Tag Archives: size of the universe

Can I Blow Your Mind Again? Groups of Bacteria Inside Humans May Have Independent Thinking or Reasoning Abilities.

15 Sep

By Mike McGee

As we discovered in a previous blog entry at https://mcgeepost.com/2017/09/05/want-your-mind-blown-science-shows-the-human-brain-is-not-a-single-entity-its-billions-of-individuals-who-dont-touch-each-other/, there are about 100 billion active neurons in each human brain. Most scientists believe that the collectively grouped neurons in the individual brain conduct most of the thinking and doing activity of each such person.

The hundred billion individual neurons in the brain have life yet not intelligence. It is an established scientific fact that only when grouped together do the neurons in a human brain take on a collective sentient intelligence.

Now let’s take it one step further, outside known science. Individual bacteria in the human body have life yet not intelligence. We can thus easily imagine that when grouped together in mass these bacterial clusters may act like grouped neurons, and have intelligence.

We are going to explore this other and additional possible source of human thinking and acting. Aside from the neurons and the brain, the non-human bacteria living in each persons’ body may have a meaningful effect on our thinking and doing. Continue reading

Want your Mind Blown? Science shows the Human Brain is not a single entity. It’s Billions of Individuals Who Don’t Touch Each Other.

5 Sep

By Mike McGee

Look at the two pictures above side by side, and tell me which one is a human neuron. Yeah, the other one is a squid. And like a colony of squid, the human brain is a whole lot of Individuals Who Don’t Touch Each Other. Knowing this blew my mind. Or at least it blew certain individual living entities – neurons – within my mind. How about you?

Generally accepted science says that each single human brain and nervous system is made up of about 100 billion neurons. Each of these neurons is a separate cellular body which operates on its own, though it accepts and rejects indirect input from other neurons. Each of these neurons is factually an isolated island of life, since no one neuron touches another neuron directly at any time. All of their communication comes from sending chemicals across the cup-like ends of lots of arms that look much like the suction cups on the tentacles of a squid. With neurons, specific chemicals pass from one neuron to another across these cups or receptors, as one might pass food from one person to another. There is no direct contact. Vast numbers of glial cells surround, support and protect the neurons. Neurons are found in nerve pathways throughout the body as well as in the brain.

Continue reading

Time for Ethical Disclosure in Physics

23 Sep

bigBang

By Mike McGee

No one admires physicists more than me. The modern world as we know it would never have evolved and would not be sustainable without the heroic contributions of this learned profession. Therefore I am disappointed when these brilliant and heroic men and women stray outside the bounds of reality and succeed in convincing all of us that their abstract theories and simulations are proven facts we can believe in. Continue reading

Cosmology: The Universe as an Ecosystem

8 Nov

tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640

By Mike McGee

The classical universe may not be in any respect a funnel-shaped box of rocks and gases. The universe, I assert, is likely a complex organic and inorganic ecosystem, a smear which is capable of, and a necessary condition for, maintaining life as we know it here in our own cosmos called earth.

Continue reading

Cosmology: Our Relationship With Light

6 Nov

By Mike McGee

In this discussion of cosmology, we will explore the rather unusual relationship between Man and light, and then discuss how our very indirect relationship with light may compromise many of the “factual” observations of cosmologists. I have arranged each statement so that it is accurate to the point where scientists would generally agree with the truth of each such statement.

We are a light-based species. Almost every aspect of cosmology, as well as everyday life, is dominated by what we can see with our eyes. Even the giant lens of the most powerful telescope is attached either by an eyepiece or a computer screen to a human eye. There are of course some exceptions where electrical waves or cosmic rays are captured by a collector and fed directly into a computer. These waves are for the most part, though, translated into charts which are viewed entirely by the human eye.

The eye, then, is our window to the cosmos as we receive it from cosmologists. Yet does the eye actually receive and visualize light? We cannot really be sure. No one throughout history has ever actually “seen” what input enters the eye. In fact, we cannot be entirely sure that all the input into what we “see” actually comes solely from the eye.

