Why CERN’s Big Bang Research is a BIG FRAUD
By Anonymous Patriots
We pointed out in our previous article on CERN: The Biggest Science Scam in History, the big bang theory, upon which CERN’s science is based, is nothing more than that – a theory, and an inadequate one to boot. There are now dozens of better theories that have empirical evidence behind them that the big bang lacks. There is simply no evidence to support the big bang theory. Yet, if you talk to a university professor in particle physics about this, you will likely get pretentious physics jargon that threatens to verbally slap you into submission for desecrating the Holy Grail of the big bang.
In the article mentioned above, we used basic high school physics to dispute the big bang and are at a loss why our simple questions cannot be answered in plain English by a CERN physicist.
So now, we bring in the heavy science to demonstrate point out that the big bang is pure fiction. The following two dozen debunkings of the big bang are only the tip of the iceberg.
Direct observation of galaxies show that every mature galaxy has either a super-massive black hole in the center or an ion jet. These black holes suck in and “disappear” millions of stars. Conversely, ion jets spin out millions of stars from its super brilliant column of ionic energy. Stars and solar systems are created by ion jets and “eaten” by super-massive black holes. There is no other observation that needs be made to disprove the big bang.
With the Hubble telescope, 200 billion galaxies have been mapped and many have been analyzed to find the consistent pattern of oscillating galactic ion jets and super-massive black holes. The order of galactic creation does not need an ejaculatory explosion theory to explain what Mother Nature does through rhythm oscillations between creation and destruction.
CERN has become the church and altar of secular humanist scientists, who are spiritless materialists that worship the God-entity they call the Big Bang. Physical, tangible matter is the only God for scientists who believe they are annihilated and become nothing more than dust after death. Therefore, what does a materialistic scientist care if he blows up the world? At least he has the satisfaction that he, and he alone, destroyed the order of the universe.
CERN is a science machine/weapon that contends with the power of God by claiming it can produce the same atmosphere that existed during creation. And if that hubris isn’t enough, CERN claims it can go beyond matter and has the capacity to open doorways between dimensions. CERN even plans to try to stick anti-matter through the doorway to “see what happens.”
The only thing consistent about CERN is its childish insistence that it is equal to or greater than the Divine. The clear problem with this argument is that physicists don’t believe in God or a “moment of creation.” The reason that CERN uses these references to the divine is to create complex brain patterns called narrative networks. As outlined in our article False Flags are Legal Propaganda Directed by the Department of Defense, reference to spiritual concepts creates higher order narrative networks. These narrative networks of the divine are used to brain-wash and indoctrinate “believers” in science.
Make no mistake, the science put forth by the CERN operations is just a type of religion that requires belief and faith. So far, none of its experiments, or rather scientific pronouncements, have been replicated by any other collider scientist in the world.
Here are some more considerations that we, with our high school science backgrounds and love of the Discovery channel, would suggest that physicists consider before asking U. S. taxpayers to pay another dollar for CERN’s fraudulent pseudo-science.
(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models. The big bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the big bang. (Adapted from Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13-2002)
(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. The intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the big bang were close enough to qualify as successes and the big bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.
(3) Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. The best the big bang can claim is consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element.
(4) The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space.
(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. It isn’t as if the big bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the big bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance.
(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older, which creates several new problems for the big bang.
(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. The only big bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the big bang.
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. The big bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected.
(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts than the highest-redshift quasars. The big bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies.
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity. Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the big bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy.”
(11) “Pencil-beam surveys” show large-scale structure out to distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite directions from us. The big bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on scales of distance larger than about 20 Mpc, so there apparently is far more large-scale structure in the universe than the big bang can explain.
(12) The big bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so far without success.
(13) Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s Lyman-alpha emission line.
(14) An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters. Lensing amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too weak to explain this association between high- and low-redshift objects. This apparent contradiction has no solution under big bang premises that does not create some other problem.
(15) The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies.
(16) In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences from homogenous distribution were found out to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. The big bang, of course, requires large-scale homogeneity. The Meta Model and other infinite-universe models expect fractal behavior at all scales. Observations remain in agreement with that.
(17) Elliptical galaxies supposedly bulge along the axis of the most recent galaxy merger. But the angular velocities of stars at different distances from the center are all different, making an elliptical shape formed in that way unstable. Such velocities would shear the elliptical shape until it was smoothed into a circular disk. Where are the galaxies in the process of being sheared?
(18) Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies and quasars. So are other properties of galaxies. This should not happen under big bang premises.
(19) The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used to determine the temperature of the intergalactic medium.
(20) Measurements of the two-point correlation function for optically selected galaxies follow an almost perfect power law over nearly three orders of magnitude in separation. However, this result disagrees with n-body simulations in all the big bang’s various modifications.
(21) The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. The relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the big bang.
(22) The luminosity evolution of brightest cluster galaxies (BGCs) cannot be adequately explained by a single evolutionary model.
(23) The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (globular clusters) were able to form remains unsolved in the big bang. It is no mystery in infinite universe models.
(24) Blue galaxy counts show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of space is larger than in the big bang, where it should get smaller as one looks back in time.
Other related articles by Anonymous Patriots
Is CERN a False Flag?