Science: More Evidence Against the Big Bang - Surface Brightness

In the following talk, plasma physicist and LPP Fusion's Chief Scientist Eric J. Lerner explains the latest results on the surface brightness of galaxies and outlines additional strong evidence against the expansion of the universe and the concordance cosmological model.

The concordance model is basically a hot big bang, expanding universe model. If you enjoy being perpetually surprised by contradictory observations, then it's certainly the model for you.

Cosmologists have stuck to their story for a good while now, despite it having no predictive value, perhaps because it's an appealing story that simultaneously appeases the church while satisfying the funding appetites of the scientific establishment. The story goes something like this: "In the beginning was the word and the word was BANG!" and the star gazers have told this tale to a legion of devoted mathematicians and physicists who have in turn, dutifully constructed monumental theories (regularly patched up with "free parameters") to uphold what is fundamentally a creation myth to sate that all too human desire for a beginning and an end. Ironically, what they've actually created is an incredibly powerful black hole, into which the best minds and the deepest pockets throw their time and their money.

The surface brightness and luminosity data alone are striking evidence against the expanding universe model, however, in the second half of this presentation Lerner runs through a host of additional problems for proponents of an expanding universe, such as:

  • The lithium and helium issue
  • The "dark matter" critical density mismatch
  • Observed large scale structures that would take longer than the age of the universe to form
  • Non-random cosmic background radiation

The high priests of cosmology have their theory and enough "free parameters" to keep it alive for a little while longer, but when it does finally keel over and die, the mia culpa that follows may resemble the mysterious dark energy they were always looking for: at once both profoundly powerful, yet very hard to detect.

Here's professor plasma himself, Eric Lerner (be warned it's quite loud and strangely shrill in the first few seconds - and try not to be distracted, as Mr Lerner clearly was, by the untimely phone call):

Health: Statins - The Drug That Helps You "Grow Older Faster"

Doctors have been deceived by the pharmaceutical industry (with fraudulant statistics, "lost" side effect data, controlling the peer review journals, buying the regulators ... all the standard malfeasance) into believing that statins are a wonder drug. So, now they're being dished out like smarties to anyone with a pulse, including pregnant women (regardless of the drug's Class X status, not the only similarity they share with Thalidomide) to the point where now 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 45 are on statin medication. Statins of course, are a wonder drug for the pharmaceutical companies, at least until the class action lawsuits come flooding in; they are though an insidious timebomb for the unwitting "patients" to whom they are prescribed.

Mercola's interview with MIT's Dr Stephanie Seneff is the most lucid, clear and condensed outline I've come across regarding statin medication. If you are interested in statins, how they work and their effect on the body, or you have a broader interest in the pharmaceutical industry and its methods, this interview is a real treasure.

The introduction is rather poor however and doesn't add anything, so I've skipped it, the video starts as Seneff begins her surgical dissection of this blockbuster "wonder drug". If you're in a big rush, jump to around 24 mins in, but I highly recommend watching it through to the end.

So, as Lou Reed once put it, here's what 'Stephanie Says':

Health: Cholesterol Deception and the Creation of a Dietary Myth

Dr David Diamond is a professor in Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology at the University of South Florida. He teaches a seminar entitled “Myths and Deception in Medical Research”, which critically evaluates the methods and conflicts of interest in health-related research.

In recent years he's written papers on diet, cholesterol and statins, including one published in the journal “Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology”, which describes the deceptive practices employed by researchers promoting statins for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

This talk is an excellent outline of those deceptive practices (the use of "relative risk reduction" for example, see below) and is particularly useful for the historical context it provides. So if you want to know why going low-fat will make you fat, or why if you're over 60 and want to live longer, you may wish to consider increasing your cholesterol levels, this is well worth a watch.

Just a note on "relative risk reduction", because it's so outrageous I feel the need to highlight this: 

You give Group A statins (for example) and group B a placebo.
Group A has a 98% survival rate; Group B has a 97% survival rate. That's a 1% difference. But not if you're in the pharmaceutical industry! No, they say, that 3% in group B died and we had a 1% improvement, so let's divide that 1% by the 3% and then we turn 1% into 33% and although it's a compete fabrication we can use that big number to shift more product. So we have a 1% "absolute risk reduction" that is marketed as a 33% "relative risk reduction*", and then they hide the side effects data (but that's for another post), so that's why statins are a "blockbuster" success! They're a success for the pharmaceutical industry and a complete disaster for anyone who takes them. Statins in my view are the number one "litigator's wet dream of the future"; a gigantic class action lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Anyway, here's the professor chewing the fat.

Note: This is a YouTube only affair (opens in a new window) and I've skipped the intro, which is okay, but not required.

Science: Big Bang's Big Problem - Red Shift, still not going away

John Kierein, back in the 1980's, made a very interesting presentation looking at red shift and gravity. What's strange is that this talk is still relevant today. Cosmologists still refuse to deal with the problems that arise if red shift does not tell the whole story in regard to measuring distances across space. This is a big issue, because if they're wrong about this, then they're wrong about so much more.

So, what is Red Shift

"If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us". (Electric Cosmos)

Halton Arp had, by the time of Kierein's presentation, already pointed out to his fellow cosmologists that there was a significant problem with using red shift to measure the recessional velocity of stella objects. Arp made clear in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'. However, there are numerous examples of such 'coincidentally aligned' objects.

Hubble, the father of the redshift velocity-distance relation (1929), remarked in 1947 that better data may indicate that, “redshifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination".

If red shift is not the yard-stick the cosmologists think it is, the implications are vast. It would call in to doubt the following:

  • The age of the universe
  • The nature of its origin (big bang?)
  • Whether it's actually expanding or is in fact static
  • The existence of dark matter, dark energy, black holes (all of which are based on mathematics drawn from the assumptions prescribed by the high priests of cosmology, and are really just required energy accounting entries due to an energy deficit based on current assumptions)
  • The nature of gravity and whether other forces are at work (electro-magnetism anyone? charge separation, plasma, hint hint)

Anyway, if you can forgive the amateurish nature of the presentation (this was made pre-YouTube before we all turned pro), this is a great introduction to the idea that all might not be so settled in the realms of "settled science", and that there's a little too much dictum in the church of cosmology and not enough genuine scientific enquiry.

Here's John Kierein and his jumper: Part 1 (links to Parts 2 - 6 are below)

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Science: The Sun - Elephant in the IPCC's Room

Ben Davidson does a great job at Suspicious0bservers, publishing daily space weather news, running the mobile observatory and a great deal more besides. Earlier this year he published a very handy summary of the current state of the earth's climate. There's so much distortion and deceit surrounding this topic, with vested interests on every side, that it's very hard to find an objective analysis of what is actually happening.

If you want a quick presentation to get up to date on the actual science (the signal) rather than the dogma (the noise), then watching Davidson's "Top 6 Climate Change Problems" is 20 minutes very well spent. 

Here's Ben doing his thing:

< >