Running Rings Around Big Science

I don't know if this comes through in my musings here, but I'm one of those people who looks in the opposite direction if someone calling themselves an "authority" tells me to look in a certain direction.  I'm not a complete contrarian, in that I think "authorities" usually include some truth in their pronouncements in order to buy credibility.

For that reason, when I was told that "all credible scientists" agree on Global Warming and anyone who goes against the pronouncement ought to be strung up, I figured there was some kind of significant climate event coming, but that it wasn't warming.  Sure enough, years of research on solar cycles, weather patterns and the like have led me to conclude that we are heading straight into a Mini Ice Age, not unlike the various solar minima that have come and gone just in recorded history.

When the "authorities" told us that a "lone gunman" killed JFK, I immediately figured there was more to see.  A lot of smart people have come to that conclusion, as well, as they did a far more thorough job of investigating than the Warren Commission did.

When the "authorities" told me that 19 Arabs hi-jacked four planes and flew them into buildings, and that those buildings could be reduced to rubble by the event, I was more than a bit skeptical.  Most certainly, the Building 7 collapse should have clued in most conscious people, though I certainly know some otherwise smart people who just can't bring themselves to see that fact.

So when "authorities" tell me that evolution is true and a stable Universe is the norm, I immediately start looking into the matters myself.  Of course, evolution is quite easy to disprove, but not many people try.  Instead, they repeat it as if gospel truth without even scratching the surface for themselves.

And speaking of gospels, I don't have much time for religion, either.

So it was that I began investigating the Asteroid Belt.  I'll assume this audience is smart enough to at least know what and where the Asteroid Belt is, but it may not know some of the fascinating theories out there, nor the compelling proofs for its origin.

The Standard Model says that the Solar System congealed out of a thin disk of dust and gas, much like Saturn's Rings, but much larger and orbiting the Sun.  Over time, the dust and gas clumped together to form planets, the same way snow balls grow larger as they roll downhill.  Naturally, the "authorities" hide the fact that they can't make the model work, even with the largest supercomputers because, for one thing, there hasn't been enough time in the hypothetical 4,5 billion years to form the outermost planets.  Nor do they tell us that there are piles of data that don't fit the model and are just dismissed as "anomalies."  Anomaly is a code word for, "Oops, that doesn't fit our preconceived ideas."

The Standard Model says that the asteroids are bits of debris that never formed a planet because Jupiter's gravity kept mixing them up.  The "authorities" expect that you won't look too closely at this pronouncement, and do something stupid like calculate Jupiter's gravitational pull at the asteroid belt, since gravity drops off rather quickly as a function of the distance from an object, making the planet's effect on the asteroids rather negligible.  Hell, if it were that great, Jupiter would have vacuumed up the Asteroid Belt a long time ago.

Anyway, a fellow by the name of Thomas van Flandern many years ago came up with the Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH).  The idea of an exploded planet wasn't new.  It had been proposed before, but van Flandern did an amazing amount of calculating and found that if you roll back the orbits of the asteroids and several of the short-period comets, they all converged on a single point at 3.2 million years ago, and again at 65 million years ago.  Coincidentally, those two dates line up nicely with two mass extinctions on Earth.

That's just the beginning.

There are four basic types of asteroids, according to the Tholen Taxonomy, based on their compositions as determined from their light spectra: C, S, X and M, with a number of sub-types depending on amounts of various minerals.  One can think of these four groups simply as coal, rock, ice, and "not sure" respectively.  In other words, chunks of all the stuff that make up the four inner rocky planets, just in small, discrete packages rather than a big ball.  Pretty much what you'd expect if you blew up a planet - chunks of carbon, chunks of rock, chunks of ice, and some mixed up pieces.

The reason they all had to come from a planet already formed is that the chunks (i.e. asteroids) are differentiated.  If they were all left-overs that never formed a planet, thanks to Jupiter, we wouldn't expect to find nice balls of separated minerals, but rather a mish-mash of stuff that never quite formed up.

Next, the asteroids aren't scattered evenly around their orbital plane.  Instead, they are primarily clumped together on one side, with a somewhat smaller scattering of pieces on the other side.

The asteroids form four distinct "rings," separated by the so-called Kirkwood Gaps, with larger pieces closer in and smaller ones further out.  This leads some researchers to speculate that there might have been two, even three planets that exploded, with the largest - sometimes called Planet V/5 - being closest to Mars.  Just so you know, the second one is called Planet K (Krypton).

