Georgi Alexandrov Stankov, January 18, 2020
Introduction – Modern Cosmology Exposed as False Science in the Light of the Universal Law
Gaia and humanity are on the verge of ascension to the 5D and higher dimensions, where humans will acquire a completely new cosmological worldview. This view will be multidimensional and therefore it is not even possible to describe it in human language which is linear and inadequate to grasp the simultaneous nature of All-That-Is. In the process of this unprecedented expansion of human awareness the current cosmology will be overhauled with one fell-swoop as this has happened with older false cosmological ideas such as the Ptolemaic geocentric system. It will be replaced with the new Transcendental Cosmology of the Universal Law.
However, one does not need to wait for the planetary and individual ascension to happen in order to reject present-day cosmology as fake science as this fact is already obvious to any logically thinking person, even when he has no deep knowledge in physics. Even the leading cosmologists of our time are beginning to lose faith in the credibility of their science as I shall discuss below. Many astronomers observe new inexplicable phenomena in the sky, such as the disappearance of many stars in the last few years which they cannot explain with the modest theoretical means of astronomy and cosmology. It is the privilege of true gnostic thinkers and astronomers to be also in the position to render an all-encompassing explanation of their new astounding observations of massive changes in star constellations as this was recently done in an exemplary manner by our PAT brother Patrick Amoroso:
Here I shall publish a revised article on the new transcendental cosmology in the light of the Universal Law which appeared in several chapters in the book “An Easy Propaedeutics Into the New Physical and Mathematical Science of the Universal Law” in 2017. I will expose cosmology as a completely false science and will illustrate in this way how the distorted ideas of cosmologists currently shape the agnostic pseudo-scientific view of humanity with regard to the macro-cosmos – the Multiverse. Needless to say that the same wrong ideas can be also found for the micro-cosmos in modern quantum physics.
In this way I am following the latest tradition of exposing all current scientific disciplines as absolutely wrong categorical systems of human knowledge that only deepen the agnostic separation of humanity from their souls and the Source as initiated by a series of articles recently written by Otfried Weise, Patrick Amoroso and myself and published on this website (use the log function). This topic will become very soon central to a broader discussion worldwide that will shake the cognitive foundations and the self-perception of the entire humanity about who we truly are.
It is imperative to stress in this introduction that we humans can only assess and measure two dimensions/quantities in science – space and time. There is nothing else as everything is energy and we humans perceive energy only as space-time with our limited senses. This is the origin of all illusion in this holographic experiment of human incarnation. Furthermore, it is indispensable to know that space and linear time are one and the same quantity /dimension s = t as I have proved beyond any doubt in this article:
According to the new physical and mathematical theory of the Universal Law, the time in space-time is actually frequency which is reciprocal conventional linear time f = 1/t.
Therefore, all quantities and magnitudes which one can find in cosmology are in fact space and time/frequency measurements. There is nothing else, but this is also true for all the physical quantities and natural constants in physics as discussed in this recent article:
Departing from this elaboration, the reader should bear in mind from the very beginning that his expectations in cosmology as science should be very modest as all that this discipline can render are distances between cosmological objects as 2d-space and time as frequencies as this is the case in the interpretation of red shifts with which the age of the universe is allegedly calculated, rather estimated… The fact that cosmologists use the ambivalent term “light-year” for astronomical distance is already a major proof that space and linear time are one and the same dimension. This insight brings about the most radical simplification in our cosmological worldview and is a prerequisite for unlimited expansion of human consciousness.
I. Fake Cosmology, Dark Matter and Other Human Confusions
In volume I, and much more extensively so in volume II, I have discussed the basic theoretical tenets of modern cosmology and explained why it is an utterly fraudulent science – precisely a “fake science” – even more so than its older sister physics.
I have already shown why the fundamental concept of dark matter in modern cosmology is one of the greatest blunders in science. Physicists have failed to understand their own definition of mass, which they use in all their other definitions and theoretical disquisitions, from a methodological and epistemological point of view. When properly interpreted it becomes obvious that the physical quantity “mass” is an energy relationship and not an intrinsic property of matter. As all systems of All-That-Is have energy, which is per definition the Primary Term of human consciousness for All-That-Is, all systems also have a mass. Period!
This would say that photons also have a mass and are not “massless” particles as conventional physics claims nowadays. I have proved not only that photons have a mass but that the mass of all elementary particles can be very easily calculated from the mass of the basic photon which is a fundamental natural constant I first discovered in 1995 (see Table 1). I have presented these derivations and the theoretical background in my full article proving that energy = space-time has only two dimensions – space and time, which in itself is the biggest revolution in science (see introduction).
Present-day cosmologists have adopted this greatest blunder of all in physics, namely that photons do not have a mass, only because physicists have failed to grasp their definition of mass from a theoretical point of view and have perpetuated this blunder into veritable insanity in the field of modern cosmology. Because of their rejection of photon mass, they are unable to account for 95% of the theoretically calculated mass in the universe with respect to the mathematical models they have developed for All-That-Is as macro-cosmology. This fundamental blunder has necessitated the introduction of a plethora of further flaws and contradictory concepts that have made modern cosmology into a real joke and a total negation of rational, logical human thinking. The confusion is so big that only those who are not trapped in it can approximately comprehend it. For those who are embroiled in their insane world of pseudo-science, there is no hope.
