which light transverses, and demonstrates polarizing behavior (from the rule of ‘double refraction’)
Tagged with: Voice of Eros