What we “see” with our eyes has no provable relationship to what actually enters the body or the mind through the eye or elsewhere. We are fairly sure that whatever it is that excites the nerves of the eyes is what sends electrical impulses to the visual cortex in the brain, which displays a colorful and informative scene. This is about as much as we can say about the process of “seeing.”

The brightly lit image on the monitor screen of a computer, such as the home page for Windows, is “seen” identically by millions of computer users. Yet absolutely no one can follow the cable back from the monitor screen into the works of the computer and find anything which even remotely resembles the beautiful, colorful and user-friendly light display on the home page screen of the computer monitor. It just isn’t there. All we find at the other end of the monitor cable is hard parts and electrical flow, and stored programs and flowing data in bits and bytes. There is no light inside the hardware of a computer; yet what we see at the other end of the monitor cable is almost entirely light.

This situation with the computer is almost an exact analogy to the process of “seeing” in human beings. The computer monitor is analogous to the visual cortex of the brain, which presents us with a colorful and user-friendly display which helps us to do most of our tasks and move about from place to place, and displays also for us the cosmos, which we presume is high above in the sky.

The optical nerves move electrical impulses from the eyes to the visual cortex, just as the computer monitor cable moves similar electrical impulses from the hardware of the computer to the monitor screen. To be very precise, the visual cortex in our brain is activated by electrical impulses, NOT by light. There may be other processes which participate in activating the visual cortex of the brain, such as hard-wired neural processes and stored memories, yet light is not one of the activating factors.

So, our relationship with light is at best very indirect. We don’t even know for sure if it is light that is activating our visual cortex. We don’t even know for sure what’s out there beyond our optic nerves. Of course we have four other senses, yet all of these senses have the same limitations: we perceive the evidence of all our senses as meditated by neural “cables” which carry only electrical impulses to the centers for perception of each of our senses.

“Let’s imagine what a human body looks like through a microscope…. Molecular cells are moving and the whole body is loosely arranged as if composed of sand…. completely different from the human body we see with our eyes. This is because this pair of human eyes can create false impressions for you; prevent you from seeing such things.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

It is absolutely certain that the “human eyes” have created a false impression, as described in the quote above. It is also absolutely certain that the eyes have prevented us from seeing the actual nature of what is before us. Science cannot dispute the accuracy of the above quote.

“Now some people believe that the physical eyes can see any substance or any object in this world of ours. Therefore, they fall into a rigid notion, believing that what is seen through the eyes is true and real, and they do not believe what they cannot see…. Our eyes have the capacity to stabilize the object in our physical space into the state we have now seen. Actually, it is not in such a state, not even in this space of ours.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

What these quotes don’t address is the assumption that we “see” with our eyes. In fact we “see” with our visual cortex via electrical impulses through the optic nerves, as I have described. Yet the quotes bring out by specific examples the essential point that what we think we “see” is not in any way analogous to what is actually out there.

“People ask how large the universe is…. The inside of the human body from molecules to micro-particles is as large as this universe. It sounds like a tall story. When a person or a life is made, his specially given composition of life and his nature have been already formed in the extremely microcosmic state.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

Yet if there are seven billion people now on earth, and each person is made up of trillions of individual cells and other microcosmic components – as scientists agree is so – then the microcosm (the body) and the macrocosm (the universe) could be identical. Try multiplying seven billion by the reliably estimated 50 trillion cells and 10 x 10^26 molecules in each human body. I am too exhausted by the concept itself to compute this number.

Let’s look very closely at one human being, either you or me. “If we take roughly 2.3 x 10^13 (23 trillion) as the number of molecules in a cell, and roughly 5 x 10^13 (50 trillion) as the number of cells in a human body, we get approximately 10 x 10^26, or 10^27, or one thousand trillion trillion molecules in each individual human body.” (Cite: David C’s computation, at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091023021908AAGOeL3). Saima at the same source computed an answer in a more poetic way: “The human body consists of about 50 trillion cells, and each cell has about 10,000 times as many molecules as the Milky Way has stars.”

This number is almost unimaginably vast for one person only, either you or me. All these numbers are within the microcosm of each human body on the earth.

