The Theoretical Science Establishment

Controls Cosmological And Biological Sciences

PART II

The History of Big Bangism’s Triumph:

A Comedy of Errors

Beginning just before the Einstein Revolution was launched by his 1905 Special Relativity paper, let’s weave into the woof and warp of modern cosmology (cosmogony) some of the theoretical input that has brought us to the present day scene wherein the Big Bang Paradigm still rules the roost after some forty years. Some insight into the role of several of the players in this almost comical coming and going of theories involves the contributions of Lorentz (1853-1928), Einstein (1879-1955), de Sitter (1872-1934), LeMaitre (1894-1966), Eddington (1882-1944), Freundlich (1885-1964), Freidmann (1888-1925), Hubble (1889-1953), Born (1882-1970), Heisenberg (1901-1976), Bethe (1906-2005 ), Gamow (1904-1968), Hoyle 1915-2001), Penzias (1933- ), Wickramasinghe (1939.-....), Sagan (1934-1996), and Thornhill (....-....).

------

HENDRICK LORENTZ (1853-1928) Dutch physicist Hendrick Lorentz attempted an explanation that would counteract the Michelson-Morley interferometer results of the 1880’s. Those results consistently showed no movement of the Earth around the sun. Hendrick’s "solution" was to say that the Earth’s speed through the aether in space caused the interferometer arm that was pointed in the direction of the alleged orbit to get shorter! The Irish physicist FitzGerald had the same idea earlier and called it the "FitzGerald Contraction"...which turned out to be the "FitzGerald Expansion".... Eddington--to his credit--compared these "solutions" with "...the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s adventures in Wonderland". 1 [Emph. added to quotations throughout this historical record....]

-------

Lorentz, Poincare`, FitzGerald, Maxwell et al sat in the highest seats of a Science Establishment which--even in the 1880’s--owed its very existence to maintaining the Copernican Heliocentricity Model. It was "unthinkable" to have to return to the Biblical Model of a stationary Earth. We will see why it was "unthinkable" further along. But for the moment, we keep our focus on the impact of the experiments and the response to the results. From the applications of Lobatschewsky’s "Imaginary geometry" to the Riemann-Minkowski non-Euclidian geometry to Lorentz’s Transformations of Maxwell’s aether-based equations, the search for a way out of the interferometer dilemma had physics and astronomy departments everywhere in a veritable funk. [Imagine, if you can, a real challenge to Copernicanism and all that is built upon it NOW!]

------

ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955) But, lo, in 1905, a savior appeared out of a patent office in Switzerland to rescue the Establishment with his "Relativity" concept (which concept Lorentz was finalizing in 1904). No one can tell what is moving and what isn’t. It’s all relative. Whew, that was close! All Einstein had to do was get rid of the aether on his blackboard, and use his "...purely arbitrary...unobservable and unverifiable...free will definition of ‘simultaniety’..." 2 and change the meaning of "time" and "equivalence" to "...non-observable, arbitrary and desperate assumptions" 3 to make it all fit with his Relativity "theory". All this could then be backed up with invented math and "thought experiments". Once all this was accomplished, the whole Theoretical Science Establishment and the world press could raise a chorus of hallelujahs that would elevate Big Al to a level of scientific sainthood unmatched by any of his peers. How simple is that?! (Asked if there were really only three people who understood the math that Einstein invented to change the bases of physics, astronomer Eddington replied: "I’m trying to think who the third person is.") 4 [Though the little known ins and outs of Einstein’s rise to unprecedented influence over the Theoretical Science Establishment are spelled out in two chapters of some 24 pages in The Earth Is Not Moving and need not be repeated here, several new findings involving Einstein with the men presented here will reveal how the pattern of assumptions came to be expanded... particularly after his 1916 General Relativity Paper.]

------

WILLEM DE SITTER (1872-1934) Einstein, in his 1916 Paper "...argued that the universe was immobile". The Dutch mathematician and astronomer de Sitter published a paper in London in 1917 which re-calculated Einstein’s equations and "proved" that the universe was actually expanding. Einstein reluctantly had to agree and ultimately (1932) "The Einstein-de Sitter Cosmological Model" of the universe was formulated. This Model treats the universe as existing in Euclidean Space rather than curved space! Did you know that Einstein had given up on "curved space"? I didn’t.

Actually DeSitter’s other input in those days is pretty startling, considering the lack of attention he has received compared to Einstein. For another example, Willem’s 1917 model assumed that matter density was zero (a very early prelude to the now fashionable belief that the Big Bang’s "cosmic egg" was filled with "gas" or "energy" rather than "matter"). This also became part of the 1932 Model.

