- Scrutiny | The Big Bang and Mob Mentality [Part 1]
Imagine plucking a man from the middle of the 20th century and bringing him into your day to day life like a foreign exchange student.
Questions would fly, beyond any doubt, and so an exhausting deal of exposition would be needed to bring your guest up to speed with the contemporary world that the breakneck acceleration of our technology has brought us to. But the task could be done: some guidance could leap him from the tv screens he knew to those now in our pockets; he might realize the internet by imagining a network of super phone lines; and today’s culture would quickly show itself as just some flashy new flavors of the same human nature he’d known.
However, there is an aspect of our culture today that he’d almost certainly trip over the moment someone offhandedly mentioned it:
“Oh right… Um, so they found out that there was this big bang that everything came out of. And that’s where, like, the universe all came from, this super big explosion in space.”
Now, it may not be told that quick and clumsily, but the point remains: the big bang theory sounds rather odd to someone who hasn’t lived the majority of their life surrounded by it. And if the host had gone into further detail, it’d likely only seem stranger, and the visitor might soon have some troubling questions:
This theory only plays if you ignore Newton’s laws of physics?
Everything just suddenly exploded out of nothing? Out of a ridiculously small space with infinite capabilities?
They observe things all the time that don’t make sense with this theory?
What would likely cross his mind is that this person, his host, doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he’s some buffoon, ill-informed, or he’s messing with him. However, later on, after speaking with others who confirm what his host said, he could start seeing himself as the buffoon for not understanding, or he might simply accept what he’s hearing with little overview in order to stand comfortably alongside the pack; the basic guiding thoughts being: Am I really right and everyone else is wrong? Or am I just wrong? They all get it… and I don’t want to be against everybody.
The above is a rough mock-up of mob mentality. When everyone’s going one way, you don’t really want to go the other. You want to join the energy, you want to pile on the bandwagon; and that’s because it’s comfortable being arm in arm sharing fellowship with the masses, and far less stressful than dissenting from them.
But what exactly created the masses that our hypothetical “visitor” would have experienced? Why is the big bang the common understanding? Why is it the explanation that most people have in the back of their minds?
To put it simply, the big bang theory came to be then came to be accepted because of something called red shift. The discovery and understanding of red shift is what first launched the theory, and over the following decades, it’s become the platform which it stands on and which it holds as a trump card over contesting beliefs.
What is it?
Any observed light, such as the light from a distant star, lies on a spectrum that is based upon the frequency of the light: the frequency that the light shows is what defines where it is placed along the spectrum. When light from a distant star appears at a lower frequency—a shift towards the red area on the spectrum—it’s believed that the object, the distant star, must be moving away. This is often likened to the sound you hear when a car approaches you compared to the sound you hear when it’s moving away; we wouldn’t see much blue shift, or higher frequency, if the object was moving towards us, but we would see noticeable red shift if the object was moving away—as says the common understanding of red shift.
If an object is showing a light frequency that’s 30% lower than the standard, then it’s believed the object is moving away from us at 30% the speed of light. That speed is known as the recessional velocity of an object, and it’s believed that recessional velocity has a direct relationship with the distance of an object from the viewer: so when a percentage is observed, there’s already an amount of distance that’s been predetermined as a match for that percentage.
Using this system, astronomers have been measuring the frequencies of light emitted by various objects in the sky then assigning those objects with the approximate distance away that their recessional velocity translates to. In this way, estimates of the size and age of the universe were created, along with the big bang theory. And to this day, red shift remains the most cited piece of evidence for the big bang. As well, the age and distance of celestial objects today is still being determined by red shift.
For proponents of the big bang theory, and the larger scientific community in general, it’s been the golden key to unlocking space. Trust in its precise legitimacy sits beside gravity as the foundation for the world’s current understanding of all that we see out in space. If it’s incorrect or has been misunderstood, our current understanding of the age and size of the cosmos is void, along with all the measurements of distance we’ve collected between us and other objects in the sky, and as well, the big bang theory collapses.