I refer here to the heated debate that has recently exploded among the insane inmates of the small asylum called “Modern Cosmology” as this overview article explains:
The letter is in response to a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory – the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang. The article went as far as claiming that the model “cannot be evaluated using the scientific method” – the academic equivalent of saying it isn’t even real science.
In response, 33 of the world’s top physicists, including Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, and Leonard Susskind, have fired back by publishing their own open letter in Scientific American. The Cliff’s note version is this: they’re really angry.
Inflation theory was first proposed by cosmologist Alan Guth, now at MIT, back in 1980. It’s based on the idea that a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded rapidly, spinning entire galaxies out of quantum fluctuations.”
Here we have the usual suspects and forgers of modern science exposed by their names. I have discussed these models as early as 1995 shortly after some of these weird hypotheses were first published, such as the so-called “inflation theory” which, by the way, has very much in common with the inflationary debt fiat currencies of the fraudulent Orion monetary system that is about to crash anytime soon. Now more than two decades later the chicken come home to roost.
II. Cosmology in the Light of the Universal Law
While physics has evolved to become a study of particular levels and systems of space-time that are closely associated with human demands, one would expect that cosmology has been developed into a study of the primary term when the principle of last equivalence is considered. This is, however, not the case when one analyses the few acceptable textbooks on this discipline.
The outstanding feature of modern cosmology is the lack of a clear-cut definition of its object of study – the universe, space-time, energy, or cosmos – is described in a vicious circle in the same mechanistic and deterministic manner as are its systems and levels in physics. Similarly, cosmology has failed to develop an epistemological approach to space-time as an entity consisting of only two dimensions / constituents – space and time. Nevertheless, there is a subconscious pattern behind all cosmological concepts that constitutes an intuitive perception of the Primary Term. This is a consequence of the fact that human consciousness always abides by the Universal Law.
The objective of this short survey on modern cosmology is to reveal this aspect. As we cannot consider all heterogeneous schools and ideas of this discipline, we shall restrict ourselves to the standard model of cosmology (which is different from the standard model in physics) that represents the mainstream of cosmological thinking today. Based on the Universal Law, we shall reject this model and debunk the present system of cosmology. The remaining mathematical facts will be integrated into the new transcendental Cosmology as part of the Axiomatics.
Modern cosmology is a new discipline. It began in the twenties of the last century when the general theory of relativity was being developed as a geometric study of empty space-time and applied to the universe as an ordered whole by Einstein, Lemaître, de Sitter, Friedmann etc. Its core is the standard model, a collection of heterogeneous ideas which have been put together in a similar manner to that in the standard model of physics. Hence the same name as first suggested by Weinberg in 1972.
The standard model of cosmology is a hot expanding world model based on the following primary ideas:
1. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on average, at any place, at any time. This is called the “cosmological principle“. This philosophical concept is basic to any cosmological approach. It is an application of the principle of last equivalence – the primary term is perceived in the same way by anybody, at any time, at any place. This allows the establishment of an objective Axiomatics that leads to the unification of science – the latter being a metaphysical level of space-time. This is essentially an anthropocentric definition because for obvious reasons we have no idea of how other conscious beings (aliens) perceive the physical world.
The cosmological principle, being a rudimentary idea of the primary term, was first introduced by Milne (Milne model, 1935) based on the idea of the “empty universe” (?) and then further developed by Einstein as a variation of his principle of equivalence (see Volume II, chapter 8.3. This idea is an utter nonsense as inertial mass does not exist because the law of inertia is a completely false concept). Einstein departed from the Mach principle. It postulates that the inertial reference frames adopted from classical mechanics should be regarded in relation to the distribution and motion of cosmic mass, that is, in relation to the actual space-time relationships (1). Einstein generalized Mach principle (as he did with the relativity of space and time in electromagnetism developed by Lorentz and other physicists before him) and applied it to the whole universe. Einstein has never had a truly original idea of his own.
This was an arbitrary decision (degree of mathematical freedom), since the local space-time relationships which we observe are heterogeneous and discrete. Indeed, the universe consists of clusters of galaxies separated by photon space-time which is empty of matter, as is confirmed by recent astronomic evaluations, for instance, by the Hubble telescope. Therefore, the cosmological principle, which postulates a homogeneous and isotropic universe, does not assess the real properties of space-time, but is an abstract equivalence that is built within mathematical formalism. This fact reveals the absurdity of Einstein’s endeavour to exclude human consciousness from any scientific perception of the physical world (2).
2. The universe expands according to Hubble’s law with the escape velocity v of the galaxies, which is proportional to the distance dl of the observer from the galaxies:
dv = dl/dt = Hol = [1d-space-time],
Hubble’s law is an application of the Universal Law for one-dimensional space-time. Ho is called the Hubble constant. It is reciprocal conventional time and thus a constant quantity of absolute time: Ho= f. The epistemological background of this constant is not known in cosmology. We shall prove that this specific magnitude gives the constant time of the visible universe: Ho = fvis.