And these numbers, multiplied for the seven billion human beings on earth, do not even take into account the fabulous number of individual molecules which make up the inorganic portion of our planet: the earth itself, rocks, soil, water, air and the elements.

Now let us move from the realm of demonstrably stated scientific fact into the more obscure area of theoretical reasoning.

Imagine if you will, if mankind had developed over the past few thousand years with all our senses intact except for our vision. We would reach up and feel the leaves of the trees, and construct theories about how these leaves are the distant reaches of the universe.

We might even in our advanced scientific vision-free society have discovered ways to build ladders which go high into these trees, and construct theories about the even farther distant reaches of the universe, with a treetop as the infinitesimally small source and origin of the universe. Yet all we’d really be doing is touching the things which are around us in everyday life.

It is quite true that each human body is a microcosm of trillions of trillions of cells and more trillions of molecules within these cells, held into place by what may be analogous to gravity. So therefore, it is possible that when cosmologists “see” the universe, what they are actually “seeing” is the microcosm within each human body, or within the confines of the planet earth and its inhabitants. I recognize that this statement is somewhat far out, yet it is not beyond the realm of the possible.

The truth is, the phrase “seeing is believing” is no more than a superstition. “Seeing” is a much more complex process than we normally own up to. The act of “seeing” into the cosmos by cosmologists, and the scientific data drawn therefrom, are open to very many equally probable interpretations.

The current crop of cosmologists should not be too quick to accept the canon inherited from the past. It might even be better if some of these absolutely brilliant and enthusiastic men and women turned their attention to more pressing scientific problems right here on earth; such as the invention of new clean energy sources, for example.

From http://www.mcgeepost.com Copyright © 2013 by Michael H. McGee. All commercial rights reserved. Non-commercial or news and commentary site re-use or re-posting is encouraged. Please feel free to share all or part, hopefully with attribution.

Cosmology: Is it True? Part Two

5 Nov

From www.mcgeepost.com .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

Today we’ll look at more supposed proofs of the veracity of the assertions of cosmological scientists regarding the Big Bang, and Black Holes, and other phenomenon beyond the realm of our solar system which are described in the current literature. Particular emphasis will be given to the known qualities of light.

Please, please understand that I am not attacking the reputation of any cosmological scientist, nor am I suggesting any conspiracy among them. Instead, I’m inviting you, the reader, as well as our current crop of cosmological scientists, to look at the subject matter of cosmology in a different way.

Constellation_Fornax,_EXtreme_Deep_Field

The above photograph is another piece of assumed factual evidence that the universe is exactly the way it’s described by the cosmological scientists: “The Hubble Extreme Deep Field Telescope was completed in September 2012. This photo from the telescope shows, we are told, the farthest galaxies ever photographed by humans. Except for the few stars in the foreground, every speck of light in the photo, they say, is an individual galaxy, some of them as old as 13.2 billion years.” (Wikipedia)

Let’s examine why the quoted description of this photograph cannot possibly be accurate. The tendency of light to diffuse, or to spread out due to a non-flat source of origin, as it travels through any distance, should be enough to prove the fiction of this analysis of the Hubble photo.

When we turn on a light bulb in a room of our house at night, the intensity of the light is always greatest at the source, the center of the light bulb. The intensity of the light diminishes as the glow from the source spreads out across the room. The light from the rounded light bulb source is dispersed over a larger area of space within the room, and so cannot illuminate the distant corners of the room as well as it does the areas closest around the light bulb, due to the rounded dispersal of the quanta of light being emitted. This process is called diffusion.

Let’s now look at a special case of light, the laser. The core property of laser beams is that their emitted light remains tightly focused in a straight line over large distances. In a laser, light is amplified using mirrors until it departs from the source in a “straight line.” This straight line is generated by the amplified light reflecting off of the generally flat surface of the mirror. Since light travels in straight lines unless reflected or refracted, this amplified light reflecting off a flat surface allows a tight concentration of light, with all the individual quanta of light traveling in almost exactly the same direction. The directional beam of light generates a very powerful and useful concentration of the energy of light onto a very small receiving surface.