Red shift has been misunderstood. It’s as simple and clear-cut as that. In fact, glaring problems with red shift have existed for decades, ones that cripple the way it’s used to calculate the sky. But these defeating problems have been ignored again and again as mistakes or bizarre anomalies that will soon be ironed out. Yet, decades later, instances of these problems have only grown, and the latest technology has made it nearly impossible to hide them away as mistakes or anomalies.
The fall of red shift truly began with the work of Halton Arp; an award-winning astronomer who worked as Edwin Hubble’s assistant. Arp, during his time working at the observatories on Mt Palomar and Mt Wilson, took notice of a number of peculiarities in some of the galaxies he was monitoring. One such peculiarity was quasars he’d spot with incredibly high red shifts, meaning they’re very far away, partnered with galaxies that have low red shifts and are known to be close.
He began finding and photographing such pairings all over the sky. Yet, despite the sheer number of discoveries, all of them were brushed away as impossible due to the deeply rooted reliance on red shift’s conventional understanding amongst his academic community; if it fell, their work was corrupt, and they fell. So every discovery was said to be a mistake, and the objects he was seeing were actually a great distance apart from each other.
But Arp continued to find greater and greater evidence, collecting images that showed quasars in intimate union with the galaxies they were supposed to be vast distances away from. He even presented multiple images of different pairings showing materia stretching out from a galaxy directly to a quasar which shows a radically different red shift. Though his increasing evidence only resulted in his works being denied publication, and his time with major observatories being taken away; a mockery to the scientific method which should have brought an even more scrutinous eye on his results, pointing more telescopes on what he claimed to be seeing, instead of turning away and ignoring the findings altogether.
In regards to his work, Carl Sagan had this to say:
“There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts”
“If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars — supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like — would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space.”
The five surrounding images are all shots of what’s known as the Stephan Quintet: which is a cluster of five galaxies. One of the galaxies, NGC 7320, has a dramatically different red shift than the others which caused astronomers to announce that it couldn’t possibly be part of the cluster. However, on closer examination, a bridge was observed connecting this galaxy with NGC 7318A+B.
The bridge can be seen in the photo at the top, and then in a later x-ray photon on the top right, and then in an even later infrared photo on the bottom left.
Below is a recently taken image which shows a quasar directly in front of a galaxy which is supposed to be an immense distance closer to us based on its red shift. And, to be clear, this should be impossible based on the conventional understanding of red shift.
END OF PART 1
1. Anomalous redshift companion galaxies: NGC 7603 – N.A. Sharp.
2. Galaxies and the Universe – Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy (William C. Keel).
3. The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319.
4. The double radio source 3C343.1: A galaxy-QSO pair with very different redshifts – H. Arp, E.M. & G. Burbidge.
5. Galaxies and Quasars linked by a bridge of matter
- Scrutiny | Gravity Hills and Localized Distortions
A gravity hill, simply put, is a sloped area where gravity seems to be faltering: causing objects to rise against the slope.
The phenomena began to gain attention in the 20th century as various people discovered their cars seemingly going up certain hills while they were in neutral. Today, well-known gravity hills dot the world, and many have even become tourist attractions.
I couldn’t help but scoff when I was first told by a friend of such a site which she knew of as a kid.
[at first glance: too ridiculous and something that could be faked]
It really did sound just too ridiculous.
Though, years later, I came across some videos of people demonstrating the phenomena taking place at different areas with better equipment and became intrigued. After watching enough, it became clear that the videos weren’t staged—at least not all of them—and the objects certainly appeared to be going uphill; be it water, a ball, a car in neutral, etc.
But I knew there was an explanation. There had to be. I was a little annoyed that I couldn’t figure it out, though I knew, just based on the sheer number of known hills and video evidence, that this curiosity must have been addressed: it was just too widespread and too strange not to have been.