In astrophysics, the Hubble constant is roughly estimated from the intensity of selected galaxies. Its value varies from author to author from 50 km/s to 80 km/s per Mpc (megaparsec). Latest estimations tend towards the smaller value. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant 1/ Ho is called “Hubble time“ and is thus an actual quantity of conventional time. It is regarded as the upper limit of the age of the universe AU ≤ 1/ Ho when the gravitational forces between the galaxies are ignored. As the traditional cosmological units of space and time are highly confusing, we shall convert them into SI units. This will significantly simplify our further discussion.
The cosmological unit of distance [1d-space] is:
1 Megaparsec (1 Mps) = 3.086×1022 m.
We obtain for the Hubble time (= age of the universe) the following conventionally estimated value:
AU = 1/ Ho = 3.086×1022 m / 5×104 ms-1 = 6.17×1017 s
This corresponds to an estimated age of the universe of 20 billion years. According to the standard model, the present universe has a “finite“ age that is determined by the big bang; this initial event is defined as a “space-time singularity”. This assumption is in apparent contradiction with the primary axiom of our Axiomatics which says that the universe, that is, its space and time, is infinite.
At present, the actual age of the “finite universe“ is estimated to be about 10 – 15 billion years, when the gravitational forces between the galaxies are theoretically considered. However, as the mass of these galaxies cannot be determined – more than 90% of the estimated mass of the universe is defined as “dark matter“, which simply means that scientists do not know anything about it (see the calculation of neutrinos’ mass here) – these estimations are of highly speculative character.
It is important to observe that all the basic space and time magnitudes in cosmology, such as the Hubble constant, can only be roughly estimated. This fact shows that present-day cosmology is anything but an exact empirical science. As these quantities are basic to the standard model, fundamental paradoxes have emerged, depending on the values employed. I refer to the famous “mother-child-paradox” in cosmology that describes the finding that some galaxies as children are older than their mother – the universe – if the big bang hypothesis of finite age of the universe is accepted. This is already a strong indication that the standard model is not validated at all.
From AU one can easily obtain the radius of the finite universe RU as postulated in the standard model. According to Hubble’s law, the actual magnitude of the second constituent of the universe is defined as the maximal distance that can be observed, that is, the maximal distance which the light that is emitted from the remotest galaxies covers before it reaches the observer:
RU = cAU = 2.9979×108 ms-1 × 6.17×1017 s = 1.85×1026 m
According to Hubble’s law, both values are natural constants. While this fact confirms the constancy of space-time (universe) as manifested by its systems – in this case, by the visible universe – it is in apparent contradiction with the assumption that the universe “expands“.
Modern cosmology does not give any explanation of this obvious paradox between Hubble’s law and the hypothesis of the expanding universe as put forward in the standard model.
A major objective of this analysis is to prove that:
The two magnitudes, RU and Ho = 1/AU, are universal cosmological constants that assess the constant space-time of the visible universe. When modern cosmology speaks of the “universe“, it means the space-time of the visible universe, which is a system (U-subset) of space-time. The visible universe is not identical to the primary term of space-time (energy = universe = All-That-Is).
The primary term cannot be assessed in a quantitative way, but only in philosophical and meta-mathematical categories. Thus the visible universe is a specific, concrete cosmological system of space-time. It determines the limits of human knowledge at present. Therefore,
the visible universe is the only possible object of study of cosmology.
Like any other system, it has a constant space-time – it is a U-subset that manifests the properties of the whole. For this reason, its space (RU) and time (Ho = 1/AU) magnitudes are natural constants. As its space-time is an open entity, we shall prove that these constants can be precisely calculated from known space-time constants which can be exactly measured in local experiments. In this way we shall eliminate the necessity of performing expensive research of doubtful quality in astrophysics.
While proving that modern cosmology can only assess the constant visible universe, we shall refute the erroneous hypothesis of an expanding universe from an infinite small space of incredible mass density, called the “big bang“. This state is believed to have existed about 15-20 billion years ago.
According to this view, the universe has evolved from this “space singularity“ to its present state by expansion which still persists.
3. The standard model describes this past and present expansion of the universe. This model is based on Hubble’s law and the existence of the cosmic background radiation (CBR). The latter is regarded as a remnant of the initial, extremely hot radiation of the big bang that has been adiabatically cooled down to the present temperature of 2.73 K. The theoretical basis of this hypothetical, hot expansion model is the theory of relativity, which is geometry applied to the visible universe and deals essentially with the level of gravitation (see Einstein’s cosmological constant in Volume II).
Therefore, the method of definition and measurement in cosmology is mainly geometry (topology) of space. In addition, the statistical method is used. The standard model is highly limited to philosophical introspective, for instance, it forbids questions like:
“Where does the universe expand?
Where does the space which opens between the expanding galaxies come from?“,
and so on.
In other words, this model evades any questions that should trouble the mind of any sincere cosmologist and deals with a true knowledge of the universe.
The standard model cannot explain many facts that have been accumulated in the last few years. For instance, new measurements by the COBE telescope have confirmed that the CBR is not isotropic and homogeneous as postulated by the standard model, but exhibits a local anisotropy. These conflicting facts have necessitated further modifications of the standard model.
The so-called “inflation hypothesis“ has been developed by Guth and Linde (see above) to overcome the problem of CBR-anisotropy, which is of major theoretical importance. However, this hypothesis is of such a speculative character that it cannot be verified by any means. It rather exposes cosmology as science fiction. ( I wrote this conclusion in 1996, 21 years before the aforementioned dispute occurred in cosmology in 2017.)