All of this only includes what is known as the Main Belt of asteroids.  There are several others, like the Centaurs and the Kuipers that spread out across the entire Solar System.

Anyway, back to the EPH.  If a planet exploded, we would expect to find evidence of a shock wave in the Solar System, right?  Well, we do.

Our Moon's far side looks like it was hit by a shotgun blast.  One hemisphere of Mars is rough and cratered and 2 kilometers higher than the other (splatter effect).  Saturn's moon Iapetus is black as coal on one side and white as snow on the other.  In fact, many Solar System objects show hemispheric dichotomy that can easily be explained by a shock wave spreading rocks and carbon from a central point.

There are also the Early (EHB) and Late Heavy Bombardments (LHB).  These theories propose a cataclysmic events that caused the heavy cratering seen on the Moon's far side, among other things.  The LHB is thought to have occurred around 4.1 million years ago to 3.8 million years ago.  This corresponds fairly well with van Falndern's Planet V explosion around 3.2 million years ago.  This event aligns fairly well with the Pliocene–Pleistocene mass extinction.

So what's the point of this exercise?

Authoritative Science tells us we have it all figured out.  We understand how life arose, we know how the Solar System evolved.  We know how long our Sun has been around and how long it will live.  We even know how long ago the entire Universe started, though how it will end is still up for debate.  In other words, there is little more to understand and learn.  The frontiers are closing and humans have nothing more than some minor details to iron out.

Not only are these pronouncements patently false, they make for a very boring Universe in which there is nothing left to learn.

In fact, all Authoritative Science has done is take Biblical scripts and modernized them, with some fancy frilly stuff to make it all look very modern and high-techy.  The truth is we know nothing, especially for certain, and that the Universe is still wide open for discovery.  The Standard Model and Evolution Theories are full of irreparable holes that are constantly being patched with black holes, multi-dimensional strings and dark energy/matter, not to mention that evolution cannot get past Irreducible Complexity.

The Universe is far more mysterious and interesting when we toss out the mythological rewrites of ancient texts and look with fresh eyes at the space around us.  It is high time to realize that Authoritative Science is doing little more than spinning comforting tales that make us feel like we are still the center of the Universe and can control our environment.

When we tame our egos and our childish need for bedtime stories, suddenly the Universe opens again to curiosity and our innate desire to learn.

Wish Upon A Star

A topic that has fascinated me since childhood is astronomy.  As a young teen, living on the farm, I had a pretty nice telescope that I spent many hours in the thick darkness of central Texas nights staring into infinity.

When stories such as the recent discovery of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, now called Proxima b, is announced, I immediately start clicking away.

For those who aren't as geeky as I am, the reason this is big news is that Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the Sun, at only a little over 4 light years away.  With chemical rockets, such as are popular in public acknowledged space programs, it would take a probe about 25,000 years to get there.  Makes you wanna jump in the family wagon and head out, don't it?

It's often difficult for most folks to imagine just how incredibly vast the Universe is.  The fastest moving craft ever publicly announced is the New Horizons probe that recently made headlines as it barreled headlong past Pluto on its way to oblivion.  That little sucker took nine years just to get to the edge of the solar system.  Proxima b is a few trillion miles beyond that.  You'd have to run back and forth from the Earth to the Sun 270,000 times to equal a one-way trip to Proxima Centauri.

Don't make your holiday plans just yet.

Proxima Centauri is a rather...um, alien star.  It is a little bit bigger than Jupiter, is a deep red color, and is part of a 3-star system called alpha-Centauri.  The other two stars are a bit more like our Sun.  The new planet orbits closer to Proxima than Mercury does to the Sun, yet the cooler temperature of that star puts the planet in a relatively comfortable position.

Just to be clear, since you would never know this from reading the mainstream "science" reporting, is that the planet has not been seen directly, so any talk of being "Earth-like" or rocky is complete conjecture.  All we really know is that the star wobbles a bit, implying a planet about a third bigger than the Earth is pulling on the star as it orbits...assuming the planet is roughly the same density as Earth.

In other words, everything we think we know about this planet is inferred from secondary evidence.  That is to say, we heard what sounded like a gun shot several blocks away and assumed that a robbery was in progress at the local Stop-n-Gobble because the sound came from that direction.  That's in effect all we know at this time.

