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
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
FINITE UNIVERSE THEORY
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.
THE
AGE OF THE PLANET EARTH
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.
CIVILIZATION
ON THIS PLANET
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.)
Ascent 1894 500 AD Descent
Ascent 1894 500 AD Descent
|
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.
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
ReplyDelete