[Music]
In the beginning, a long time ago and far, 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,
but also life in the entire spectrum of the non-material or spiritual realm.
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. To posit otherwise is reification; making something unreal
into something real. A violation of rationality logic and reason, a breach of intellectual responsibility.
Secondly, since we are 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 cosmologist 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 its 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 ‘lying 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 PhD from Caltech. For 29 years he did his stellar work at
Palomar Observatory where he and his associated astronomers Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, 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 ‘Quasars Redshifts 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 ten patient years he got exercised 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, Redshifts 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 Seyfert Galaxies - evidently charge up and give birth to,
expel 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 six, six, six 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 who 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, who have never been able to fathom the
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, purpose, principles, values, and will.
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 worshiped, 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 who 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 one hundred percent go all-in for.
[Music]