Science And The Coming Dark Age
2004 10 07
By Michael Goodspeed
"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." Paul C. Lauterbur, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, whose seminal paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by Nature.
"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
--Thomas H. Huxley
Since we were little children, we have all been taught that the salvation of our once deeply confused and primitive species was -- and is -- science. Scientific reasoning, the ability to determine the truth through systematic and repeated observation, anchors mankind in rationality and sanity, keeping us safe from the turbulent sea of ignorance and superstition. We have science to thank for proving that the world is not flat, the moon is not made of cheese, and ghosts and demons do not run rampant when darkness falls on the earth.
But the same text-books that extoll the magnificence of scientific achievement and discovery fail to mention the numerous black eyes of science. Many are unaware that below the visible exterior of this noble endeavor lies a dark underbelly of corruption, greed, and political warfare.
Everyone is familiar with the travails and injustices suffered by some of history's great scientific pioneers, the most famous being Copernicus and Galileo. These "dangerous" mavericks paid an enormous price for challenging traditional assumptions. Unbeknownst to many, this pattern of suppression and censorship, directed at those who "think outside the box," has continued into the modern era.
In the field of cosmology - the study of how the universe began, how it works, and where it is going - a number of popular theories are considered so "obviously true" that few dare to challenge them. The big bang, black holes, dark matter, and the fundamental theory of gravitational dominance in the Universe are widely presented as FACTS by the scientific mainstream. But what if I told you that a key underpinning of these popular THEORIES has already been disproved by Space Age discoveries?
I am not a scientist, and have no exotic theory to peddle. But even I -- a common man with no training in the sciences -- know that the big bang theory is false. I repeat, I KNOW this...and so do many in the Establishment. They just haven't gotten around to telling you yet.
The big bang, or rather the reasoning behind the theory, has been shattered by recent images from space. This may seem like a bold assertion, but it's not. It's an indisputable fact. The most fundamental assumption behind the big bang has been proven wrong. I will explain why in plain English.
The entire rationale for the big bang rests on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called REDSHIFT. The light from distant objects in space is shifted towards the RED. What does this mean?
Many years ago, it was concluded that redshift could only mean that the space objects were moving away from the observer, stretching out the lightwaves emanating from the objects. This enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. It was from these calculations that they were driven to a pre-ordained conclusion: if all of the objects are moving farther away, it must mean that the universe is EXPANDING. If the universe is expanding, it could not be traced back indefinitely - it must have had a STARTING POINT. This required an unimaginable EXPLOSION capable of producing the expansion of the entire universe. In 2003, a team of scientists placed this event at between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years ago (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html).
One reason for the ambivalence as to the size and age of the universe is the discovery of QUASARS - a revelation that shattered the previous picture of the heavens. Quasars are highly energetic stars that are the most "redshifted" objects in the universe. In fact, they are so strongly shifted towards the red that the astronomers' scale put them outside the previously imagined boundaries of the universe. Moreover, at that distance, they must be more GIGANTIC than any star previously imagined by astronomers.
These conclusions were, by the astronomers' own admissions, inescapable. And they became the foundation for modern cosmology - the so-called Queen of the Sciences.
This picture CANNOT BE CORRECT. It can now be shown indisputably that quasars are not super giants at the outer edges of the universe. They are physically and energetically connected to the CLOSEST galaxies. For years, this observation has been made by Halton Arp, the leading authority on peculiar galaxies, who has amassed direct evidence that the universe is not expanding, and there never was a big bang.
Most recently, on October 3, 2003, the Hubble telescope photographed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds obstructing all objects behind its core. In front or close to the front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted QUASAR. This means that the quasar is NOT at the outer regions of the universe...but NEARBY. Its redshift has nothing to do with velocity or distance - it is just an intrinsic, and yet unexplained, QUALITY of the quasar. And that means that the astronomers' assumptions about redshift, and everything that logically followed, are FALSE. (This image may be viewed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod-archive-04/tpod-quasar-in-front-of-galaxy.htm)
This revelation, so devastating to cherished theory, has not gone unnoticed. A group of distinguished astronomers, including Halton Arp himself, presented a paper on this very subject to the American Astronomical Society meeting in January 2004. The paper has also been submitted to an astronomical journal, with a peer review committee recommending heavy "editing" before publication. Permission to publish has yet to be granted.
There is more to this story, and the facts grow increasingly unsettling. Halton Arp has been delivering critical information to astronomers for many years, and has paid a heavy price. Eventually, the astronomical community DENIED Arp further telescope time, forcing him to leave the United States to carry on his work (he is now affiliated with the Max Planck Institute in Germany.) The people responsible for these actions no doubt felt they were justified in ostracizing Arp for the "greater good." But the evidence is becoming clear that this is yet another black mark on science that will not be easily removed.
Recently, dozens of top scientists, including Arp, Eric J. Lerner, and Michael Ibison authored an open letter to the scientific community, arguing that the dominance of big bang theory "rests more on funding decision than on the scientific method." They write: "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible..." (Source: http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm)
Members of the general public need to fully understand the enormity of the stakes here. This is not just an issue for academicians fascinated by cosmology. The issue will affect the direction and quality of education for decades. It will also affect the ability of teachers to attract and inspire new students. And it will affect the path of space age exploration, involving BILLIONS of dollars in public expenditure. How would John Q. Public feel if he knew that his tax dollars are being spent to perpetuate a discredited picture of the universe?
It must also be noted that major universities, laboratories, and research institutions are currently in rapid transition to something called "Internet II." The stated purpose of this project is to "facilitate the research and education missions of universities" and their affiliated institutions. That sounds benevolent enough, but as Servado Gonzalez writes in his article "Kiss Your Internet Goodbye": "Internet 2 will be fully controlled by the state. In order to access it, or to have e-mail access, you must be a member of, or be affiliated to, any of the government-authorized organizations and have a sort of security clearance. Internet 2 will be out of the reach of the general public..." (Source: http://www.rense.com/general36/inter.htm).
It is now clear that the Establishment is taking deliberate measures to insulate itself from criticism by "outsiders." If you are a member of the general public who wants to stay abreast of scientific research and discoveries - including new images from space - you will be increasingly denied the ORIGINAL DATA. What you will get is information filtered through politically and financially motivated organizations. What will happen to the TRUTH in this scenario?
Science may have lifted mankind from the abyss of the "dark age," but it also has the power to pull us back in.
Article From: http://www.rense.com/general58/darkage.htm