A few complained cikljamas posted this in "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"

I see it's great for here. This will help the Globe Community understand why they have no choice but to accept defeat.

..............................................

Posted by cikljamas

Let me amuse you some more :

**The Big Bang Has Big Problems**

**Keating**: page 304: “Then it was Sungenis’s turn. Flora was not impressed by what she heard. ‘He argued that the mass of the universe isn’t accounted for by heliocentrism’ and ‘that scientists have added dark matter ad hoc to make equations work. He argued that if the Big Bang is true, the universe must be homogeneous and yet did not explain why that should be true. If anything, Newtonian physics—the law of universal gravitation—says that things would form in clumps as larger masses attracted smaller masses into them.’ This was an astute observation. If one posits that at the beginning of the Big Bang...matter or proto-matter was spewed out in all directions, it is hard to conceive how that material could have radiated exactly equally toward all distant point. If there were the slightest disturbance from equal distribution and speed, matter indeed would have begun to ‘form into clumps.’ When those clumps became large enough, they would have formed stars and various bodies that orbit stars. Perfect homogeneity is precisely what one would not expect to find. This means that the lack of homogeneity, which can be seen even with the naked eye, is no argument against the Big Bang.”

**R. Sungenis**: This is what happens when people who don’t study the issue begin to think they are experts on how to explain it when presented with challenges. Neither Keating nor Flora understand what the problem is. The Big Bang, in opposition to Steady State cosmology, believes in a beginning to our universe – an explosion of some undefined infinitesimal entity that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This entity is said to have been spawned from a previous universe, and that universe from an even earlier universe (which, as will see in chapter 3, is the same mysticism inherent in ancient Indian cosmology that believed the world rested on the backs of successive turtles). As if getting something from nothing is not enough of a problem, the second thorn in the side for the Big Bang appears when the rate of the explosion must be determined. If it’s too slow, the universe will go into what is called the “Big Crunch,” that is, gravity will pull all the exploding parts back together before it can evolve into the organized biophilic system we see today. If it’s too fast, the universe will be diffuse and likewise will not be able to produce galactic structure and biological life. Like Goldilocks and her porridge, the expansion must be just right otherwise life couldn’t exist (at least under modern science’s illusory belief in evolution as the mechanical process that produces life). Too boot, the amount of matter in the explosion must also be just right. Too much and the universe will not expand. Too little and no complex structures will be formed. As one scientist put it, **it’s like trying to balance a pencil on its point**. As one can see, modern cosmology is in a real pickle. But it didn’t start here. When **Newton** discovered gravity, one of his first problems was having to deal with **Copernicus**’ limited universe. **Newton** realized that the very gravity he discovered would eventually pull the stars into one massive ball. In order to compensate for this problem, **Newton** opted for an infinite universe. As time went by, science realized there were too many problems with an infinite universe, so **Einstein** tried to compensate for gravity by introducing an opposing force, which he called the “cosmological constant.” As **Misner**, et al, describe it:

*In 1915, when Einstein developed his general relativity theory, the permanence of the universe was a fixed item of belief in Western philosophy. “The heavens endure from everlasting to everlasting.” Thus, it disturbed Einstein greatly to discover that his geometrodynamic law ***G = 8πT** predicts a non-permanent universe; a dynamic universe; a universe that originated in a “big-bang” explosion, or will be destroyed eventually by contraction to infinite density, or both. Faced with this contradiction between his theory and the firm philosophical belief of the day, **Einstein** weakened; **he modified his theory**.

His new theory would reverse the effects of gravity and keep the universe from falling in on itself. The universe would remain static, not expanding or contracting. It would also follow **Mach’s principle**, wherein space was defined by the matter within it. But **Wilhelm de Sitter** didn’t follow **Mach’s rules** and created a variation for Einstein’s cosmological constant. **De Sitter** ignored all the matter of the universe and only concentrated on its quantum energy, an energy that would be enough to propel the expansion of the universe. So the choice was between Einstein’s static but matter-filled universe and de Sitter’s expanding but matter-deficient universe.

Next, **Alexander Friedmann** then fiddled with Einstein’s math and eliminated the cosmological constant and produced an expanding universe still under the constraints of General Relativity. But this required that he make the equations produce a universe whose matter was spread out evenly and was the same everywhere (i.e., isotropic and homogeneous), otherwise known as the “cosmological principle.” This made **Arthur Eddington** backtrack to point out that, even with the cosmological constant, an Einstein-type universe was not really static or balanced. Since gravity and Einstein’s cosmological constant (Λ) had to be balanced so perfectly (e.g., **like balancing a pencil on its point**), even minute fluctuations would produce a runaway expansion or an unstoppable contraction. The best **Friedmann** could do was propose a universe with enough matter (what he called “the critical density”) that would allow the universe to expand for eternity but at an ever decreasing rate, even though this solution itself was counterintuitive. As NASA puts it:

**Einstein** first proposed the cosmological constant...as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. **Einstein** thought the universe was static, so he added this new term [(Λ) lambda] to stop the expansion. **Friedmann**, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, **like balancing a pencil on its point**, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory.

In retrospect, when **Hubble** relieved some of the problem by interpreting the redshift of galaxies as a sign that the universe was expanding, still, in order to have the matter move yet remain homogeneous (as required by **Friedmann**’s equation), the value of its rate of expansion (H); as well as the value of its density (Ω); and the energy to propel the expansion (Λ), had to fulfill the Goldilocks rule – it had to be just right or there would be no universe. **Various scientists have spent their entire careers trying to figure out the perfect combination to these three numbers, but to no avail.** **Again, it is like trying to balance a pencil on its point.** This is what happens when the universe is made to start from a big bang instead of creative fiat – the math never produces what we actually see.** Postulating a big bang is easy. Making it work with all the other laws of science is impossible.**

The proponents of this convenient manipulation of data seem oblivious to their ploys. But **George Ellis** is not ashamed to admit that the whole thing is **based on wishing or presuming that the Copernican Principle** is true:

*Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe. Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that ***standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start**....The further issue that arises is that while some form of averaging process is in principle what one should do to arrive at the large scale geometry of the universe on the basis of observations, in practice what is normally done is the inverse. **One assumes a priori a FLRW model**** as a background model, and then uses some form of observationally-based fitting process to determine its basic parameters.**

As the famous 20th-century historian **Arthur C. Clarke** once said:

*“The lesson to be learned from these examples is one that can never be repeated too often, and is one that is seldom understood by laymen – who have an almost superstitious awe of mathematics. But mathematics is only a tool, though an immensely powerful one. ***No equations, however impressive and complex, can arrive at the truth if the initial assumptions are incorrect.** It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. What is even more incredible, they refuse to learn from experience; they will continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Some of my best friends are astronomers, and I am sorry to keep throwing stones at them – but they do seem to have an appalling record as prophets.”

----------------