Nevertheless, the reflective mirror of the laser is not an absolutely flat surface, only a relatively flat surface. There is no technology which will create a reflective surface which is absolutely flat at the atomic level. Thus the laser concentrates straight lines of light over short distances to a target, usually a matter of inches or a few feet. Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that there are some lasers which can adequately concentrate light over a distance of five hundred or a thousand miles.

Lasers use collimated light. This is light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates. The word is related to “collinear” and implies light that does not disperse with distance (ideally), or that will disperse minimally (in reality). A perfectly collimated beam, with no divergence, cannot be created. The light waves will eventually disperse away from the center of the diameter of the beam over a long distance, due to the lack of flatness of the generating surface and due to the diffusion of the energy of the light wave over space and time.

Laser beams are very important because they remain tightly focused for useful yet short distances. Over the long haul, though, there is enough dispersion of an average half-inch laser beam such that the same exact beam is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon, and 20 kilometers in diameter when it reflectively returns to Earth. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,403 km (238,857 miles). http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34500.0

Let us then compare the light dispersion of this laser over 384,403 km (238,857 miles), the distance from the earth to the moon, with what we see in the above photograph of a telescopic image. The scientific interpreters of the image say that they can see discrete objects in the picture, such as galaxies, which are as old as 13.2 billion years. This stated age actually means that the light in the picture has traveled 13.2 billion light years to reach the optical mirror of our Earth telescope, since light travels over any distance at the speed of light.

Since light tends to move in a straight line, the only way all that light from the galaxy could reach into a telescope on Earth will be if the distant galaxy were absolutely flat and the flat surface was absolutely aimed at the absolutely minuscule speck in the universe known as Earth. Way too many absolutes are required to line up for us to actually be able to see this so-called galaxy far, far away.

A light-year is a unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometers (or about 6 trillion miles). So if what the scientists say is true, the light in the telescope’s picture has traveled 6 trillion times 13.2 billion miles to reach the optical mirror of the telescope here on earth. That works out to the object in the photograph being 79,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away from the telescope which is photographing the so-called galaxy. (That’s 79.2 sextillion miles, by the way.) This means that if the picture is actually from the described “galaxy” then the light from the galaxy must have traveled in an absolutely straight line with no dispersion, for the described distance, in order for us to be able to see it exactly as it was way back then 13.2 billion light years ago. Could this be magical thinking?

As Walt Disney said in the movie Pinocchio (nose grows when you lie): “When you wish upon a star, Makes no difference who you are, Anything your heart desires, Will come to you.”

Now if light from a laser disperses from a half-inch beam into a light beam twenty kilometers in diameter over the relatively short distance of 384,000 kilometers, how much more will light from a star or galaxy disperse over a distance of 13.2 billion light years? And this dispersion remains constant only if there are no physical objects or dense fields (such as a Black Hole) or cosmic dust on the path the light takes from origin to destination. Such physical objects or dense fields will cause any light to bounce, or waver, or diffuse or to take some other different track than a straight line.

So, to say that a specific dot of light in our above telescopic image shows the actual appearance of an object which is 13.2 billion light years away (or even a paltry million light years away) is pure poppycock. Dispersion and diffusion, not to mention bouncing and wavering, will have rendered the light emitted by such a theoretically distant object to be no more than a vague film of random light particles scattered throughout the universe. The portion of these diffused and scattered light particles which could be captured by a telescope on the earth is infinitesimal to the extreme, and entirely unseeable.

It is pure fiction for our scientists to say that when they look into a telescope they are seeing actual objects from the deepest of deep space. The intelligent yet untrained millions like me and you are entirely complicit in this fiction, and it cannot exist without our desire to believe. We want to believe that it is so, so that we will feel like we actually know the meaning of the deep night sky which surrounds us and which seems so mysterious. We want to believe that the mysteries of the ages have been solved, and that we live in a time in history when almost everything is knowable. We want ourselves to be placed at the pinnacle of the evolutionary development of not only the earth but of the whole universe. We want to be the Masters of the Universe.