So I went looking for some clear answers… yet what I found left me baffled—in kind of an ugly way.
Gravity hills had, as expected, been casually dismissed. Their mystery had been blamed on a simple visual trick; the surrounding landscape in each area somehow working to delude viewers. However, the grand problem with this is that the investigators had used a carpenter’s rule as proof that the hills were just visual tricks. They’d lay them down, see the bubble slide towards what looked to be the downhill direction, and the problem was solved: The instrument shows that it’s just a visual trick.
Here’s the thing:
Gravity hills spark curiosity in people because there seems to be some phenomena taking place which is altering gravity. If you don’t believe in gravity, some phenomena appears to be taking place in these localized regions which is altering whatever force you happen to believe is holding us down. Regardless, it appears that there’s some distortion in a fundamental force of reality taking place in these areas.
Buoyancy, as in carpenter’s levels, utilizes gravity to work.
Discovering such a fallacy being used to dismiss this curiosity is what baffled me. It hadn’t been a mystery before, then it suddenly was.
Now, I haven’t decided to type away here to make any claim as to the true nature of gravity hills. I’m not even trying to dismiss the notion that they may all just be incredible optical illusions. Although, I don’t believe humans have such clumsy faculties that their various senses can’t distinguish a slope; or at least that’s true for most, and an enormous amount of people have experienced this phenomena. Closing your eyes and walking from a normal street onto the surface should easily enough alert one to the slope’s true nature—if sight and general sense truly aren’t capable.
But anyway, that leads into my two major causes for writing this.
The first is the nonsense proof, via the use of a carpenter’s level, that’s managed to debunk this mystery to an astonishing degree. Outside of some video comments, it’s rampant in most discussions and commonly pointed to as the obvious game-over card for discussion past optical illusion. It’s also the go-to tool for any investigator going out on the scene, be it some investigative individual filming his process or some tv mystery crew.
In short, it’s a little disheartening to see what might be a remarkable phenomena shutdown before being properly explored simply due to runaway misinformation—hence my first reason.
And this leads to my second reason.
I’m certain there are others familiar with the gravity hills phenomena who noticed the critical flaw in using a device based on gravity to sort out a potential gravity anomaly, and they may have raised their voices. However, if they didn’t, I feel they should have; just as anyone should when they’re watching someone stumble and they have the ability to help.
It goes without saying that you should never let yourself be force fed information past your logical faculties. Reality should always be scrutinized. So, if it’s not already a habit, consider telling others of the nonsense you spot; since we each have our own unique filters, just as we’re all blind to certain things.
- Restoration | A Giant Riddle [intro]
The notion of giants is a pervasive element in world culture. In this series, we’ll explore why that is, and if there’s any truth to one of the most popular claims.
[editor’s note: this is just an introduction to a long series. If you’re not interested in this overview context, please scroll to the bottom to find a link or look to the Restoration page to find a link to the main content.]
Growing up, the thought of giants was always a playful story element that I enjoyed in books and movies. Despite the fact that they’re a deeply ingrained part of all world cultures, I never gave a second thought to there being any truth behind their existence. Perhaps it was because they were so ever-present, an almost worn-out trope in myth and fantasy culture, that they existed beyond or behind scrutiny.
Regardless, as I grew older and began taking an ever-greater interest in ancient history, archaeology, and mythology, I found myself growing more open to beliefs and understandings that I would have previously sneered at. And the more I dug and obsessed, the more I found my previous ultra-skeptic self fading away.
But through all the countless articles and books and lectures that I soaked in, a belief in the past existence of giants was still never truly broached in my mind. I ran into them all the time in religious texts and fringe lectures, though I always seemed to glaze over when bits of evidence would pass before me.