And get this: In 1917 (!) de Sitter also predicted Redshift proportional to distance (about which more in PART III....). DeSitter was also the first to develop a cosmological model of an Expanding Universe, and predicted the expansion would last forever. In ‘32 he also proposed a non-light emitting matter, i.e., the "dark matter" concept! 5 [All this and maybe one person in a quarter-million ever heard of this dude, right ?]

ALEXANDER FREIDMANN (1888-1925) Add to that sack of assumptions by DeSitter (jerking Einstein this way and that!), the input of Alexander Freidmann, who, in 1922, also argued cogently against Einstein’s static universe. Using Einstein’s equations (everything is arcane math in the "scientific" assumption business) Friedmann "proved" that the universe could either shrink OR expand...take your choice! 6 ["Math" is the ultimately flexible tool in the hands of theoreticians in science fields. Get a more complete understanding of this knowledge- shaping weapon of deception in The Earth Is Not Moving.]

Actually, it is said that the Big Bang theory developed from Friedmann’s theory of an Expanding Universe and his re-calculations of Einstein’s equations! 7 [One also wonders why Friedmann is a third stringer amongst the scientific heavyweights? He too--along with DeSitter--took Einstein to the mat. Of course, he died three years later at age 37, so he didn’t have long to make a bigger reputation... Maybe there was room for only one heavyweight champion...no matter how often he quietly abandoned one big idea after another under pressure from other theoreticians....]

------

GEORGES LE MAITRE (1894-1966) The man who usually gets the credit for formulating the modern Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe (in 1927!) is Belgian astronomer and cosmologist/cosmogonist, Monsignor Georges LeMaitre. After graduating from MIT in 1927 and returning to Belgium, he theorized that the universe began in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval "super atom". 8 LeMaitre’s Model: a) Begins with a Big Bang. b) Expands for a while. c) Hesitates in a state resembling Einstein’s static universe [toadying to Einstein...common practice]. d) Expands a 2nd time that lasts forever. 9 [Again, these are the kinds of things "proven" with "math"...things that shape man’s knowledge of the universe and his place in it.]

LeMaitre’s "super atom" or "space particle" was said to be the first in existence. "When radioactive elements mixed with ‘the particle’ they started a chain reaction that forced the immediate and rapid expansion of the universe and also created life." This is interesting too: "Einstein was reluctant to endorse LeMaitre’s extension of his theory of General Relativity... but he did...") 10 Just so we don’t miss the point: it was LeMaitre who "...put forth the idea that there was once a primordial atom which had contained all the matter of the universe." 11

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made fun of this new and egregious assumption in a radio talk and called it a "Big Bang". The name stuck. "LeMaitre pursued the hypothesis, suggesting that there ought to be some sort of background radiation in the universe left over from the initial explosion of that alleged primeval atom. Others took up the Big Bang idea, and for several years there were strong debates between those supporting it and those who favored the Steady State Theory in which the universe was eternal and unchanging. This debate ended in 1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation, which LeMaitre had predicted would be the residue of the Big Bang explosion many billions of years ago."12 [Notice that this fortuitous "discovery" was made just before LeMaitre died and got his personal blessing, of course. As for Penzias and Wilson, they were rewarded with Nobel Prizes. Einstein had endorsed the BB well before his death in ‘55, though, if we recall, he started out an adamant Steady State advocate. Anyway, the BB bandwagon was rolling!

Anybody who will believe that "background radiation" billions of years old  was actually "discovered" and thus proved a Big Bang...and that there was no collusion in all this, will believe anything! Catholic scholars may have checked or will want to check to see how much collusion, if any, existed between Monsignor LeMaitre’s paradigm-changing assumptions about the "creation" of the universe and the Bible-bashing evolutionism being spread through the Roman Church by his contemporary in adjacent France, i.e., Father Teilhard de Chardin.... Whether there was collusion in this particular instance or not, it is unarguable that Tielhard’s ideas meshed well with the cosmological theorizing of his time, and that those ideas strongly impacted the Vatican’s growing tolerance and virtual endorsement of evolutionism after Vatican II revisionism took hold in the early ‘60’s. And this is to say nothing of the comedic efforts of Pope John Paul II to crawfish out of the Galileo-Cardinal Bellarmine affair of 1616 whereby the Churches’ stand against Copernicanism has become an ongoing problem.... The plot thickens!]

