Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers
He comments specifically on certain results in particle physics which, before they were obtained, would have been considered sufficient to falsify a particular theoretical prediction, but which afterwards ended up being incorporated into a revision of the theory.
His point is that, given the opportunity to inject endless revisions into a theory, there is no longer a standard by which it can be falsified. In the instances Oldershaw mentions it is evident that theorists consider they are in the repair business. The philosophy behind this mentality is of course the assumption that physicists have identified a core truth in whatever theory may be under study. All that is needed are continued modifications in order to asymptotically approach the final answer. To a certain extent it is this mentality that has guided the development of big-bang cosmology and has therefore, as Oldershaw points out, successfully blurred the distinction between theory and fact.
The sine qua non of physical science is empirical testing of hypotheses. Without this acid test we would have no way of distinguishing scientific gold from fools gold and we might come to view ourselves as being quite rich when, in fact, our pockets were mostly full of pretty, but non-negotiable, iron pyrite.
If every five seconds a volume of space is added to the universe ... about equal to the volume occupied by the Milky Way, where does that volume make its entry? Rather than look for an answer, one had better reexamine the question....(p.739). To speak of the creation of space is a bad way of speaking, and the original question is a bad question. The right way of speaking is to speak of a dynamic geometry. So much for one question! (p.740)
(this is why/how big bang/evolution dogma inhibits science,dont question, just believe)ed note
Similarly, there is Peacock who, in his recent graduate level cosmology
text, states [5]: In the common elementary demonstration of expansion
by means of inflating a balloon, galaxies should be represented by glued-on
coins, not ink drawings, (which will spuriously expand with the universe.)
If such vast forces of expansion ever existed, they would have worked not
only to expand the sizes of galaxies but also to prevent their formation. That is, since expansion is presumed to cause ever-increasing separation of even the smallest particles, it would also have worked to cause ever-increasing separation of atoms of the big bangs presumed primordial H and He, thus inhibiting even the formation of stars. Without stars there would have been no galaxies, no sun, and no planet Earth. These results demonstrate that galaxies cannot form under the assumption that the expansion hypothesis has been governing the universe. This contradiction invalidates the balloon illustration, revealing it as perhaps one of the most seriously flawed illustrations ever used in modern science
These results prove the balloon illustration and the expansion hypothesis
are completely at odds with the existence of galaxies.
This article confirms Trefils skepticism by concluding the existence of galaxies is prima facie evidence that the expansion hypothesis is false.
We conclude, therefore, that the existence of galaxies provides two powerful Smoking Gun Signatures; first, that our universe knows nothing of big bangs spacetime expansion and secondly, that the GENESIS of our universe occurred far differently than modern cosmology has envisioned
The discovery of GENESIS astrophysical framework has successfully
unveiled the deeper significance of which Weisskopf spoke, for it provides
a unique scientific understanding of why the 2.7K CBR does function as
an absolute frame of reference of the cosmos. Since the proof is certain,
the denial must be of a philosophical nature.
Without spacetime expansion the Hubble relation shows the universe
does possess a Center which is near the Galaxy.
Without spacetime expansion there was no big bang.
Without the big bang, the beginning of time cannot be traced back to
a spacetime expansion singularity.
Without the big bang there is no basis for tracing the history of any
star back to its beginning.
Without the big bang there was no primordial nucleosynthesis of any
chemical elements, hence no first generation H/He stars, and no possibility
of producing any other stars by first generation star supernovae
nucleosynthesis.
Disproof of big bangs nucleosynthesis scenario shows that the heavy
chemical element content of the visible universe did not originate in a
series of distant supernovae events but instead had a different origin
Disproof of big bangs time frame disqualifies all current astrophysical
theories about the origin and age of stars as well as the origin and age
of galaxies.
Disproof of big bangs time frame renders invalid all current astrophysical
interpretations which picture various star types evolving from one
type to another.
Disproof of big bang renders invalid all astrophysical theories that
attempt to picture different types of galaxies evolving from one type
to another. This implies the array of peculiar galaxies observed by Arp
[6-8] should long ago have been recognized as proof that all current
theories of galaxy formation are fatally flawed.
Disproof of big bang completely erases the scientific basis for tracing
Earths origin back to a primordial molten blob that spun off the sun.
Proof of fossil relics of short half-life primordial natural radioactivity
in Earths primordial
Trefil has noted that in times past a certain astronomical assumption gained such a degree of credibility that it was considered beyond question until an accumulation of new data forced the unthinkable [10]. That time has now come for the big bang.
Without due cause, modern cosmology a priori rejected the Creators
claim of exercising supranatural power in calling the visible universe with
all its mature and exotic diversities into existence on literal Day 4 of the
Genesis creation week.