Yet we are not even close to mastering the universe. We are, though, close to mastering the intricacies of our solar system: the sun and the eight (or nine) planets and the asteroids and the comets. All these parts of the solar system are close enough for us to see without being fooled by the optical qualities of light. We’ve actually set foot on the moon, and we’ve sent space probes to land on Mars and to fly by all the planets, and take up-close pictures. We may just have to be satisfied with being masters of our solar system; at least until some thus far unknown technology allows us to extend our physical reach beyond its borders.

Nicolai Copernicus (1473-1543) was probably the first master of our solar system. He didn’t even have a telescope, yet he was able to use Euclidian geometry and arithmetic to chart the observations he had made of the night sky. He was able to distinguish the fixed stars from the moveable planets, chart the relations between these two types of lights in the sky, and chart the relationships between these stars, these planets, the earth, the moon and the sun. His conclusion, that the sun is the center of the solar system, has stood the test of time.

In his book On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, published in 1543, Copernicus gave us an understanding of the universe which we have hardly surpassed to this day: if we limit ourselves to the truth of what we know and what we don’t know, and reject fiction and conjecture. We have added three more planets, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto; and subtracted one planet, Pluto. Yet beyond the realm of our planetary system almost all is still a mystery. Here is the entire universe as Copernicus drew it in his book:

Copernicus 112

At some reasonable yet unknown distance beyond the orbit of the outermost planet in the solar system, Copernicus showed, is the “Immobile Sphere of the Fixed Stars.”

Copernicus goes on to say: “But that there are no such appearances [of brightness and irregular movement] among the fixed stars argues that they are at an immense height away, which makes the circle of annual movement or its image disappear from before our eyes since every visible thing has a certain distance beyond which it is no longer seen, as is shown in optics. For by the brilliance of their lights shows that there is a very great distance between Saturn the highest of the planet and the sphere of the fixed stars.” (Emphasis added)

The science of optics has really not changed much in the last four hundred years. We of course know how to make better optical devices. Yet the principles of diffusion and diffraction, and the principle that a light source which is nearer is usually brighter than a light source farther away, remains constant. It is easy to conclude, then, even following the words of Copernicus, that a light source which is supposedly 13.4 billion light years away would be so dim as to be utterly invisible. Even our greatest telescopes could pick up only a few, if any, scatterings of light from a source even “only” a million light years away.

So here is my first entirely facile description of the universe. It is just as Copernicus said it was, a shell of fixed stars set at a fixed distance not too far outside of our solar system, and enclosing our solar system as tightly as the orbit of any planet. The lights from these stars cannot really be too far away from us, or else their light would be dimmed, diffused and diffracted to the point of total soupiness. The enclosing darkness and points of light prevent us from seeing anything beyond the orbit of the fixed stars, so there could be either anything or nothing out beyond this orbit.

And here is my second entirely facile description of the universe. The universe is a smear of dark matter and dark energy, infused with points of light. Dark matter and dark energy move at far in excess of the speed of light, since by definition they have no light, and thus do not have the limitation of the speed of light; and so cannot be seen by us, a species attuned to the energy and frequency of light only. Our solar system and the points of light we can see are spots in the smear which have become congealed like knots in a pine board, and have thus been reduced to the speed of light, which enables us to see them.

In the next parts of this series we will explore the rather unusual relationship between Man and light, and then explore another way of describing the contents of the universe which is perhaps as likely as the current scientific conjectures.

Much of this analysis is based on original research done by my daughter Michelle Kathryn McGee. You can visit her site at http://healinggeneration.com/oneness.html  She does not vouch for the accuracy of what I am writing; any mistakes or misstatements are entirely my own.

Albert Einstein and Space-Time, Part One

4 Mar

From www.mcgeepost.com .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

In this blog entry I intend to examine the stories created in the imagination of scientists to explain the creation and massive size of the universe. I’ve tried to make the story as entertaining as possible, while adhering closely to scientific fact and the scientific method. I am not a scientist, yet I’ve studied science all my life, throughout my career as a lawyer and in the last few years since I have given up the practice of law. Even though not a scientist, I am an expert, from thirty years of law practice, in analyzing evidence and developing proof of a disputed principle or point from a given set of facts. I bring this well-developed strength to my analysis.