What all of this is getting to, in my characteristic round-about way, is that no matter how many amazing discoveries they crow at us in the media, in reality we know next to nothing as fact.  Most of it is piles of calculations based on inferences and conjectures.  Even if we wanted to verify the facts with our current technology (at least publicly admitted), it would take two or three times the history of civilization to get there and look around, and four and a half years to report the data by radio waves.

Ultimately, for all the reported "discoveries," we really know little more than we did 100 years ago.  Based on gravitational theory and some observed light curves from a distant object, "scientists" have announced a new exoplanet.  Frankly, that kind of evidence wouldn't hold up in court.  It is generally labelled hear-say and circumstantial.

This leads us to two possible conclusions: (1) some "scientists" are looking to pad their grant portfolio by announcing a newly "discovered" planet, aided and abetted by know-nothing "science" media; or (2) this information is coming from first-hand data using a technology that is completely off the books, and the information is being "seeded" into our culture as a way to slowly reveal the tech.

The arguments for the first conclusion are well established.  We are well aware of how the media are nothing more than press-release editors and do precious little questioning of official pronouncements.  The unquestioning reporting of black holes, gravity waves and other fantasies shows this quite well.

On the other side, folks like Richard Dolan and Joseph Farrell have made strong arguments for hidden technologies and break-away civilizations living at a level of knowledge, and thus culture, far above the rest of us.  Certainly, being able to get to Proxima Centauri in a matter of hours or days would help quite a bit, and add quite a bit of credence to the always-anonymous "scientists'" pronouncements.

In either case, we are staring at a massive, steaming pile of horse puckies.  One way of the other, a bunch of folks are hiding either a great deal of ignorance, or a great deal of information.  It's difficult to say which is worse, since both involve a massive deception, although I suppose hiding real information is slightly worse than making it up, since it implies that someone knows more than the rest of us and can make better decisions based on it.

At any rate, just some thoughts on this fine Augustian Friday in the Year of Our Deception 2016.

And by the way, what ever happened to those mysterious lights on Ceres?  For some reason, the "science" media went completely dead on the subject, just as the Dawn probe reached optimum mapping orbit.  According to the NASA website, we seem to know an awful lot about what's inside the "dwarf" planet, but golly-gee-whiz, we just can't figure out what's sitting on the surface.

And the pile gets deeper.

Einstein Is A Senile Old Fart

Ugh!  I get so tired of Corporate Science ramming complete fiction down our throats.  Even worse is the way we "lay people" just swallow it and move along.  No one ever stops to say, "Hey!  Wait a minute..."

The thing is we are all conned into thinking we can't handle such lofty thoughts as General and Special Relativity, and that we can't rise to the Olympian heights of Einstein and Hawking.

The fact of the matter is, these guys are just making this shit up in order to sound like they know what they are talking about.  Honestly!  They have no more idea than you or me how the Universe works, so they cover their ignorance in meaningless symbols and sell it to us as Life, the Universe and Everything, so they can pocket the grant money and Nobel Prizes for...well, nothing.  Literally.

Bear with me for a few minutes, and I will prove that you are smarter than Einstein and Hawking combined!  I'll even throw in Neil deGrasse Tyson just to up the ante a bit.  This will require a tiny bit of thinking, but I promise it won't hurt, and that crashing sound will be all the rubbish you learned in school collapsing to the ground.  When we are done, you can read this article and laugh out loud at the ignorance behind it, just like I did.

1. Time
OK, this is the hardest part of the whole thing.  Right now, without thinking about it, point in the direction of Time.  Got it?

Now, which way did you point?  Ah, see the problem?  Time isn't a dimension.  It's a concept.  It has not existence in reality.  We just made it up by dividing all the various cycles in our world into small pieces so that we could all be late for our appointments.  A second is the average length of a human heart beat.  An hour is 1/24th of the Earth's rotation.  A month is one orbit of the Moon around the Earth.  A year is one orbit around the Sun.  A Great Year is one precession of the Earth's poles (~24,000 years).  The only thing important to the Universe is that effect always follows cause.  That's not Time, the way we think of it, because there is no standard amount of waiting between cause and effect without some reference system, such as the human heart beat.