Yet, that all abruptly changed about two and a half years ago when a friend raised the topic and, seeing my apprehension, proceeded to pull up a series of stories on anomalous remains found throughout the world. Having come across a number of these stories before, I was immediately critical; because if you’re even somewhat familiar with such things, you know that the problem with these giant remains that are supposedly discovered every now and then is that none still exist today–at least not within reach of the public. They all mysteriously vanish after causing some commotion in the communities near their discovery, then after some time, its deemed by some reputable figure that they were surely fakes, and like a fungal infection, the whole story begins to rot further and further into disbelief with each passing year: leaving us today with just worrisome scraps of hearsay to try and stand on.
Though what my friend had was different, at least for me. I couldn’t poke holes in most of what he was presenting me, and suddenly the tide turned. My aggressive denial left, and in turn, I became curious about the truth behind what I was seeing. I still didn’t fully believe it, but from then on, it was a feasible possibility. And as I did my usual research, I began compiling what I’d come across regarding the giant phenomena, occasionally pursuing certain things, but always keeping an accepting eye out for any related content.
So, as you may have guessed, over that time my little archive has grown, and this series is being made to exhume it as well as to bring to light as many other pertinent bits of info related to this mystery that we here can find. And in that light, we hope that you enjoy, or at least properly consider, what we put forth. This will be a long running series, as this happens to be such a pervasive topic, but eventually it will all be compiled and cleaned.
PART 1 – Footprints
- Scrutiny | In the Case of Dark Matter
Forty years ago, proof for the existence of dark matter and dark energy was thought to be just around the corner. Billions of dollars have since been spent on a wide variety of experiments led by our world’s most prestigious institutes in an effort to find such proof. Yet, as of today, this grand search remains empty-handed, and its initial confidence has been replaced by a growing sense of desperation as the probability of these particles’ existence continues to slip further and further away with each passing year and each failed experiment.
In 1932, a Dutch astronomer by the name of Jan Hendrick Oort noticed an issue with his measurements of local celestial bodies. In essence, he’d observed stars moving faster than what our accepted understanding of physics would say is possible. These stars were violating Newton’s law that tells us a body’s orbital velocity is dependent on the gravitational mass it is orbiting.
This was a headache for Dr. Oort, beyond any doubt, for a man in his position can never lightly host criticisms of our beloved physical laws—no matter how sure his measurements are. However, unbeknownst to Dr. Oort, those tedious discrepancies that he’d suffered over would not be his burden to bear alone. In fact, this problem that he’d first touched on has since come to grow into one of the greatest dilemmas in modern physics.
Expanding on the Issue
The implications of this grand problem might best be appreciated if we examine the form of a classic spiral galaxy. Like giant catherine wheels, the spiral galaxies in our universe spin out, and are simultaneously held together, by a point in their center where most physicists now believe one—or more—supermassive black holes reside, acting as the gravitational power-houses that hold these enormous galaxies together. Our classic understanding would say that the majority of the stars and mass in our galaxy must be around the central bulge, and the stars outside of this bulge, spaced ever-farther out into the spiral arms, would be moving ever-slower: orbiting with less and less velocity based on their distance from the gravitational mass in the center.
Alas, this is far from the case. As Dr. Oort first observed, and as so many have observed since then, no matter how far a star is from the galactic center, its orbital velocity almost always remains as a constant that’s shared with all other stars outside of its galaxy’s central bulge. In other cases—such as in galaxies with a uniform distribution of luminous matter–the orbital velocity even appears to increase the farther the stars are from their galactic center.
Now, the magnitude of this problem insists that it should not be understated, for its very existence undermines a substantial portion of the laws of physics that contemporary science has come to depend on. So, with that in mind, let’s clarify at least one of the key problems that arises out of the information presented above:
In order for said galaxies to maintain their great spiral shapes, the force of gravity emanating from their centers must be instantaneously engaging all other cosmic bodies bound to their form, for those smaller, comprising bodies are rapidly moving as well as interacting gravitationally with a multitude of bodies in the same manner as the galaxies themselves. In other words, for a star near the tip of such a spiral arm to remain in place in one of these enormous formations, the gravity from the supermassive black hole/holes at the center of its galaxy not only has to be far greater than what is typically observed, it also has to be reaching out and interacting with this star constantly and with almost no lag-time whatsoever. Otherwise, centrifugal force would hurl it and any other stars out from these galactic formations.