For this reason the inflation hypothesis is not considered part of the standard model, but a complimentary conceptual contribution of provisional character. The standard model excludes alternative cosmological explanations, such as the steady state-models of Bondi (1960) or Dicke (1970). These models reflect more adequately the constant character of space-time. As these models do not represent the mainstream of cosmological dogma, they will not be discussed in this short survey on cosmology.
1. ”Einstein adopted, as Mach‟s principle, the idea that inertial frames of reference are determined by the distribution and motion of the matter in the universe”. P.J.E. Peeble, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1993, p.11.
2. Einstein believed that natural laws existed independently of human consciousness. The logical reversion of this belief is that consciousness does not follow natural laws – hence his pledge for the elimination of subjective human consciousness from science. This epistemological antinomy is inherent to modern scientific outlook. The role of consciousness in defining all scientific concepts in an abstract manner, which are confirmed in a secondary manner in the real world, is eliminated from current scientific considerations. Instead, empiricism is celebrated as the only source of knowledge.
However, it still operates in an unpredictable manner at the subconscious level as human intuition. In the new Axiomatics, we eliminate this artificial antinomy by proving that consciousness is a system (level) of space-time that obeys the Universal Law, just as any other system or level. All primary concepts which have been historically developed in science reflect more or less the Universal Law. Unfortunately, this intuitively correct perception is frequently lost at the alleged rational level of current human argumentation – be it scientific or trivial. This is particularly the case with all non-mathematical ideas of science. The hidden psychological force behind this rejection of the Universal Law at the rational level is the “angst (anguish) structure“ of human beings, which is of rigid energetic character and determines their illogical thinking and behaviour to a great extent. I have elaborated this energetic aspect of human behaviour in a special book on esoteric Gnosis based on the Universal Law “The Evolutionary Leap of Mankind“.
III. Hubble’s Law Is an Application of the Universal Law for the Visible Universe
The equation of the Hubble’s Law as presented in a previous publication on cosmology shows that this cosmological law is an application of the Universal Law and assesses one-dimensional space-time according to the definition of the new Axiomatics:
dv = dl/dt = Hol = [1d-space-time]
As the Hubble constant Ho is a natural constant, the law assesses the constant space-time of the visible universe as the maximal particular system of All-That-Is that is accessible to human senses and material instruments:
dv = dl/dt = Holmax = [1d-space-time]
The proof is fairly simple. According to Hubble’s law, the maximal escape velocity dv which a galaxy reaches before it emits a light signal to the observer is the speed of light dv→c. As Hubble’s law claims universal validity, it also holds for escape velocities that are greater than c. In this case, the light emitted by galaxies with dv > c will not reach the observer because the speed of light is smaller than their opposite escape velocity. The resultant speed (space-time) of the emitted photons is negative with respect to the observer, that is, such photons will never reach the observer but they still exist and should be considered in cosmology.
As our information on any material celestial object in the universe is transmitted through photon space-time, galaxies with a higher escape velocity than the speed of light are no longer visible to the observer. This means that there is an event horizon of the visible universe, beyond which Hubble’s law still holds true, but can no longer be observed. The validity of Hubble’s law beyond the event horizon also follows from the fact that it is an application of the Universal Law of space-time, while the visible universe is a particular system thereof.
The event horizon determines the boundaries of the visible universe with respect to human cognition. The boundaries of the visible universe are determined by the magnitude of c because photon space-time is the ultimate level of space-time which we can perceive at present. As all levels of space-time are U-subsets and contain themselves as an element, we cannot exclude the possibility that there are further levels beyond photon space-time with a higher velocity than c. If we gain access to them, we shall enlarge our event horizon of the visible universe. This will happen after ascension when human awareness will be freed from the limitation of the speed of light c and will be able to perceive immediately and simultaneously all parts of the multiverse.
As we see, the event horizon assesses the space of the visible universe with respect to our limited senses and present level of technological development. This cosmological system can be expressed as [1d-space]-quantity, for instance, as radius RU (open straight line), circumference SU (closed line), or KS = SP(A)[2d-space] = spherical area = charge, in geometry (method of definition = method of measurement).
As in all other systems, these quantities are constant: They assess the constant space of the visible universe with the constant time of Ho. We conclude:
Hubble’s law assesses the constant space-time of the visible universe:
dv = dl/dt = Holmax = Ho RU →c = [1d-space-time]vis= constant
The maximal distance from the observer lmax is defined as the radius of the visible universe: lmax = RU . In cosmology, one usually speaks of the “universe“. Whenever we use this term from now on, we shall mean the “visible universe“, which is a system of space-time and is thus not identical with the Primary Term.
From the radius of the universe, we can easily obtain the event horizon of this basic cosmological system as KS (the surface area of the visible universe as a sphere) within geometry:
Event horizon = KS = SP(A)[2d-space] = 4πRU² = constant
This quantity is constant for any observer in space-time. This practical equivalence is an aspect of the cosmological principle. In this case, the cosmological principle is a U-subset of the principle of last equivalence for the system “visible universe“ – it is an application of the principle of circular argument and is thus not identical with the primary axiom. This clarification is essential for the subsequent refutation of the standard model of cosmology as hot expanding hypothesis.
