Sunday, February 10, 2019


Let’s look at the four scientific theories favored by mainstream scientists today that, in the previous post, I have said are demonstrably false:

The Big Bang Theory is defined in an online Science Dictionary as “A cosmological model which describes early development of the universe. It occured around 13.798 billion years ago, resulting in extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.

This definition, found on a website proclaiming itself to be “The World’s Largest Online Science Dictionary” is, in my opinion, an inaccurate, confused and confusing definition that is internally inconsistent and raises more questions about the big bang theory than it answers.

The first sentence contradicts the meaning of the word theory by flatly proclaiming that it, the big-bang cosmological model, describes [the] early development of the universe. It would be more accurate to say that it attempts to describe the early development of the universe, because whether it actually does or not, is unknown. That’s why it is called a theory. A theory is a hypothesis until it has been proved to be true, and an accurate description of what actually happened “around 13.798 billion years ago” by direct evidence. That hasn’t happened. It is still a theory.

The second sentence is grammatically incorrect because the subject of the sentence, “It”, ostensibly refers to the subject of the first sentence, the big bang theory, “a cosmological model” which I’m pretty sure did not occur around 13.798 billion years ago. It is meant, of course, to refer to an actual explosion, which has not been indisputably proved to have happened at all.

Incidentally, grammatically necessary connectives are absent in both sentences, and the word ‘occurred’ is misspelled in the second sentence on the website. But these  syntactic errors are so insignificant relative to the other problems with the definition, that it’s hardly worth mentioning them. I do so only to point out that it is consistent with the sloppiness of the entry and reveals that it was not checked for grammar or spelling.

The more interesting problem with the second sentence is the implication that the big bang occurred in a state and environment of absolute nothingness “resulting in [an] extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.” This tries to avoid the question of what was before the big bang. Thus this ‘definition’ implies that the big bang theory is a form of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), a doctrine invented by early Roman Catholic theologians after the original teachings of the pre-Christian Judeans, Jesus and the first Christian theologian, Origin, were subverted by the Emperor Justinian in his anathemas against Origin, in 553 AD.

What appears at first glance to be a better definition, offered by the American Heritage Dictionary, is: “
A scientific theory describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy approximately 13.7 billion years ago from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.

This definition avoids the logically indefensible creatio ex nihilo, but runs afoul of logic, perhaps even more profoundly, by saying that everything was in “a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.” If it was a singular point (a mathematical singularity) the density and temperature would have been infinite or  undefinable, not just “extremely high”, and then the question arises of how everything got into that infinitely compressed state in the first place.

Another definition that avoids creatio ex nihilo is found on Princeton’s Wordnet. Big bang: “The theory that the universe originated sometime between10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature.”

Their use of the word “cataclysmic” is a poor choice because cataclysmic means catastrophic, disastrous, dreadful, or devastating. This raises the question: What existed before the big bang to be devastated? The assumption that a “small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature” existed before the big bang raises the questions of how that small blob of matter came to exist, and what caused it to suddenly explode?  If the big bang was the original event resulting in everything that exists today, It could not have been “big”, or a “bang”, or catastrophic. Such terms are attempts to describe something indescribable, suggested by evidence that the universe is expanding, in terms of things that exist today.

While very popular because it is easily visualized, the big bang theory has been plagued with serious problems from the beginning. When inferred by simply running cosmic events backward in an expanding universe, the big bang theory fails because the universe has objects in it, determined by independent evidence to be older than the universe itself. This problem was addressed by proposing that there was a period of rapid expansion, when the universe was expanding much faster than the speed of light. This had to have occurred before any matter as we know it came into existence. But, like quantum mechanics, the rapid inflation theory requires that time and space are not what we think they are.

The fact is, the big bang theory is only one possibility that can be inferred from the evidence that the universe is expanding. A much more logical possibility is that there was no absolute beginning before which there was nothing, and the expansion is either an illusion, or it has a cause. The idea of a universal origin event is dependent upon the concept of absolute nothingness, which is logically indefensible because it requires creatio ex nihilo. Does this mean, as some scientists claim, there is no need for a creator, a higher intelligence or God? No, it does not. It means that something has always existed, whether it was a physical universe or something else, which may have included a primary form of consciousness. With the application of the calculus of distinctions, a quantum calculus, leading to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality, the existence of an eternal primary consciousness is implied.

Conclusion: There was no big bang as hypothesized by materialist science.

The 13.8 billion-year finite age of the universe is estimated based on the mistaken idea that there was a big bang. But there was no big bang.

Conclusion: The universe has always existed in some form, and will always exist in some form.

Modern science estimates the age of the Earth based on radioactive dating methods. Using these methods, the oldest rocks found on Earth (small zircon crystals found in Western Australia) are dated at about 4.4 billion years. the oldest known minerals found in meteorites are dated at about 4.567 billion years. Scientists conclude that this puts the age for the solar system and the upper limit for the age of our planet at about 4.5 billion years. Reference: Dalrymple G. Brent, Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings. Stanford, 2004.
There are two problems with this conclusion: radioactive dating assumes that the flow of time is uniform and constant over all space and time, which we now know is not true; and the entire crust that forms the surface of the Earth, including the meteorites that fall on it, is recycled by plate-tectonic subduction and continent building approximately every 2.5 to 3.8 billion years.

Conclusion: The age of the oldest rocks and minerals found today on or in the crust of the Earth, is not necessarily the actual age of the solar system or the planet Earth.