As a young man I was a student of science and among other things an avid observer of the stars. My uncle Gilbert Henry was a professor of astronomy and I spent time with him occasionally. Much of my knowledge of astronomy, though, came from my grandmother, who during many hours of my childhood taught me about the universe, most of which information she’d learned over the years from her son Gilbert. So I’m not entirely ignorant of the science of astronomy and cosmology.

Here I will develop proof of my thesis that the concept of cosmological space is a product of the use of flawed methods of science. The cosmological story of the creation of the universe 13.77 billion years ago by the Big Bang, and the stages through which the universe has passed from then until now, is purely a myth, with no more provable validity than the Biblical creation myth, or the Asian myth of the earth being supported on the back of a giant turtle. Let me show you how this is so.

Throughout history people have looked up at the stars and wondered what was out there. By the nineteenth century we understood that we lived in a starry universe filled with bright objects which seemed to be very far away from us. It was not until after Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity in1916 that scientists began to claim that it was possible to know everything about the universe we live in. Thus began the scientific myth of far sight.

The myth of far sight generated an incredible amount of scientific activity after 1916. Since that time scientists have come to believe that we now understand the mysteries of the deep universe and the details of the origins of the universe. Many of these details are embodied in the Big Bang Theory, and in the related concept of Black Holes.

Most people are now convinced of the truth of these two concepts, which arise from the fevered imagination of scientists who truly believe it is possible to know everything. People want to believe we can see all the way back to the beginning of the universe, and know its most intimate workings. Scientists are more than willing to provide us with a myth which will give us what our own fevered imaginations want.

Human consciousness must have its delusions, superstitions and creation myths. Cosmological scientists have since 1916 planted and perpetuated a set of delusions and given them the credibility of Science. These new delusions are almost universally accepted as the Holy Grail of Science: an answer to the ultimate questions about space and time. It is a huge intellectual arrogance for us to believe that right now we know everything about the universe; what mankind has wanted to know for thousands of years is now laid out before us in perfect order and symmetry. Woe be unto him who challenges in any particular the flawless descriptions of the whole universe handed down to us from on high by the Scientists!

It’s too bad the recently developed scientific narratives of the origins and dynamics of the whole universe are not true. They make a good story. L. Ron Hubbard’s development from about 1950-1980 of a religious description of the space creatures that populated and still control all but a few of the elite of the earth is a narrative which is accepted by Scientologists as true. It also makes a good story: told by a novelist. Each of these stories, Cosmological Science and Scientology, give us a sense of certainty in a time when people feel overwhelmed by the chaos of daily life and fearful of the unknown.

We want to know there is something out there. We want it all explained to us by “Someone Who Knows.” We want to believe the stories we are told by those who seem to have more authority and wisdom than we do. Throughout history it has been so, and so it is now. The human race has an enormous capacity for delusion when we feel the fear and the loneliness of the human condition. And especially when we feel the enormity of space and time, we want an explanation of what it all means. Almost any story will do, as long as it’s told by “Someone Who Knows.”

The current cosmological scientific myth says that the universe is about 13.77 billion years old, which is a very precise measurement of distant time. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein‘s general theory of relativity, which was delivered by him in 1916. The Russian Physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922, and the Belgian Georges Lemaître independently in 1927, introduced mathematical equations from Einstein’s general relativity which claimed to support the concept of an expanding universe that contained moving matter.

Remember, though, that mathematics is pencil marks on paper. A mathematical equation is not the same thing as the actual topography or substance of anything which actually may exist in outer space. A Star Trek script is just as descriptive of outer space as a mathematical pencil and paper computation. (Or bytes on a hard drive, for the purists.)

In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that he had “discovered” that the distances to far away outer space galaxies are generally proportional to their redshifts— an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble’s observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.