IV. The Role of the CBR-Constant in Cosmology
- the cosmic background radiation (CBR) and
- the expansion of the universe as assessed by Hubble’s law.
If these pillars can be interpreted in a different way, for instance, by the Universal Law, then the standard model must be refuted.
In a previous article, I have explained how the idea of an expanding universe has evolved in cosmology, namely, from the one-sided perception of the vertical energy exchange between matter and photon space-time. In this chapter I shall discuss the interpretational flaws of CBR in modern cosmology.
The experimental confirmation of the CBR, as predicted by Gamov on the basis of Friedmann’s model and coincidentally discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the sixties, has evoked the mistaken conviction among cosmologists that the theoretical assumptions of the standard model of cosmology hold true. The key assumption of this model is that, from the very beginning, the universe has been dominated by an extremely hot blackbody radiation (hot photon space-time) that has cooled down during the adiabatic expansion of the universe to the present temperature of about 3K (2.3 – 3.5K) – hence the term 3K-CBR.
The prediction of 3K-CBR on the basis of wrong assumptions and its subsequent discovery is a curiosity that will certainly enjoy an outstanding place in the future gallery of scientific blunders. The traditional interpretation of the CBR as a consequence of the expansion of the universe will be now rejected.
I have shown in Volume II, chapter 5.5 that the CBR-constant which determines the relationship between the temperature of the material body and the frequency of the emitted photons fmax = KCBR × T (see volume II, equation (82) and previous article) depends only on the speed of light c and the proportionality constant B of Wien’s displacement law:
KCBR = c/B.
The constant B is one-dimensional space-time of a novel thermodynamic level of matter that has not been realized so far (see Volume II, chapter 5.5, equation (81a)).
In the view of traditional cosmology, the speed of light c is a fundamental constant that remained unchanged during the big bang and in the first seconds of expansion of the universe. This assumption allows the determination of Planck’s parameters of the “big bang“, which are basic quantities of the standard model of cosmology (for an understanding of the true meaning of the Planck’s parameters see my discussion and derivations in Volume II, chapter 9.7). Without the derivation of these parameters, the concept of the “big bang“ would be meaningless, as it actually is, because the Planck’s parameters are a scientific “pulp fiction” produced by the empty brain cavities of present-day cosmologists and projected onto the infinite past.
And let us not forget that linear time is an illusion of the human mind and that there is no such thing as past, present and future, but that everything happens in the eternal Now, in the simultaneity of All-That-Is, so that one can reject the “big bang” hypothesis based entirely on this transcendental knowledge without further scientific ado.
According to the standard model, during the “big bang“ matter did not exist, at least, not in the form it is seen today. This would mean that the constant B did not exist: B = 0, and KCBR = c/0 = improbable event (mathematical operation not allowed). On the other hand, the CBR-constant determines the frequency of any emitted photon radiation for any temperature of matter, which is, in fact, a time quantity of the thermodynamic level of matter: fmax = KCBR × T . If we set for T the temperature of 2.73 K, we obtain exactly the maximal frequency of CBR, as is experimentally measured by COBE satellite (1):
fmax = KCBR×TCBR = 1.0345×1011 ×2.73 K = 2.824×1011
This is a very powerful experimental evidence for the validity of the new cosmology of the Universal Law which all currently accepted hypotheses such as the inflation theory cannot render.
If we assume that matter did not exist at the beginning of the universe, then we must also accept that there has been no thermodynamic level during the “big bang“ and the short time thereafter. Therefore, the time of this level, the temperature, should not have existed either: T = improbable event (non-existent). In this case, we obtain for the time (frequency) of the photon space-time the following logical result:
fmax = improbable event ( KCBR) × improbable event (T) = improbable event
The above equation symbolizes the entire nonsense of the standard model.
If there has been no matter, there would have been no temperature and subsequently no photon space-time in terms of electromagnetic waves with the time (frequency) and velocity as observed today: c = f λ = 0λ = 0. The standard model postulates that c was valid during the “big bang“ (see derivations of Planck‟s parameters in Volume II, Chapter 9.7).
However, if there were no photon space-time, there would have been no radiation and thus no CBR as observed today. The assumptions of the standard model have not been challenged yet, only because the epistemological background of space-time, that is, of space and time, is not an object of interest in present-day physics and cosmology. This agnosticism is the origin of all the flaws in these sciences.
On the other hand, if we assume that the universe has evolved gradually by developing new levels, however, at time intervals that are infinite in relation to the estimated age of the universe, we can imagine similar conditions in black holes, neutron stars, quasars, pulsars and other similar material systems of gravitation (see Volume II, chapter 9.9), as suggested for the “bang bang“ and the short period of time thereafter. In this case, we need not extrapolate in the past, as is done in the standard model of present-day cosmology, but have to consider the finite lifetimes of stars in the context of the energy exchange between matter and photon space-time.
When the energy exchange from matter to photon space-time is perceived unilaterally as expansion that is going on into the future, one inevitably comes to the hypothesis of the “big bang“ when this process is traced back into the past. This false hypothesis follows from the idea that photon space-time is empty and homogeneous. This is the cardinal epistemological error of physics that engenders all the nonsense in cosmology.
