All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 23, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
14:55
Michael Armstrong: The Big Bang NEVER Made Sense | Thunderbolts
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In the beginning, a long time ago and far, far away, there was nothing, far away, there was nothing, which manifested a singularity, which exploded, and over millions and
billions of years produced not only our vast material universe, and over millions and billions of years produced not only our vast material universe, but also life in Amen.
So goes the Big Bang Theory, encapsulated in one long sentence.
Let me reply with, first of all, there is no such thing as nothing.
Never was and never could be.
Because you cannot get something from nothing.
Nothing nothings, as Heidegger said, about nothingness not being able to do anything.
Nothingness is just and only a conceptual marker, like zero, used only for contrast and mental reference.
Deposit otherwise is reification, making something unreal into something real, a violation of rationality, logic and reason, a breach of intellectual responsibility.
Secondly, since we're all familiar with the concept of nothing, the average person should be able to realize that you cannot start creation with it.
But a material singularity is an unknown, a more effective yet an even worse reification, and is nothing short of cosmological chicanery.
This would seem to be why some cosmologists speculators are replacing nothing with inflation and quantum fluctuations.
Is it not germane and crucial to understand why these dystopian concepts were ever devised and gained traction in the scientific community?
But more on that later.
So, what is a singularity?
Is it not just a fabulous invention that can do whatever the theorist needs it to do?
In the early days of modern science development, the new, more rigorous approach needed to throw off the oppressive trammels of reality-defying religious dogma and sacred writings.
And, rightfully so, to uncouple from all mythology.
Of late, the marvelous James Webb Space Telescope is making waves in the astronomical and cosmological world of scientism.
Some even characterize the effect as inspiring panic.
Right now, I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas.
And wondering if everything I've done is wrong.
Well, that's the call from this corner, Professor Kirkpatrick.
It's about time, and it makes no difference if establishment cosmology pressures you enough to recant.
The new exquisite graphic vistas are providing clear and extensive viewing of a vast volume of space.
And bringing back images that are nothing like you would expect from a violent explosion.
And it's implied expansion.
Most people, including many astronomers and cosmologists, realize these images are not like more nebulous hypotheses.
They should be increasingly unwilling to conclude that what they are seeing is a manifestation from their own lion eyes.
Such good old clarity and vision may sometimes cut through unworthy hypotheses and false theory, especially when many of the theorists already have an uneasy feeling about the foundational assumptions underpinning the Big Bang.
From my learning and perspective, the premier astronomer to this point in time was Halton Arp, who earned his Ph.D.
from Caltech.
For 29 years he did his stellar work at Palomar Observatory where he and his Associated Astronomers, Jeffrey and Margaret Burbage and others, cataloged enough examples of highly redshifted quasars that were clearly in front of lower redshifted galaxies in the background.
Of course, this is an unequivocal violation of expanding universe theory.
Being a respected and highly qualified astronomer in the 1970s, he went to the astronomical community, expecting them to see and address the ARP Group's findings.
They didn't want to hear it, for reasons that should be obvious.
Too drastic violation of established theory, too much controversy, too much damage to their standing and careers.
Being patient, gracious, and experienced, aware of the sordid history of scientific pioneers being treated as pariahs, like Galileo and Semmelweis, Arp felt this time it would be different.
If he was patient and careful enough to compile the group's findings in a composite and convincing way.
Thus, he authored and published the book, Quasar's Red Shifts and Controversies, 1987.
Portraying and explaining why they should listen.
No deal.
Still no response except a growing distancing and alienation.
Welcome to the cruel dystopian world, Dr. Arp.
After about 10 patient years, he got exercise and authored another book with a double entendre title, Seeing Red, June 1997.
Seeing Red was an obvious reflection of not only redshift, but of how he felt.
When I met Arp at a June 1999 symposium organized by the University of Milano Bergamo in Lombardy, Italy, we were fellow lecturers.
I had my copy of Quasar's Red Shifts and Controversies with me in anticipation of getting it autographed.
When we talked, and he realized I was representing a group of admirers and supporters of his findings, He not only signed my copy but gave me an autographed copy of Seeing Red.
The ARP Group developed a sterling case for a paradigm much superior to the Big Bang.
They showed that certain unusual pregnant galaxies with active galactic nuclei, some of which are called Seifer galaxies, evidently charge up and give birth to Expelled from their cores, twin quasars in opposite directions.
These expulsions are usually perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy.
These expelled highly redshift quasars slow in velocity over time while losing redshift in quantized steps.
They ultimately differentiate into new galaxies.
Thus we have the growing universe increasing in size instead of a violently exploding or expanding one.
This, of course, is a much more orderly process, which is what is reflected and portrayed by the James Webb Telescope visuals.
What these images show is an extensive array of stars and galaxies that are all connected by a three-dimensional web of shining helical filaments.
In the Electric Universe paradigm, these are the intergalactic and or interstellar Birkeland currents that deliver power to these astral constructions.
This was the vision and understanding of Nobel Prize-winning Hannes Alfven and his protege, Anthony Peratt, which they called the Plasma Universe.
I should also mention that the Big Bang, gravity-only dominated theory, along with galactic revolution rotation problems, laid the foundation for the fantasy creations of dark matter and dark energy.
Big Bang Dark Matter was always a huge enigma and dark energy was even more egregious.
These both now have to be rejected as well.
But there are so many options for colorful or should I say colorless replacements.
If dark ambrosia doesn't completely satisfy this penchant for scientismic mysticism, I see all kinds of other options.
We could have dark entropy, anti-momentum, dark volume, anti-charge, dark movement, anti-shape, Dark time, anti-size, or some other esoteric combination that will, quote, save the appearances.
I suspect there are 666 possibilities.
You get the idea.
When defenders of establishment cosmology have been braced by the accepted fact of plasma in space, The reply has been generally along the lines of, yes, but it doesn't do anything.
Those of us that understand the validity of the Electric Universe paradigm and theory are impatient to see all of these intellectually ungainly abstractions swept off the scientific cosmological table.
There are many, including myself, that have never been able to fathom a universe with life and all that goes with being human, springing up spontaneously or developing from mere non-living, non-intelligent matter.
The universe is obviously infused with design, and we are spiritual vessels with personality, intelligence, intellect, emotions, This would seem to demand an intelligent creator or designer with purpose as well.
Given the deplorable human condition of struggling and suffering, culminating in death, it is an entirely different issue whether that agency is worthy to be worshipped rather than feared, and thus called God.
A term that is a contraction of good.
Our world has around 4,000 different identifiable organized religions, in which I include the most dominant of them all now.
Scientism.
Scientism is the making of a dogmatic religion out of the pursuit of science or knowledge.
Which, as we all know, has a sordid history of always resisting significant new truths that challenges the existing paradigm.
The multiplicity of concepts of God in these various religions, many of which are ugly and alien to humane beings, have always violated our sensibility and idealism.
Yet, many cling to these prevailing bad or anti-God paradigms, like lichens cling to rock, as if their lives depend on it.
Which they clearly do not, given that we all age, decay, and die, regardless of which of these religions we profess.
Maybe this lack of intellectual responsibility and integrity is the problem.
I am unaware of anyone in Western science or religion that doesn't understand and accept that the very foundation of the physical universe is binary electric charge.
This is manifested in negative electrons, positive protons, with neutrons that decay into these charged particles.
The material universe is electric.
Maybe someday soon more people can become reasonable, intellectually honest and responsible, and open-mindedly consider a much more elegant and beautiful vision.
One that in both realms is based on the evidence of historical demonstration.
A vision that we can 100% go all in for.
▲
Export Selection