-------

SIR ARTHUR STANLEY EDDINGTON (1882-1944) For those who like to put together these kinds of puzzles, a brief sketch of astronomer, physicist, mathematician Arthur Eddington’s key role in putting Einstein in an unapproachable light will provide some interesting pieces. Eddington, called "a pioneer in the fields of relativity, cosmology, and internal constitution of stars" was at Cambridge in 1913, working mainly at trying to figure out the internal structure of stars. "In 1919 his observations of star positions during a total eclipse gave the first direct confirmation of Einstein’s General Theory of Reativity." 13 As indicated, THIS is what put Einstein over the top and "proved" his relativity hypothesis (which just happened to be what Eddington was "pioneering").

Sanforized to a few sentences, the facts--de-emphasized into near oblivion over the decades--about that knowledge-shaping event allegedly proving Relativity are these: British Astronomer Royal, SIR Frank Dyson simply announced to a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society that Eddington’s reports of his observation of the 1919 eclipse confirmed Einstein’s theory. The well-prepared Press took this announcement at face value and launched Einstein into superstar status overnight. Other observers of the event with photographs in hand, were, however, apparently not pioneers in the field of Relativity, because they reported that the shifts of the star images in question were difficult to measure accurately and that the eclipse event supplied no real evidence to support Eddington’s claim. These joined in no ceremonies confirming Relativity and anointing Einstein. [A further footnote of interest here is that Eddington was later knighted and became SIR Arthur Stanley Eddington. I cannot find whether SIR Dyson influenced the bestowing of that high honor.... All that is certain was that the acceptance of Eddington’s report in 1919--and the suppression of contrary reports-- gave him not only a quantum boost in the highly competitive field of cosmic comics, but also gave him photo opportunities with Einstein... and, of course, the incipient knighthood with all of its attendant perks. Using this technique, no satisfactory results have ever been forthcoming. Between 1969 and 1975 it was claimed that radio waves from quasars near the edge of the universe validated the claims of 1919. Yeah, sure....]

-------

EDWIN HUBBLE (1889-1953) Some of the information on Edwin Hubble--a Rhodes Scholar lawyer turned astronomer--is confusing and suggests that his personal image--like many an image taken from his namesake spacecraft--has been manufactured to suit the need of a bigger plan. For starters, those who have checked a bit into Cecil Rhodes and how he used his great wealth obtained from gold and diamond mines in South Africa to establish the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford can readily fit Hubble into the philosophy that was inculcated there as described in Dr. Moneith’s recent book: "During the past century over forty-six hundred young men [incl. Edwin Hubble and Bill Clinton...] have been sent to Oxford University where they were indoctrinated in socialism and world government.... They work in government offices, in international banks, on the boards of corporations, in tax. exempt foundations, in the Supreme Court, in the media, in our universities, in the United Nations Association, and in the Council on Foreign Relations (and in the White House). It is impossible to understand the events that led up to WWII unless you know about Cecil Rhodes’ secret society [launched in 1891]...."14

On the Net we read: "During the uncertainties of the era Hubble was able to observe galaxies up to 7 million light years away [given the right assumptions, of course].... By doing so he was able to come up with Hubble’s Law [!] which said that the further away from the earth the faster they [the stars] moved away from our planet. Hubble’s rule [what happened to "Law"?] proved that the universe was expanding like a big balloon. In 1930 Einstein viewed photos taken by Hubble...and gave up his theory of an immobile universe for all time." 15 [This was 25 years after the Special Theory and 14 years after his General Theory of Relativity had turned cosmology upside down! Let’s see: those are at least two essentials of Einstein’s theories that were kaput by 1932, viz., "curved space" and "a static, immobile universe"....]

Oddly--according to one commentator’s extraction from Hubble’s 1937 book (The Observational Approach To Cosmology)-- "Hubble himself made it clear that he was very uncomfortable with the ‘recession factor’ being attributed to him as ‘The Hubble Expansion’." If one just sticks to the facts, Hubble concluded, "There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature..." 16 [Wow!! This was five years after the "Einstein-DeSitter Cosmological Model" declared an Expanding Universe based on "Hubble’s Law", and here we find Hubble himself pulling the rug from under Einstein...no expansion, no time warps, no spatial curvature a la that claimed in the 1919 eclipse which sent Einstein to the head of the class of theoretical "scientists"...! Factless assumptions were flying so fast that one scarcely had time to get a grip on the latest brainstorm before someone was shooting it out of his hand. Given the known "Origins Program" agenda of NASA over the last decade, and the one world government agenda of Rhodes Scholar Edwin Hubble, is there anyone who can not see that the computer programmed telescope and camera on the NASA-controlled Hubble Spacecraft is highly suspect not only from a technical angle (HERE) but from political and "religious" angles as well?? (HERE) {More on Hubble’s ambivalence on the major matter of whether the universe is static or expanding in PART III}]