The new Axiomatics clearly says that the CBR-constant is an absolute constant of the vertical energy exchange between the thermodynamic (kinetic) level of matter and the thermodynamic level of photon space-time as assessed by the new Stankov’s law of photon thermodynamics (Volume II, chapter 5.7), which is an application of the Universal Law. Thus the time f of the photon level depends on the time (temperature) of matter and vice versa: the temperature of matter depends on the frequency of the absorbed photons.
This mutual interdependence can be observed any time in daily life, e.g. the warming of metals by sunbeams and their subsequent radiation as heat. The frequency of the sunbeam photons depends only on the surface temperature of the sun (Volume II, equation (82)). Such phenomena are manifestations of the vertical energy exchange between matter and photons that takes place in both directions (conservation of action potentials).
The above equation of maximal frequency of CBR holds for any temperature. Black holes and neutron stars are known to have extremely high temperatures. When the frequency of the photons emitted by these gravitational systems is calculated with this equation, we obtain a cosmic background radiation in the gamma range. Such high frequency-CBR is regularly observed in astrophysics. Typically, this kind of CBR is not explained as a remnant of the big bang. This illustrates the ambiguity of current cosmological interpretations.
The equation of the maximal frequency of CBR is a very useful application of the Universal Law, with which we can determine the thermodynamic coefficients of vertical energy exchange of individual stars and other celestial bodies with photon space-time. In the next chapter I shall show that the redshifts in the Doppler effect can be used in the same way to determine the vertical energy exchange between individual systems of gravitation and photon space-time. With respect to the theory of relativity, these absolute coefficients can be also called “relativistic coefficients of energy interaction“. This is the only true explanation of the general theory of relativity of Einstein which he never understood.
This new correct interpretation of the observed redshifts in the universe eliminates the only experimental evidence that is currently used to prove the alleged validity of the “big bang” model of hot expanding universe.
Sic transit imbecillitae dicendum est cosmologists. (This is how the imbecility of the cosmologists goes by.)
1. COBE Science Working Group, Spectrum of the cosmic background radiation, in P.J.E. Peeble, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1993, p. 132.
V. Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Redshifts in Failed Present-Day Cosmology
The method of measurement of escape velocity in Hubble’s law is the determination of redshifts of selected galaxies. Hubble was the first astronomer to suggest a relationship between his application of the universal equation for the one-dimensional space-time of the visible universe and the redshifts observed by the Doppler effect. In my article on the Doppler effect from April 2017
I have shown that it is a ubiquitous phenomenon that demonstrates the reciprocity of space and time – that the two constituents (dimensions) of space-time are canonically conjugated entities. This fundamental knowledge is the core of all understanding of physics and cosmology. It is needless to reiterate, but I do it nonetheless for the sake of absolute clarity, that neither present-day physics nor cosmology have any clue about this fundamental property of energy = space-time = All-That-Is, which is the only object of their study. It is also the Primary Term of human or any other consciousness in All-That-Is. That is why the Primary Term is the first and only a priori axiom in the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law and there should not be any more if it is a true science.
I have used the Doppler effect to explain the mechanism of gravitation in my article The Mechanism of Gravitation – for the First Time Explained. It proves:
- Redshifts in visible light are observed when the space of the photon system confined by the source and the observer expands;
- violet-shifts are observed when the space of the system contracts.
These changes of space are relativistic and occur simultaneously everywhere in the universe. For instance, one can observe both redshifts and violet-shifts of distant galaxies. Altogether, redshifts are predominant. This has led to the idea of using them as a method of measurement of the escape velocity of galaxies in an “expanding” universe which is a wrongly postulated and so far unverified idea, or better “idio“, in current failed cosmology.
Until now modern cosmology has not been in a position to present a theoretical proof that redshifts really measure the expansion of the universe, as is clearly and surprisingly honestly stated in the following quotation of one prominent representative of this pseudo-science:
“The gravitational frequency and temperature shifts between observers are equivalent to the effects of a sequence of velocity shifts between a sequence of freely moving observers. For the same reason, the surface brightness of an object at a different (gravitational) potential would vary with its redshift… This is not a cosmology, however, for it is not known how one could get a reasonable redshift-distance relation from a stable static mass distribution, or what provision one would make for the apparently finite lifetimes of stars and galaxies…
If the redshifts of quasars did not follow the redshift-distance relation observed for galaxies, it would show we have missed something very significant… It is sensible and prudent that people should continue to think about alternatives to the standard model, because the evidence is not at all abundant…
The moral is that the invention of a credible alternative to the standard cosmological model would require consultation of a considerable suite of evidence. It is equally essential that the standard model be subject to scrutiny at a still closer level than the alternatives, for it takes only one well established failure to rule out a model, but many successes to make a convincing case that a cosmology really is on the right track.
Quoted from: P.J.E. Peeble, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1993, p. 226.
The last statement refers to what the new theory of the Universal Law has achieved – it proves all the mathematical experimental evidence (e.g in form of natural laws as mathematical equations) collected so far in physics and cosmology and rejects only its non-mathematical, verbal interpretation by the scientists. The latter are blatantly wrong as they do not use or understand the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law that unequivocally defines all terms and concepts in science from the Primary Term of our consciousness. Instead, they have introduced, through their ambiguous, unprocessed language, infinite paradoxes, contradictions, blunders and outright stupidities, which I have resolved in tedious intellectual and forensic work in the new tetralogy of science as presented on this website (left column).