Yet, as far as we can tell, stars are not being hurled out of their respected galaxies. And those galaxies, for the most part, are also doing a remarkable job of holding their shapes. So what is going on? It’s no secret that gravity is an odd force to contend with, just ask anyone who’s tried to measure its fluctuating “constant” or recall/google a physics lesson on Newtonian gravity: when making calculations regarding the movements or orbits of cosmic bodies, gravity has to be given an infinite speed—otherwise, the equations simply do not work.
“THAT ONE BODY SHOULD ACT UPON ANOTHER THROUGH A VACUUM WITHOUT THE MEDIATION OF ANYTHING ELSE IS SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY THAT NO MAN SUITED TO DO SCIENCE…CAN EVER FALL INTO IT”
If you weren’t previously aware of these—or any of the other—glaring holes that exist in our world’s fundamental understanding of space and time, you might very well be asking yourself why this isn’t a bigger deal or maybe how a problem this big still exists today. The thing is, this is still a very big deal, and this problem does still exist today, but… it also doesn’t.
Eyes Over Here
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford put forth the strongest evidences yet to help detail the array of problems that can be found in the immense gulf between the cosmos we predict and the cosmos we observe. But, at the same time, they also proposed the perfect scapegoat for what had been growing into a nightmarish problem for astronomers, suggesting the existence of a never before seen or detected material known as dark matter as well as a force known as dark energy. The ambiguity and undetectable nature of these supposed materials allowed them to act as a sort of multi-purpose duct tape for patching or supporting a number of baffling aspects in our observed cosmos.
To be fair, a Swiss astrophysicist by the name of Fritz Zwicky was the first to coin the term dark matter—dunkle materie—back in 1933 when he encountered the “missing mass problem” that Dr. Oort had arrived at only a year earlier. At the time, Dr. Zwicky had posited that there must be four hundred times as much invisible mass in our universe as there is visible due to the Coma galactic cluster remaining together despite its members’ incredibly fast orbits. Still, it wasn’t until Vera Rubin and Kent Ford that the idea of dark matter truly began to pick up speed. Their results indicated, beyond any doubt, that there were missing forces at work in our universe, and their explanation for those forces was just ambiguous enough to act as a gaudy patch for the frightening hole they’d just helped puncture. By the 1980’s, many astrophysicists had accepted dark matter—and, not long after, dark energy—as part of our reality. And, as of today, based on observations of gravitational anomalies—like the galactic rotation problem and gravitational lensing—it’s now believed that our universe is made up of less than five percent of matter in the traditional sense with the rest being a mix of dark matter and dark energy.
We’ve now reached the point in this article where someone might be nodding their head while feeling foolish for ever doubting that those far superior minds we call scientists hadn’t sorted out the problems discussed above. Ya, those were pretty big problems, but of course there’s an explanation, the dark stuff does it. Eh, not quite.
Back in the 80’s, during dark matter’s heyday, those trumping the mysterious concept would have felt sure that humanity was on the brink of its first observations of dark matter. Yet, as the years passed, more and more of the experiments, which were launched for the sole purpose of detection, turned up with nothing. To this day, not a single trace of dark matter has ever been detected. Just this week, the prestigious LUX experiment, headed up by Stanford University, announced that they’d found no traces of dark matter in their search.
I do know, sadly enough, that there are those out there who aren’t too concerned with, what I’d call, the troublesome period of time that has passed from the start of the hunt for dark matter to the disappointing place it’s at now. For those people, I’ve decided to include an additional piece of info that helps show how shaky our understanding of reality really is. It’s something that’s become known as, “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.”
What is it?