Astronomers often use the term redshift when describing how far away a distant object is. The cosmological redshift is a redshift caused by the expansion of space. As a result of the Big Bang. By taking the spectrum of a distant object, such as a galaxy, astronomers can see a shift toward the low frequency red lines of its spectrum, and from this shift determine its velocity. Putting this velocity into the Hubble equation, they determine the distance from earth. NASA scientists caution, and I quote, “that this method of determining distances is based on observation (the shift in the spectrum) and on a theory (Hubble’s Law). If the theory is not correct, the distances determined in this way are all nonsense.” (emphasis added)

Hubble’s “observations” were made by looking at a meter on a very earthbound instrument which was invented for the stated purpose of measuring redshift. For all we know the instrument could be measuring the number of red lights on the streets of a nearby town. We must take it on faith that the instrument is “measuring signals from deep space.” Yet the Big Bang and other theories of the construction of outer space depend on these measurements. Hubble’s theory contains too many genuinely unreliable and un-measurable elements, and therefore his theory is unreliable, and therefore distances determined in this manner are all nonsense.

For one thing, the red end of the light spectrum, as it exists in its only measurable form here on earth using very earth-bound instruments, has only a certain limited number of different frequencies before it resolves into another color on the spectrum. In order to determine that one speck of light is 10 billion years old and another is 500 million years old, we would have to measure an almost infinite gradation of frequencies of red light. The task of measuring such minuscule gradations is certainly not within the capacity of our instruments even now, much less in the 1920’s in the time of Hubble. Yet we are so ready to speculate, based on the flimsiest and most unreliable of mythical data.

quaz490_sdss_sm

Again from the NASA site, the red speck indicated above is a telescope image which scientists have interpreted as being a powerful quasar estimated to be over 100 times brighter than a galaxy. The “quasar” appears faint because it is said to be extremely distant. Its distance has been indirectly gauged by noting how much of the light it emits has been red shifted to longer wavelengths “by the expansion of the Universe.” Yes, this speck of light is visibly redder than the other specks of light in the picture. So do we really know it’s far away? What’s the claimed distance to this quasar? Scientists say that this little red quasar is more than 12 billion light-years away. If we believe this little red riding hood fairy tale, then the little speck has been rocketing through space for 12 billion years without undergoing any modification or distortion of any kind whatsoever.

The explanation of the meaning of the red shift in the above picture is entirely delusional. What is actually visible in the picture is a speck of light of a slightly different color than the other specks of light in the picture. Sitting here on earth, all we can know is that there is a “speck.” The speck could be there because someone forgot to polish the lens on the telescope before the picture was taken. Even if the speck does come from beyond our solar system, we don’t even know if the speck actually represents an “object.” It could be pure light, coming from any distance. And how can we know if the speck is naturally red, like the red planet Mars; the scientists say with certainty that the speck had another color a long time ago, and that color changed to red over a period of billions of years.

I’m sorry, you well-meaning cosmologists. I know you are believers in the scientific myth of far sight. I’m not trying to make fun of you. Quite the opposite: I want you to take your scientific measurements and descriptions more seriously, rather than just blindly accepting the mythical constructs given to you by an earlier generation of dreamers and storytellers.

Now let’s move to the most spectacular event which was invented by cosmologists during the twentieth century: the Big Bang. Based mostly on mathematical models, plus claims that really faint specks of light have been positively identified as being objects billions of years old, the authoritative, complete and seamless panoply of creation has been given to us by the “experts.” The ancients had Zeus and Mars and their other gods; we have the Big Bang.

Here’s a picture of the Big Bang. Of course it’s an artist’s rendition, since no one has yet found a way to stand outside the universe with a Nikon Camera and take a photo:

CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP

The Big Bang describes the universe as having begun as an infinitesimally small speck known as a singularity. The exact nature of this singularity, when where it originated, and why this particular singular particle was different from others, have not been described. Nevertheless, this singularity expanded. It had to be an incredibly pluripotent singularity, since it contained within itself all that was and all that is.

At first it created a few elements, then as billions of years passed the singularity created all the elements, all the galaxies, all the stars, and all the trillions of tiny working parts and pieces of the earth and the human beings thereon. It is a true legend of creation, intended to explain where everything came from, so we won’t have to live in fear of the unknown and the unknowable.