BASIC SCIENTIFIC BOOKS: TETRALOGY OF SCIENCE
I shall prove in the following that
redshifts measure the specific energy exchange of any gravitational system with photon space-time and therefore cannot be interpreted as evidence for the expansion of the universe.
It is a well-established fact that redshifts are a classical test for the validity of the theory of relativity. They are appreciated as the most exact test of this theory. The magnitude of the redshift depends on the magnitude of the local gravitational potential glocal = U = LRCG (see below). In the general theory of relativity, the redshift df/ f gives the (relativistic) change of the gravitational potential dU in relation to the LRC of photon space-time given as square speed of light:
df/f = dU/c2.
This relationship was first postulated by Einstein in 1911 without comprehending its true meaning. Since then it has been empirically confirmed by numerous experiments with growing precision. The relativistic formula that is usually employed is an application of the universal equation as a rule of three:
df /f = dU/c2 = LRCG/LRCp = EG / Ep = SP(A)
I have used the same application in Volume II, chapter 9.9 to establish the derivation rule of absolute coefficients of vertical energy exchange, with which we can build an input-output model of the universe based entirely on dimensionless numbers (quotients). This input-output model is equivalent to the continuum of real numbers. Therefore, this rule proves in a fundamental theoretical manner why nature is of mathematical character and can be expressed in terms of mathematics, which itself is a hermeneutic system of the human mind and has no external object of study.
This theoretical breakthrough, which I made in 1995, has led to the resolution of the foundation crisis of mathematics that challenges the validity of the entire human science and in particular of the only exact discipline – physics – which is based on mathematical equations and calculations; from a methodological point of view physics is applied mathematics to the physical world. All other present-day scientific disciplines such as bio-sciences and social sciences are not exact sciences but a conglomeration of unproven and rather subjective opinions (see Volume III and all my books on Human Gnosis on this website). On the foundation crisis of mathematics and its resolution in the new theory of the Universal law read also:
As already discussed, any relativistic presentation in physics is a comparison of the actual space-time of a system with photon space-time as the initial reference frame. In this particular case, the local gravitational potential of any celestial body, which, according to Einstein, is responsible for the local curvature of the empty homogeneous space-time, is compared to the constant LRC of photon space-time.
From the above equation, we can obtain the so-called Schwarzschild radius RS when we use Newton’s law of gravity to determine the local gravitational potential on the surface of a celestial body (R is the radius of a star, planet, or any other celestial body; G is the gravitational constant; M is the mass of the celestial body):
df /f = dU/c2 = GM/Rc2 = RS /2R = SP(A)
The [1d-space]-quantity RS is obtained within geometry and is, in reality, a diameter and not a radius (imprecise terminology).
The Schwarzschild radius RS is of key importance to the theory of relativity, although this quantity cannot be explained in terms of knowledge. Traditionally, it is regarded as a measure for the relativistic effects of gravitational objects. In the light of the new Axiomatics, this space quantity assesses the local absolute coefficients of vertical energy exchange of the individual gravitational systems, such as stars, planets, pulsars, quasars, neutron stars, black holes etc., with photon space-time.
All gravitational systems undergo different states of material arrangement, such as white dwarfs, unstable stars, neutron stars, red giants etc., as assessed by Chandrasekhar limit of the boundary conditions of stellar transformation (finite lifetimes of stars). These stellar phases of specific space-time can be expressed by various quantities, such as mass, density, volume etc. and exhibit different coefficients of vertical energy exchange with photon space-time.
From this, we can easily conclude that we can build infinite levels of gravitational objects with respect to their specific vertical coefficient. The local geometry (structural complexity) of the space-time of the visible universe can be precisely described with such local coefficients. This aspect is further discussed in Volume II, chapter 9.9.
When the above equation of the Schwarzschild radius RS is derived from the equation of the circumference of the event horizon of the visible universe SU = c2 /G as discussed in a previous publication, we obtain the following simple application of the Universal Law for the local space curvature Slocal as a function of the local gravitation glocal :
Slocal = [1d-space] = c2 / glocal = world line of local curvature
This is the actual “universal field equation“ which Einstein was searching in vain his whole life. It assesses the local curvature of photon space-time in terms of “world lines“ Slocal (Weltlinien der Krümmung des Weltalls).
This [1d-space]-quantity is a function of the local gravitational potential given as the gravitational acceleration or field of the celestial objects of matter. This is, in fact, the only objective of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which is geometry applied to space-time.
It could not succeed, not only because Einstein did not master the complexity of the mathematical instruments (Riemann’s topology) which he intended to implement (it is a well-known fact that Einstein was a poor mathematician), but essentially because he neither explained, nor understood the epistemological background of his theory of relativity.
Let us now summarize the key knowledge that accrues from this elaboration:
The redshifts in the Doppler effect measure the local vertical energy exchange between the individual gravitational systems and photon space-time.
According to the principle of circular argument, these energy interactions are presented relativistically, in comparison to the constant space-time of the photon level as c which is the universal reference frame (read here).
Therefore, redshifts should not be interpreted as evidence for the expansion of the universe.