-------

MAX BORN (1882-1970) Max Born published a paper in 1924 entitled "Zur Quantummechanik" and this marked the first time the phrase "Quantum Mechanics" was ever used.... Born suggests that the only observable aspect of the wavefunction was its square, not the wavefunction itself. He held that the correct interpretation of the wavefunction was that the square at a given point in space was proportional to the probability of finding that point in space. The square is called the probability density, while we can call the wavefunction its probability amplitude.... [no comment] Max hired Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan to come and work for him....17

-------

WERNER HEISENBERG (1901-1976) Heisenberg went right to work and produced The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" (HUP). He said: "...something strange happens when I try to measure position and momentum.... There is no problem in the macroscopic world...but in the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things accurately breaks down.... There is an uncertainty associated with each measurement...which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment... [Moreover] We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the universe is deterministic in the sense that I can predict the path a particle will follow with 100% certainty. 18 [In other words, nobody knows...just an arbitrary preference based at bottom on the rudimentary assumption that the Earth rotates and therefore the entire system must have a whole set of radically different explanations from what naturally flow in the Geocentricity Model as the stars are actually observed to go around the Earth every 24 hours....] So, even "...by 1924 physicists in Gottingen and Copenhagen were agreed that the old quantum theory had to be replaced by some new ‘quantum mechanics’." 19 [In theoretical science theories come and go as new problems arise because of the need to get out of the mess the last theory caused.]

Heisenberg tells of a little exchange between Einstein and himself:

    H - "...Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these...."

    E - "But you don’t seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but the observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

    H - "Isn’t that precisely what you have done with relativity?"

    E - "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning...but it is nonsense all the same[!] In reality [!] the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe." [!] 20 [This is a good summary on Einstein’s philosophy of "science" ...a philosophy that still contributes immensely to the control of modern cosmology, or, better said, cosmogony.]

Parenthetically, a couple of other "Einsteinisms" are pertinent here:

        "When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of  fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."21

The word "fantasy" equates, of course, with such things as: "delusion, illusion, misconception, trick, fool’s paradise, self-deception, hallucination, false light, figment of the imagination, something unsubstantial, thin air, mockery", etc. As supposedly one of the greatest intellects in all history, Einstein would certainly have been aware that these connotations of "fantasy" describe what he himself called his "gift" that guided his life and his "method of thought" which were expressed in his "thought experiments" such as Relativity. Thus, going one by one down thru that list of connotations it is--by Einstein’s own admission--appropriate to apply each one to the whole edifice of Relativity and what the entire world has been deceived into believing is "scientific" truth about the Earth, the "solar" system, and the rest of the universe as portrayed by Albert Einstein. Specifically then, Einstein’s description of his own Relativity hypothesis was that it was the product of his "gift of fantasy", which, by definition, means that RELATIVITY is: a) a "delusion", b) an "illusion", c) a "misconception", d) a "trick", e) a "fool’s paradise", f) "self-deception", g) an "hallucination", h) a "false light", i) a "figment of the imagination", j) "something unsubstantial", k) "thin air", l) "mockery".... What wonderful definitions for the cornerstone of modern cosmology!!

As for matters relating to Quantum Theory, Einstein’s reply to students in Zurich who asked him to lecture on the subject was quite straightforward:

    "It is not for me to lecture about quantum theory; however hard I tried, I never fully understood it." 22

-------

ARNO PENZIAS (1933- ) Arno Penzias’ family fled Germany in 1940.... He was schooled in the U. S. and began work at Bell Telephone Labs in 1962. In 1964 he and colleague Robert Wilson began monitoring radio waves in the Milky Way Galaxy with a radio telescope and in 1965 discovered cosmic background radiation. This discovery has been used as evidence in support of the "big bang" theory that the universe was created by a giant explosion billions of years ago. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics with Peter Kapitza.23 [This highly questionable "discovery" with its MAJOR CONCLUSION and its coveted reward [Nobel Prize] is reminiscent of Eddington’s highly questionable confirmation of Einstein’s Relativity in 1919 and his subsequent leap to international fame ...and Eddington’s reward of being knighted....]