It’s about as entertaining as the stories told around the fire at night on a Scout camping trip, while marshmallows on sticks are toasting. It’s the incredible “expanding story” of the expanding universe, told to us by other campers, and believed to be true as long as the night is dark and there are strange sounds coming from the woods.

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle. These two principles state that no matter where you are in the universe, the universe is uniform, and that the same geometric principles govern the behavior of the universe locally as well as on large scales. These assumptions are entirely incapable of being proven, since the only place in the universe where we can make measurements is right here in this chair at this table on this planet. The assumptions rest solely on mathematical computations which were made up by mathematicians who want us to believe that mathematics is the answer to everything. So we have a lot of assumptions to make in order to believe in the Big Bang (or in Scientology).

The religion of Scientology has a similar type of story, told to believers by a novelist who supposedly had the gift of far sight, L. Ron Hubbard. These religious believers maintain that Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago, which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets. Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he gathered billions of his citizens, then paralyzed them and froze them in a mixture of alcohol and glycol to capture their souls. The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the planet earth. The present population of the earth is descended from these souls. Here we have a fabulous story which many people believe with all their hearts is the truth about the ancient history of the earth. This story is just as believable as the creation myth which has been invented by cosmological scientists. Yet a much greater proportion of the population of the earth believes in the Big Bang creation myth developed in the name of Science by cosmologists.

So, it’s time to create a new and more realistic narrative, a new story about man and his ability to gain knowledge of outer space, which will supplant the superstitions of the present and allow further material progress to move to the next level. The new narrative is that we cannot know what is happening outside of our solar system; which is as far as we can see or probe with any reliability. Further, we will likely never know (until some future technology provides for space travel) with any accuracy what is happening outside our solar system, no matter how hard we try.

Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist who recently published a book called A Universe from Nothing, implies that now, as of 2012, we know almost as much as we will ever know about our universe. In his afterword the well-known scientist Richard Dawkins is absolutely ecstatic: we live at a privileged singular point in time where we know the universe better than anyone has or ever will know it!

This sort of overpowering sense of superiority and infallibility on the part of scientists such as these two can get in the way of unmasking the delusional belief systems such as the Big Bang, which are propagated by these and many other scientists. It is of no consequence whether these scientists believe in God or not, which they don’t.

What is of consequence is that they have created out of whole cloth a new creation myth which is no more capable of proof than the Biblical creation myth. They want to be the proprietors of this new Big Bang creation myth, which is every bit as fuzzy and mystical as the Biblical and other world-wide creation myths they propose to supplant. In their true belief in their intellectual superiority they have become the authors of the new Bible, which contains their description of outer space and the origin of humanity as being the received truth.

Their version of the creation myth is ultimately a completely materialistic explanation of how we got to be who we are in the here and now. It’s a wonder how they can even include thought or feeling in their narrative of creation. Neither thoughts nor feelings are in any way material in nature. You can’t touch or quantify either of these attributes of humanity. Further, they use mathematics to prove their materialistic theories. Yet mathematics itself is in any way material in nature. Math is abstraction based on thought. You can’t touch or quantify the abstract qualities of mathematics. Putting the symbols on a piece of paper is not the essence of math. Math is a form of thought. So these scientists are using abstract concepts, and thoughts which are not capable of being quantified, to attempt to prove a wholly material concept of the origin of the world and to explain the presence of humanity here where we are today. So am I the only one who sees a contradiction in the reasoning process here?

Even though they will deny it with vigor, Krauss and Dawkins have the same need as the rest of humanity to have a Received Truth to live by. Their imagined version of creation is for them a miraculous substitute for the psychological need for religious belief we are all born to. They need a miraculous and far-reaching story of creation just as most of us do. They need to believe. We need to believe. The need for belief is one of the foundations of the human experience. Belief is really all we have. Without belief all we have is the chaos and fear and ambiguity of daily existence, which for them and for most of us is an intolerable situation, fraught with dread and anxiety.

In Part Two of this blog I’m going to tell you some things about science which you will find hard to believe. It’s going to be fairly dramatic, so make sure you don’t miss it.