The idea of an expanding universe based on redshifts has led to a plethora of fundamental paradoxes that expose modern cosmology as a system of fallacies. The first paradox is associated with the interpretation of black holes. According to the present view, these gravitational systems exhibit the maximal redshifts that are known at present. This is the current scientific opinion on this issue as expressed in the uniqueness theorems of black holes (M Heusler, Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems, Cambridge University Press, 1996.), which are applications of the Universal Law within mathematics.
If we now argue in the context of Hubble’s law, we must assume that black holes are the remotest objects from any observer within the visible universe (cosmological principle). In this case, we must expect to find black holes only near the event horizon of our visible universe (see above). The same holds true for quasars and pulsars, as they exhibit about 90% of the redshift-magnitude that has been determined for black holes.
However, the experimental evidence in astrophysics does not confirm this conclusion which follows logically from the current interpretation of Hubble’s law. In addition, this would be in breach of the cosmological principle which postulates an even distribution of celestial objects in the universe.
This paradox should be sufficient to reject the standard model on present evidence. It is indeed a mystery why this has not already been done, even without knowing the Universal Law.
The absurdity of the present interpretation of redshifts as evidence for an expanding universe becomes obvious when we analyse the present cosmological view of the age and radius of the “finite“ universe which is supposed to have emerged from the “big bang“. The general belief is that the objects with the maximal redshifts are the remotest from the observer. As a consequence, they should be regarded as the oldest material objects in the universe, if we accept the “genesis“ of the universe from the “big bang“ as stated in the standard model. This is explained by the fact that the light that comes from such objects should need the longest time to cover the greatest distance before reaching the observer. In this case, this light should be of the oldest origin – it should have existed from the very beginning of the universe.
The remotest objects that emit this light must have been very near to each other in this initial phase. As the universe is believed to have a finite age of about 15-20 billion years, this is considered to be the actual age of the light that comes from the remotest objects with the maximal redshifts.
The paradoxical nature of this concept becomes evident when we apply the principle of circular argument of the new Axiomatics as a deductive method. Let us depart from the cosmological principle as an application of the principle of last equivalence for the system “visible universe“. According to it, the above interpretation holds for any observer, at any place, at any time.
Let us assume that we are the initial observer placed on the earth. We can now imagine at least one more observer who is situated between us and the remotest object with the maximal redshift. In this case the second observer will measure redshifts from objects that are beyond our event horizon. The redshifts of such objects cannot be observed from the earth. These objects will have a greater distance from the earth than the remotest objects we can observe from our planet. At the same time they will be older than the oldest objects in the universe, the age of which is set equal to the age of the universe.
If we proceed with this deductive method, we can easily prove that there are objects in the universe that are infinitely remote from us and are thus infinitely old. It is important to observe that the same deductive method is used to define the term “infinity“ in the mathematical theory of sets. This method departs from any number to define the infinity of the continuum and, since Frege, the continuum theory is the foundation of modern mathematics (for further information see volume I and volume II)
In the new Axiomatics, we define the infinity of the primary term in an a priori manner and then confirm this property in a secondary manner by the empirical verification of the phenomenology of the parts (U-subsets). I have used exactly this second method to prove that space-time is infinite, that is, eternal. This proof should be sufficient to reject the standard model that assumes a finite age of the universe.
In fact, cosmologists can only measure the finite constant space-time of our visible universe as defined from the anthropocentric point of view of an earth’s observer. However, according to the cosmological principle, there are infinite visible universes, as there are infinite potential observers in space-time.
The idea of the standard model of cosmology that the universe is finite has led to another fundamental paradox, which has recently emerged from experimental evidence. The age of the universe is currently estimated by Hubble’s law to be about 15 billion years. However, recent empirical data in astrophysics does not fit into this concept. Astrophysicists have established that there are stars that are older than the universe. This is now called the “mother-child paradox“: the children (stars) are older than the mother (the universe).
The standard model postulates the emergence of stellar objects a long time after the occurrence of the “big bang“. According to this model it is impossible for the stars to be older than the universe. It is cogent that this fact alone should be sufficient to reject entirely the standard model postulating a finite expanding universe. Again, we are tempted to ask why this has not been done before.
If we, instead, consider the finite lifetimes of stars as described by Chandrasekhar, we must conclude that we are not allowed to make any statements on the actual age of material systems, that is, of matter, based on the age of the emitted light that reaches the earth or a satellite launched from the earth. If stars periodically undergo different phases of material organisation, a fact that is beyond any doubt, how can we know their actual age if we can only determine the age of the light emitted during a certain phase of transition (see also quotation above)?
For instance, when we register a light signal from a nova that is, let us say, seven billion years old, we can only say that seven billion years ago, that is, at a time when the earth did not exist, this particular star had this material configuration. As novae are recurrent stars, we cannot know their past or present states. For instance, there is no way of knowing how many transitions this nova has undergone in the past, that is, how old it really is.
These arguments are based on common sense and are accessible even to the layman. This cannot be claimed for the arguments of modern cosmology. In the last few years (with reference to the 90s), there has been a growing number of publications on cosmology that document the epistemological mess of this discipline. It is inutile to discuss them.
In this respect, it is quite amusing to observe how many cosmologists earnestly believe in the existence of many universes (multiverse), although they still believe in the singularity of the “big bang”. This is the culmination of human insanity. Why don’t they forget their pseudo-science and come to us to enjoy the clarity of mind based on our multidimensional gnostic thinking and daily experience as ascended masters.