Note these conveniently forgotten challenges to the big bang-confirming "discovery" of Penzias and Wilson:

We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 temperature prior to and better than models based on the big bang. 24

And this:

In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) utilizing a horn reflector antenna built to study radio astronomy.... They found a temperature of 3.5 + or - 1.0 K observing background radiation at 7.3 wavelength. This was soon interpreted as a relic of the hot big bang with a blackbody spectrum.... The finding was considered a proof of the standard cosmological model of the Universe based on the expansion of the Universe [after the BB] which had predicted this temperature with the works of Gamow and collaborators.

BUT! In this paper we show that other models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had predicted this temperature PRIOR to Gamow. Moreover, we show that Gamow’s own predictions were worse than these previous ones. 25 [These are IMPORTANT STATEMENTS! This and other information rejects the Big Bang, Expanding Universe conclusions of Penzias. Coupled with the spreading rejection of Einstein’s fantasy-based Relativity, such rejection spells deep trouble for deep space cosmology/cosmogony.... See notes on Gamow further along.]

-------

HANS ALBRECHT BETHE (1906- ) A short but pertinent note on Hans Albrecht Bethe is needed here to understand Gamow’s role in the formation and popularization of Big Bang cosmology: "Gamow used Hans Bethe’s model of stars as a starting point for his own research. Bethe’s model of the stars was formulated so that heat and radiation is generated in the cores of stars (thermonuclear reactions), and postulated that a star heats up rather than cooling down as its "fuel" is consumed." 26

-------

GEORGE GAMOW (1904-1968) Oddly, astronomer George Gamow frequently seems to get more credit for creating the Big Bang idea than its earlier advocates... LeMaitre in particular. Anyway, after studying optics and cosmology from 1923-1928 at the University of Leningrad he received a Ph.D. in astronomy. In 1929--with Niels Bohr’s help--he got a scholarship to the Royal Danish Academy at The Institute of Theoretical Physics. It was there that he proposed his hypothesis about atomic nuclei... that led to today’s theory of fusion and fission. During part of 1929-1930 he became a Rockefeller Fellow at Cambridge University where he specialized in thermonuclear reaction in the interior of stars. In 1931 he was recalled to the Soviet Union to be Master of Research at the Academy of Science in Leningrad. In 1933 he defected to the U.S. by way of a Professorship at the University of London, from whence he went to the University of Michigan in 1934. Finally, he settled in The Chair of Physics at George Washington University from 1934-1956, working on the atom and hydrogen bombs during WWII. Gamow’s contribution to astronomy research mainly concerns the origin of the universe and the evolution of stars.

A little more background: Gamow used Hans Bethe’s model of stars.... As noted, Bethe’s model of the stars was formulated so that heat and radiation is generated in the cores of stars (thermonuclear reactions), and postulated that a star heats up rather than cooling down as its fuel is consumed. Gamow also developed the theory for the internal structure of red giants (large stars). Gamow’s most famous contribution to astronomy started with his research and theories supporting Abbe Georges LeMaitre’s Big Bang theory. 27

[The circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that Gamow was a major spy for the Soviet Union is rather easy to piece together.... His university background and prominence abroad and at home during the hard Stalinist days would have made his "defection" in ‘33 very difficult...if not planned. His precipitous elevation to the Chair of Physics at GWU and his early championing of the Big Bang paradigm had great influence in making that concept--which conforms ideologically to atheistic communism--take hold in non-communist academia world wide. His concentration on the Origin of the Universe and his niche as an expert in establishing the assumption-laden concept that stars are thermonuclear power plants not only served to advance communist ideological "science", but served also to thwart other sensible concepts such as the Electric Universe Model now demanding serious attention. (HERE) Furthermore: There was a meeting of Communist Scientists in London in 1931 which was when Gamow was at Cambridge--and the year he was called back to be Master of Research at Leningrad U. There are three pages of rare quotations that relate to that London conference on the furtherance of Communist ideology through "science" given in The Earth Is Not Moving. (pp.25-27). The following samples from those pages bear heavily on this entire web page effort and, almost certainly, reveal Gamow’s real contribution to "science". Note these statements from Communist "scientists" at the London Conference:

     The bottom line on this insistence that nothing can be stationary in the universe is simple: viz., The Bible says the Earth is stationary and the Bible is the implacable enemy of  secularist (and allegedly secularist!) ideologies in all their disguises...including most particularly the "secular science" disguise!!]