The idea of something from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not supported by empirical evidence, and Einstein’s general relativity shows that the measurement of spacetime is relative to the motion and proximity of the observer to massive objects. So time is different in different inertial systems, and in different parts of the universe. All available evidence supports the mathematical accuracy of describing dynamic change in cycles advancing through multi-dimensional spacetime, not absolute beginnings and ends. There is no reason to believe that the development of civilizations is immune from cyclic change.

In The Holy Science, a book written by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, an astronomer and life-long student of Vedic wisdom, the period of the rise and fall of consciousness on this planet was calculated to occur in about 24,000 year cycles, consisting of 12,000 years in an ascending arc, and 12,000 years in a descending arc, for a total of 24,000 years. (See the Figure below.) Text Box:        12,500 AD
                11,500 BC

       Ascent            1894          500 AD                             Descent  
Kali Yuga and Dwapara Treta Satya - CHRONOLOGY of Gyanavatar Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri from HOLY SCIENCE

In addition, he calculated that, at the time he was writing the Holy Science in 1894, we had advanced 194 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga, the first period above the lowest point. Since the ascending Kali Yuga (the ascending half of the lowest Yuga, the period of nearly total absence of mental virtue, science and spirituality) is 1200 years, the nadir of development in this cycle was about 500 AD, very close to the year (553 AD) when Justinian usurped the power of the Pope and subverted the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Origen. We are now, in 2018, about 318 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga. This means that the rise and fall of the mental virtue of sentient beings on this planet has occurred four times in the last 110,000 years, and we are 318 years into the fifth ascent.

Is there any empirical evidence supporting the existence of a high level of human development more than 10,000 years ago to be found on planet Earth? Yes, there is: In Southern Turkey, a mound called Gӧbekli Tepe (Round-belly Hill) has been excavated, and the oldest layer has been reliably dated to have been used from 10,800 to 11,600 years ago. It included 10-ton stone pillars decorated with stylized bas-relief sculptures of animals, distorted human arms and hands and cryptic symbols. There are other archeological sites with stone structures and carvings that very likely cannot be duplicated today, even with our modern technology. However, most of them are dated by archeologists as being built more recently than the stone pillars of Gӧbekli Tepe: The Egyptian Pyramids, 2,700 to 7,000 years ago, Stonehenge, about 5,000 years ago, Mayan ruins, 1,000 to 3,000 years ago, Puma Punku, Nasca Lines, etc., about 1,500 years ago.

At first glance, this evidence doesn’t seem to fit into Sri Yukteswar’s cycles of time. But this is because we have the erroneous idea that time is a uniform backdrop within which all events occur in a linear fashion. We are drawing the wrong conclusion because our ingrained idea about spacetime is false. It is based on the short-term appearance that time is linear and unidirectional, and that, along with space, time is everywhere uniform. But this completely ignores Einstein’s general relativity, and a key concept he expressed in his final addition to his work on relativity. He realized that space and time have no existence of their own. When we combine this understanding with Sri Yukteswar’s time cycles, things begin to make sense.

Even though  modern science is only a few hundred years old, we like to think that, if the mental virtue (scientific and spiritual understanding) of sentient beings was at an apex in 11,500 BC, then there should have been great cities with towering buildings, and wonderous machines all over the planet, yet there seems to be no evidence of that. Why? First, a lot may have been obliterated from the surface of the planet by erosion, plate-tectonic subduction, and other geologic processes, and even by human activity, in the 12,000 years of descent. Second, 12,000 ascending years of mental virtue and spiritual advancement may not result in anything even vaguely similar to what we have now, near the low point, things that we have developed within just a few hundred years. It is entirely possible that conscious beings may evolve mentally and spiritually in 12,000 years to the point where buildings, machines, and even physical bodies would be completely unnecessary.  - Imagine a planet returned to its natural pristine condition!

According to general relativity, the spacetime of a mass-energy system is defined by the periodicity of the rotation and revolution of objects within the system. Our hours, days and years are defined by the movements of the objects within our solar system, and what we call space, is defined by the mass-energy-consciousness field relationships between the objects of the system. Time within another solar system, thousands of light years away, may be passing at a very different rate relative to ours, because the rotations, revolutions and the masses of the objects in that system are different than in ours, and because of their motion relative to us.

The relationship of the rise and fall of civilizations to the most dominant periodic cycle of rotation in the physical system within which it exists, as stated by Sri Yukteswar, is reasonable because, as discovered in the development of TDVP, the stability and thus specific rotational dynamics of physical system is produced by the presence of gimmel in the atoms.

What about those sites with stone monuments, built with amazing engineering skill and precision, more than 1000, and less than 10,000 years ago, widespread around the world? Were they really built by the ancestors of the people now living there who were presumably less advanced than their descendants, who had nothing but primitive tools? Here are three possible answers to this question:
1.     Most of these sites were built at a time of mental virtue and spiritual understanding in the last descending age than where we are now in the new ascending age, so they may have had memories and/or records of higher knowledge from the last age of highest development that was lost as the world passed through the lowest point about 500 AD, when the Great Libraries in Alexandria, Caesarea and elsewhere were burned.

2.     Some of the sites may be far older than archeologists estimate, dating back to previous high points of development.

3.     They may have been built by extraterrestrials from more advanced civilizations within our galaxy, as temporary bases for various reasons.
It is conceivable that all three of these answers may be correct for some of the sites.

Conclusion: The current civilization is most likely NOT the most advanced development of conscious beings ever to exist on this planet.

1 comment:

  1. This definition avoids the logically indefensible creatio ex nihilo, but runs afoul of logic, perhaps even more profoundly, by saying that everything was in “a singular point of extremely high density and temperature. 500-651 Exam Dumps