2. Space
Space is nothing more than a set of coordinates.  It is not tangible, can not be rippled, and it has no relation to time other than we measure how many heart beats it takes to get from one point to another.  Space is defined as six discrete points on 3 axes: x, y and z.  Why five points?  Well, in order to define the location of an object, we need six references: we need an object, an observer, two x points left and right of the object, and two y points above and below the object.  Since there are only three spacial dimensions, why do we need six points?  Good question.

You need an object to measure (point one).  You need an observer (point two).  Together, these two points give us the z axis.  Then, you need reference points in order to define x and y.  These points define an imaginary surface, or plane, on which to project a scale (inches, feet, meters, kilometers, etc.).  Notice that none of this involves time, since time has nothing to do with locating something in space.

Since space is nothing more than a set of coordinates used to local objects in reference to an observer, it has no physical existence.  It is not a plasma, liquid, gas or solid.  It can not be rippled, waved or bent.  It is just a set of numbers so I can find, or tell you how to find, an object.

3. Gravity
The best way to think of gravity is static electricity.  Objects stick to the face of the Earth because, like dipole magnets, opposites attract.  The positive Earth attracts out negative body to it's center.  We stop because the the bonds between the atoms of the Earth's surface repel the bonds between the atoms of our bodies.  So we are stuck to the surface like socks are to your shirt in the dryer.  If we could change the polarity of the Earth, everything would fly off of it, rather than stick to it.

Most importantly, there is no gravitational constant.  Sure, on Earth gravity always works at 32 feet/second squared, but it changed when you go into orbit, or the Moon, or Mars, or the Sun.  To force Earth normal on the entire Universe is...well, ridiculous.

Finally, gravity is 20 billion times weaker than the Weak Nuclear Force (see below), so it has little or no effect on the structure and function of the Universe.

4. Forces of Nature
Everything in the Universe is some manifestation of electricity.  All objects interact using one of more of the Four Natural Forces: 1) Electro-Magnetic, 2) Strong Nuclear, 3) Weak Nuclear, and 4) Gravitation.  Given what we already know about gravity, we can probably eliminate this one and put all the effects of it under #1.  Of the remaining three, they guide the way all particles in the Universe interact, from the atomic level to the super-galactic level.  They are observable at every scale, and can be reproduced in any laboratory with the right tools.

No need for CERN, LIGO or any of these other multi-billion dollar BOHICA machines whose results can never be verified because there are no other machines to duplicate the results (e.g. it ain't science).  From the quantum to the macro, everything works on the same principles.  The only difference between an atom and a galaxy is scale.

So, now we come to Black Holes.  These are conceptual things that do not exist, but were created to correct some of the many problems with Einstein's Relativity.  See, Einstein simplified a lot of things to make his formulas easier to solve.  In doing so, he made it impossible for his results to be scaled up to the Universe at large, and thus a lot of chewing gun and bailing wire had to be used to make it work.  Black Holes are a huge piece of chewing gum.

One of the biggest problems with Black Holes is one of the easiest and most obvious to see.  Hawking, Tyson and all their drinking buddies will tell you that the Universal speed limit is the speed of light, and the escape velocity from the surface/even horizon of a black hole is the speed of light.  But black holes are black because light can't escape.

Immedicately, they are in a bind.  Either light can escape because it is travelling the speed of light, or the speed of light is not constant in the Universe.  Either way, the entire foundation of General Relativity comes crashing down.  See the problem?

Instead of admitting this inherent contradiction, they cover it up with lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo and a few $64 words and keep going, knowing that the educational system is so bad, no one will ever question this slight-of-hand.  Rather, what we get is a menagerie of black holes, from micro to super-massive, and folks like NASA claiming to have "found" 2.5 million of them.  For us smart folks, every time you read about a new black hole, just think to yourself, "Ah, another mystery they can't explain."  That's the purpose of black holes, really.  They just cover up mysteries with them so they don't have to do real work and can get billions in free money to investigate their own slight-of-hand.

All modern cosmology is little more than a bunch of magicians telling us they don't do "tricks."  It's "real magic" and by the way, we don't understand how it's done, so could you slip up a few billion to try and figure this out?

And by the way, you can prove the speed of light is not constant AND explain "gravitational lensing" with a very simple experiment in your kitchen.  Take a clear glass.  Fill it with water.  Take a spoon and put it in the glass.  Now look at it from the side.  See how the spoon looks bent?  You've just proved Einstein, Hawking, Tyson, and a whole bunch of other numbnuts wrong.

Don't you feel smart now?