 

 

             (HERE)]

Could anything be more plain?? The "reconstructed", i.e., invented math that upholds modern cosmology/cosmogony (and also the biological "sciences") is the ultimate tool in the promotion of anti-Bible ideological warfare disguised as "science".  The roles played by Einstein and the other theoreticians in establishing these knowledge-shaping deceptions have served as  the leading edge of a supernaturally directed, sacrosanct conspiracy of transcendent importance to every person alive.  The goal of this diabolical game plan has been to make LIES triumphant over TRUTH in all areas of man's "knowledge", and thereby make Satan-- the god of this world (II Cor. 4:4) who has no truth in him (John 8:44)--the victor over the God of the Bible Who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).   As planned before the foundation of the world (Acts 15:18) Satan will have the overt worship he wants (Isaiah 14:13,14; Rev.13:4) for a brief period (Is. 14:12, 15-17; Rev. 12:12).  But this will not occur before his deception-based kingdom of Babylon is exposed and destroyed (Rev. 17:14; I Jn. 3:8) and forced to openly become a blaspheming "habitation of devils" made up of those who "cannot receive a love of the truth" (I Cor.11:13-15; Rev.18:2; II Thess. 2:10).   The credibility of the Bible as the source of Absolute Truth will be established in a "war" that is won by the Lamb and His "called, chosen, and faithful followers" (Rev. 17:14) "one hour" (Rev. 17:12) after a Global Government is seated.    It's all written and it will all be fulfilled.  The "...vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called" (I Tim. 6:20) and the Satanic agenda they have fostered in every aspect of modern man's "knowledge" are destined for total exposure.  God lays the responsibility for allowing these baseless deceptions to undermine the credibility of His Word directly on the Churches' doorstep and that is where His Judgment begins  (HERE)....       

-------

ERWIN FREUNDLICH (1885-1964) Most of Erwin Freundlich’s input into all this phony-math duplicity centers around the early advancement of Einstein’s career and seems chronologically misplaced here. But because his long career also included tests of general relativity based on gravitational redshift , and because redshift technology relating to star distances is just as contrived as the phony math conspiracy, Freundlich’s role in all this theoretical science chicanery is more important than it would seem at first blush. Also, his work will help lead into a PART III topic which will further demonstrate the central role that the Theoretical Science Establishment has played and is playing in the intensifying campaign to destroy all aspects of Biblical Creationism and hence Biblical credibility so that it will have no credibility left when it gets to Jesus Christ and His New Covenant....

Freundlich’s early connection with Einstein’s rocket-like ascendancy in the "science" world would probably make an interesting 50 pages, but we will settle for perhaps that many sentences....

Freundlich was an assistant at the Royal Observatory in Berlin in 1910. At this time Einstein was working on his General Theory of Relativity, and it was noticed that Mercury’s orbit didn’t fit Newton’s theory of gravitation. Einstein asked Freundlich to make accurate observations of Mercury’s orbit. In 1911 Freundlich worked with Einstein... attempting to make the measurements of Mercury’s orbit required to confirm the General Theory of Relativity.

Freundlich worked it out and presented his confirmation in a paper in 1913...against the advice of his advisors at the Observatory. That same year, Freundlich, a Christian, married Kate Hirschberg, a Jewess and heiress to the Krupp munitions fortune.

Freundlich’s task was to measure the deflection in a light ray passing close to the sun. Einstein’s incomplete theory of Relativity suggested that such a test could be used to check the validity of the theory.

The only way to make such measurements at that time was during an eclipse. Krupp and other monied families offered to pay Freundlich’s expenses for a trip to the Crimea to observe and eclipse (which was rained out and he returned to Berlin).

Freundlich made other tests of General Relativity based on gravitational redshift, but these were inconclusive.

Following Einstein’s publication of his General Theory of Relativity in 1916, Freundlich published his first book (the same year. Hmmm...). The book suggested the ways that the General Theory of Relativity could be tested by astronomical observations. In 1918 Freundlich resigned his post in Berlin to work full time with Einstein. 35

[The next year (1919) was, of course, the big year that Eddington declared--and Sir Dyson announced--that the solar eclipse running thru Africa and Brazil had confirmed Einstein’s predictions  and certified his grand theory of Relativity.

As noted back under Eddington, contrary assessments of the event were given no opportunity to dampen Zionist Einstein’s meteoric rise to Dean of the Science Establishment.  Recall also that it was the British Science Establishment that first published DeSitter’s support of Einstein’s Relativity in 1917--the same year the Balfour Declaration promised the Zionists a homeland in Palestine. Moreover, it was the British Science Establishment that permitted Eddington’s controversial assessment of the eclipse results of 1919 to be announced without challenge to a joint meeting of the Royal Society and The Royal Astronomical Society....

I leave it to others to connect the dots, but clearly, there is a lot of smoke in all this not to be any fire. Indeed, what we see afoot in all these shenanigans is a political and religious agenda being fulfilled by purely assumption-based theoretical science. There is no doubt whatsoever that further digging into the roles of other scientists connected with Einstein from about 1900 on would only serve to heighten the certainty of this most successful and invidious hijacking of the cosmological sciences by theoreticians with agendas other than promoting factual science.

-------

CARL SAGAN (1934-1996) Sagan capsulized his belief about man’s significance thusly: "Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." [This evolution-grounded nihilistic mindset has been prevalent in and out of academia for several generations. It is not surprising that Sagan embraced it, nor that few if any dissenters toward that mindset would be found in NASAdom. Surprising or not, the time to expose the "science falsely so called" behind all this Bible-wrecking deception is steadily approaching and it will begin at the root, i.e., the Copernican deception.]

For a deeper look into Sagan’s critical role in fixating NASA-led Space Explorations on a tax-supported search for extraterrestrial life, and for the source of the quote above, go (HERE). There is also a Chapter entitled "Sagan et al" (pp.134-157) in The Earth Is Not Moving which will enable many caught in that same mindset (as I was) to see and understand the folly of it all....

-------

CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE (....-....) Along with Sir Fred Hoyle, Wickramasinghe is an important player in the comedy of errors known as cosmology/ cosmogony which characterizes Space "Science" today. For an understanding of his two-edged role in the ever unfolding evolution drama, i.e., his masterful destruction of Darwinian evolutionism on the one hand and, on the other hand, his extraordinary labors to establish evolutionism on Earth and throughout the universe via the transmission of bacteria in comets, go: (HERE). [This is a good one for revealing the truly desperate plight evolutionism finds itself in today.]

-------

WAL THORNHILL (....-....) Ignoring the sort of underlying New Age Mysticism and a fundamentalist evolutionary mindset that seemingly characterize the personal philosophies of Electric Universe Cosmologists (Thornhill included), this Australian physicist is, nonetheless, a leading and able spokesman for a readily understood concept of the universe which throws everything back to Newton into a cocked hat. [Actually, it goes back to Copernicus when the New Age Mysticism and the evolutionary mindsets are dismissed....] Anyway, the concept is called The Electric Universe and what follows are a few of the main features...features which show how very closely the scientific parts of this concept come to matching the Biblical geocentricity paradigm:

The Electric Universe Model (EUM) rejects Big Bangism: 36 "There was no Big Bang." [yahoo!]

The EUM scientists declare: 37 "The visible universe...is much smaller than we thought.... We have no idea of the extent of the universe." [ Right On!]

Moreover: "We have direct evidence of stellar evolution...but in a time scale comparable with the human life time." 38 [ Read that again! This is young universe talk!]

They further assert: "We don’t know the age of stars, since the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them.... [So much for Einstein and all the others we looked at!] We have no idea of the age...of the universe."39 [I do!]

Also, the idea that: "...galactic distances can be determined by redshift is an assumption [and the] only basis of the further extrapolation that the universe is expanding and the only reason for even believing that there ever was a big bang." 40 [This is dy-no-mite!]

And how about this central plank of the EUM?: "Stars are electrical transformers, not thermonuclear devices." 41 [Makes sense to me. Gravity is obviously not capable of doing all the things it is credited with doing. Check out the EUM for yourselves--eschewing the evolutionary mindset if you can--and see where you come out....]

Add these cosmological icon busters: "The speed of light is not a barrier." - "Time travel is impossible." - "Space has no extra dimensions in which to warp or where parallel universes may exist." - "There are no neutron stars or Black Holes." 42 & 43 [Bye bye a century of theoretical science in cosmology! Now is the time to erase its control over the evolution-based extraterrestrial mindset too!]

Two more: "Electromagnetic forces are infinitely more powerful than gravity and capable of simply explaining phenomena attributed to Black Holes. Electromagnetic...forces can repel or attract. Gravity only attracts. [Plasma cosmology] is verifiable by experiment because of the enormous scalability of the phenomena." 44"Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept."45

[The Electric Universe Model portends a knowledge revolution about the size and nature of the universe whose time has come. All the pseudo-scientific stuff from Kepler and Galileo--and on thru Newton and Einstein and Sagan and the rest of the gang--laid a cosmological foundation based upon a heliocentristic model of the Earth and sun, which foundation violated God’s Word and paved the way for the successful promotion of evolutionism thru Darwinism and now attenuated panspermiaism. That foundation is built on sand and will not be allowed to stand. As demonstrated HERE , not just the cosmological comedy, but the whole scope of modern man’s "knowledge" rests on the acceptance of that Copernican foundation which has been promoted by an increasingly powerful and sacrosanct Theoretical Science Establishment. The Electric Universe Model--sans its superfluous evolutionism and heliocentricism and New Age Mysticism baggage--is fully capable of delivering a blow to this foundation that not only will help force a rewind of the history of science right back to Mr. Copernicus, but will also help spark an exposure of the deception-ridden bases of all Bible-defying knowledge since his observation-denying hypothesis was launched. The prayer by Copernicus which is written under his portrait in Poland is: I do incessantly pray for the forgiveness which thou on the wood of the cross hast granted to the murderer." Good prayer.... I would not be surprised if it is answered. After all, the lessons derived out of this deviation from the Word of God have a preordained eternal value (Acts 15:18) for those on that promised New Earth, for it is Scripturally certain that this earth will pass away HERE. But it is also Scripturally certain that, although "...heaven and earth shall pass away, my Words shall not pass away" (Luke 21:33) ].

-------

Led by Einstein, The Theoretical Science Establishment has successfully sandbagged real science and real math and turned modern cosmology into little more than a mouthpiece for evolutionism and a bulwark against any challenge to heliocenticity. Science-Fiction rules modern cosmology. It does so chiefly thru the use of mathematical fumididdles and deceptive Virtual Reality technology (HERE), both of which have been invented to uphold hidden political (Zionist) and religious (Kabbalist/Talmudist) agendas (HERE & HERE)

Since the Big Bang paradigm with its Expanding Universe demands some 15 billion years of development and billions of light year distances to the stars, it should come as no surprise to those getting their eyes opened that Redshift and Infrared technologies have been fraudulently employed to claim that the unseen is being observed. That fraud will be a focus of PART III.... (HERE)

-------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 - Harold Nordenson, Relativity, Time and Reality, George Allen, Ltd., London, 1969, p. 153.

2 - R. Hazelett and D. Turner, ed., The Einstein Myth and The Ives Papers, (Old Greenwich, Conn.,

The Devin-Adair Co., 1979), p.31.

3 - (Ibid., p.38)

4 - Time, 2/19/79, p.76.

5 - Ency. Br., ‘76 & Net: Web Crawler Search Engine

6 - Ibid.

7 - spaceboy.nasda.go

8 - Ency. Br., ‘76.

9 - Net: Astro 103

10 - Net: Abbe Georges LeMaitre

11 - pbs.org - Science Odyssey. p.1.

12 - Ibid.

13 - Ency. Br., ‘76.

14 - Dr. Stanley Monteith: Brotherhood of Darkness, Hearthstone Publishing Co., Box 815, Oklahoma City, OK 73101, pp.22, 99.

15 - Edwin Hubble, spaceboy.nasda.go

16 - Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach To Cosmology, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1937, from the Rhodes Lectures, no p.# given. Same conclusions given p.6, of Sandage’s coverage at: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html - 10/28/01

17 - Max Born, www.chembio.uoguelph.ca. p.1, 7/29/01

18 - Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, http://zebu.uoregon.edu

19 - Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927, The Quantum Mechanic, www.aip.org/history, p.1 of 3, 8/1/01.

20 - Quantum Mechanics, 1925...Heisenberg Recalls....,www.aip.org/history, pp.1,2

21 - Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, World Publishing Co., NY & Cleveland, 1971, p.87.

22 - Ibid., p.220.

23 - Results for Penzias, Arno Allan, www.encyclopedia.com, p.1, 7/2/01

24 - History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson, www.an.uem.or, p.1 0f 11, 7/2/01.

25 - Ibid.

26 - Net - Web Crawler - The Life of George Gamow, p.2.

27 - Ibid.

28 - Dr. Joseph Needham. "Marx’s Theory On The Historical Process", Science At The Crossroads. London, Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. 1971). p. 189.

29 - Ibid.

30 - Ibid., p.188.

31 - Ibid., pp. 215-216.

32 - Ibid.

33 - Ibid., p.225.

34 - Ibid., p 229.

35 - Net - Web Crawler. Erwin Freundlich.

36 - www.holoscience.com, synopsis/ #12, So What?, 1/14/01, p.1.

37 - Ibid.

38 - THOTH. A Catastrophics Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1/3/01, Don Scott, p.9.

39 - Op. cit., Holoscience, #12, p.1.

40 - THOTH. 1/3/01, Amy Acheson, pp.13,14.

41 - Op. cit., Holoscience, #12, p.1.

42 - Ibid.

43 - Ibid.

44 - Wal Thornhill, "Definition", Net transmission, 1/14/01, p.1

45 - Ibid., Mel Acheson (or with Thornhill), p.3.