Well, let’s briefly remind ourselves that dark energy—and dark matter—are forces that, among other things, are used to explain why the universe is expanding as absurdly rapidly as it is—as well as some of the other discrepancies mentioned above. And, when looking at some of the predictions made by quantum field theory—the most widely accepted and utilized framework for understanding particles—we see that one such prediction measures something known as zero-point energy; which can also be understood as vacuum energy density, or, in other words, the energy of empty space. Quantum field theory predicts what this energy should be, in fact, it relies on its prediction of what this energy should be to help make other predictions and models.
The problem? The reason behind “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics?”
Simple, we’ve actually taken measurements of what quantum field theory has predicted, and we now know that the predictions and our measurements are off by a nauseating degree. It’s absurd how great the difference is. An inquisitive soul was able to dredge up this metaphor in order to put this situation somewhat into perspective: “If we said that our universe only consists of one particle, that crazed statement is still at least ten times more accurate than the quantum field theory prediction.”
Our understanding of reality is far-less settled than most would believe—just something to keep in mind.
Hunting for Hope
Earlier this year, a new model was put forth to help explain the very discrepancies mentioned in this article. A team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, leading a national group of particle physicists, recently authored a paper, “Direct Detection of Stealth Dark Matter through Electromagnetic Polarizability”, in which they make a case for dark matter being a composite of electrically charged particles—and, as a note, this advanced dark matter model might previously have been out of reach for the team if it wasn’t for Livermore’s state-of-the-art parallel 2-petaflop Vulcan supercomputer.
Anywho, the model that the team arrived at is fascinating for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it incorporates electromagnetism into the physics of space; whereas, in previous theories, the weak force of gravity would act as the prime mover in the large-scale dances of celestial objects, and if dark matter and/or dark energy are factored in, they exist in said models as yet undiscovered state/states of matter interacting with gravity in a still undetermined way. Without the incorporation of electricity and electromagnetism, as well as the related properties of resonance and frequency, these previous theories wouldn’t even appear to have a platform to stand on.
Recent theories regarding plasma cosmology have found the success that they have simply because their calculations factor in the fourth and most abundant state of matter: plasma; which hadn’t even been named until twenty three years after Einstein had formulated his theory of relativity. As mentioned in the Lawrence team’s paper, extremely high-temperature plasma conditions looked to have pervaded the early universe, and when we understand that plasma acts as a remarkable—and possibly even an infinite—conductor, we’re given a picture of a dense and electrically-friendly universe where charges and interactions can jolt down vast streams of waiting particle fields at nearly the speed of light or, possibly, even at the speed of light; which, once achieved, exists outside of space and time—at least according to Einstein.
It is important to note, us at MTH don’t necessarily agree with this new model, though it is does look to be an encouraging bit of progress. If you’re familiar with the ramblings we do here then you may already know that a holographic principle is key to our understanding of reality. So, in relation to the core problem we’ve been discussing here… Well, there would no longer be a problem. Those troublesome, Einstein-violating distances don’t exist in a holographic world, and neither do the problems with quantum entanglement. Gravity doesn’t have to have an infinite speed or force the invention of a mysterious form of matter or even exist, if you can believe that reality is a resonance system manifesting in a holographic void. After all, we are almost completely empty space—at the atomic level.
If you are into alternative theories regarding space and reality in general, browse our framework or confined sonority pages. But, for now, that’s enough digression.
By this point, ideally, it should already be clear that gravity cannot stand alone when it comes to holding space together. The real debate that this article is meant to spark is in regards to that invisible, almighty glue that we’ve been made to trust; the still completely theoretical materials that make up over 95% of our reality; the stuff that was supposed to have been proven but never was. Hopefully, and at the very least, this article will make you second guess a very considerable aspect of our world that, still today, remains a mystery. That is the point of this piece, and, in general, it is also one of the grander points of this website: to draw attention to the hidden or unspoken mysteries and hopefully illuminate them in the process.
ALL IMAGES IN THIS ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR ARE BEING USED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE