Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 3: A Note from Joseph Olson

TOOL making and communication skills are easily distinguishing features between human beings and other species on this planet.  When coupled with a natural curiosity and the ability learn from our mistakes, we have lifted most humans from the vulgar realities of our ancestor’s existence.  For those bent on controlling others, tools and communication must be controlled and manipulated.

The great humanitarian, Vladimir Lenin said “the way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation”.  The great philosopher, Bertrand Russell said “western populations would gladly accept serfdom if it was packaged as saving the Earth”.  The mystic oracle of truth, Barry Obama said “too much information puts pressure on our democracy”. 

Hubble and the Big Bang

In 1929, when spectral analysis revealed a ‘red shift’ in distant galaxies, astronomer Edwin Hubble speculated that this might be due to acceleration away from Earth and a possible expanding universe.  Before he could reflect on other possible explanations, a radio interview stumbled onto the phrase “Big Bang” and a run-away train left the station.  Dr Hubble was uncomfortable with both the concept and the catchy nick-name, but he had a ‘conflict of interest’ on this issue.

In a Times magazine interview, on December 14, 1936, titled “Science: Shift on Shift”, Dr Hubble makes his opposition clear.  One reason that he was not more forceful was because he was begging the government for funding of the Mount Palomar telescope.  Public interest was necessary during the tight depression era federal budgets to complete this project.

The Hooker 100 inch telescope was then showing farthest light sources to be moving at 25,000 miles per second.  Dr Hubble, during his 1936 interview, stated that he was “willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists”…pending erection of the 200 inch Palomar telescope…”which may finally settle the question”.

What Dr Hubble meant was that with four times the light gathering power and four times the distance of past light sources, the anticipated light speed would exceed half the speed of light.  At that point it would easy to discredit ‘Big Bang’ and develop another model.  That never happened for a multitude of reasons, some to do with Dr Hubble.

In addition to building a giant government funded telescope during a depression, the dear doctor also very much coveted a Nobel Prize.  The problem was that at that time, astronomy was not considered a branch of any science that could receive the award.  It is hard to speak out against your ‘signature’ science and simultaneously promote that science as worthy of the world’s highest honor.  Hubble was prevented from speaking against the ‘Big Bang’ due to his vested interest in Palomar and HIS potential Nobel Prize.  He was to be given the award in 1953, but a sudden heart attack and untimely death prevented that.

Einstein and the Big Bang

Another renowned scientist with objections to the ‘Big Bang’ had additional problems in the 1930’s.  Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for the ‘photoelectric effect’ .  He was a marked man in his Nazi occupied homeland and luckily fled to America in 1933.  He was now a stranger in a land with powerful pro-Nazi forces.  Prominent pre-war Nazi supporters included Charles Lindberg, Senator Prescott Bush (R-Conn) and Ambassador to UK, Joseph F Kennedy.  Many other leaders were virulent anti-Semites including Henry Ford, John D Rockefeller and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

No further proof of FDR’s feelings is necessary than the fact that he was completely briefed on the locations and operations of all major Nazi death camps in 1943.  Not one allied bomb fell on these death factories or the rail lines that served them.  Einstein was in the unfortunate position of begging this scientifically illiterate leader for funds to develop an ‘atomic’ weapon.  His begging letters to FDR are available on-line.

Meanwhile, Einstein worked under the strictest security to develop the refining methods and the first sustained nuclear reaction using Uranium at the University of Chicago.  His correspondence with the Robert Oppenheimer who headed actual weapons team are still classified.  It is doubtless that Einstein had many involvements which prohibited his free discussion of the ‘Big Bang’.

Einstein’s theory did state that the universe could not be static, that it must be expanding or contracting.  It is very doubtful that he could accept the outer limits of this possible expansion to be approaching the velocity of light.  If you do accept the expanding Big Bang theory, then you must also recognize that the distant light indicates the possible position at the distant time of that lights origin.  Light with its position distorted by half the speed of light, would have then originated at half the projected distance.  All projections from data that is this distorted should be viewed as very suspect.

Darwin and the Big Bang

Darwin, say what?  How could Darwin, whose On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, and who died in 1882, have anything to do with the 1929 science of the ‘Big Bang Theory’?  Well, in 1925 a high school science teacher, John Scopes was tried by the State of Tennessee for violation of the states, Butler Act.  Yes, John had dared to teach evolution to his students.  He was acquitted in a nationally publicized trial.

There were many in the established science community that embraced the ‘Big Bang’ thinking that this disproved the existence of God, or at least Biblical prophesies.  It is not an endorsement of Creationism to state the obvious.  We live in the Milky Way Galaxy with between 200 and 400 billion other stars, many capable of having life supporting planets.  Our galaxy is just one of at least 80 billion similar galaxies.

If you chose to believe that our life is just a random accident, then the same probability is that there MUST be many equal locations, with equal, and probably MANY locations with superior life forms.  So much for the ‘No Superior Being’ debate, something ‘superior’ must exist. 

Whether that ‘Being’ has any interest or involvement in humans or our Earth is the religious and philosophic question for others to discuss.

We now know that Darwin was wrong.  Evolution is NOT a steady process. Adaptation is gradual only when environmental factors allow it to be gradual.  When the Earth experiences dramatic change, then life makes equally dramatic changes.  One problem confronting evolutionists is that they cannot replicate the dramatic upgrade in biological complexity.  Natural induced mutations are almost always negative.  Human induced mutations can be positive if very closely monitored by humans, pretending to be Superior Beings.

Joseph A Olson, PE
May 26, 2010

*****************************
This is ‘Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 3′.  Scroll here for Parts 1 & 2 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/jospeh-a-olson/
“Science: Shift on Shift” is at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
Read more from Joseph in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” available at
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/278-8314359-2844136?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Joseph%20A.%20Olson

,

10 Responses to Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 3: A Note from Joseph Olson

  1. eugene wynsen md March 3, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Einstein did not receive a Nobel prize for his Relativity theory. He received it for the Photoelectic effect. Please correct The Olsen essay on this.

  2. Nasif Nahle March 3, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    @eugene wynsen md…

    Einstein received the Nobel Prize for several services to science: his contributions to theoretical physics, the Brownian movement, his Relativity Theory, the dual nature of light (quanta and waves), the discovery of the Law of the Photoelectric Effect:

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/press.html

    Dancing and dancing again… Tired…

    🙂

  3. jennifer March 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Correction made re. Nobel prize for photoelectic effect not relativity theory. And what would he have thought about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize?

  4. cohenite March 4, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    Einstein received his award in a science category; Gore won his in a political category, the worth of which is evident by some of the other winners in that category.

  5. Larry Fields March 4, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    Comment from: cohenite March 4th, 2011 at 7:43 am
    “Einstein received his award in a science category; Gore won his in a political category, the worth of which is evident by some of the other winners in that category.”

    Reading between the lines, cohenite appears to be saying that Nobel Prizes in science categories have greater worth than those in political categories. Let’s do a bit of perspective-taking.

    The practice of medicine is supposed to be science-based, and the principal beneficiaries are supposed to be the patients. Nobel Prizes in Medicine should reflect these two criteria. Ironically, a Portuguese physician, Egas Moniz, became a Nobel Laureate in 1949. Why? Because Moniz did much of the pioneering research on lobotomies.

    Is there scientific evidence that lobotomies benefited patients? It would be difficult to make a case for that claim. Removing a part of one’s brain destroys a part of who the person is. And it is difficult to obtain informed consent from schizophrenics, who do not necessarily spend most of their waking hours in the same reality that non-schizophrenics do.

    The primary beneficiaries of lobotomies were caregivers, whose work became easier, because lobotomized schizophrenics were more docile than non-lobotomized schizophrenics. Is docility a quantitative measure of mental health? I don’t think so. But lobotomies did decrease health care costs for schizophrenic patients, at a time when industrialized countries were devoting considerable resources towards reconstruction, in the aftermath of WW2.

    The 1949 Lobotomy Nobel ‘legitimized’ and popularized this procedure. Then in the 1950s, when somewhat effective psychiatric medications, like Thorazine, became available, lobotomies became less fashionable.

    A second irony is that the Lobotomy Nobel was awarded after the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out in 1948. A careful reading of that document indicates that the authors considered bodily integrity–including the integrity of one’s brain–to be a fundamental human right. In 1949, the Nobel Committee screwed up big-time.

  6. kuhnkat March 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    Larry Fields,

    instead of bloviating you might actually look at some of the recipients to determine what Cohenite was alluding to. I would suggest the Yassir Arafat who caleed for Intifada’s on Israel and Jews would appear to be discrediting the proclaimed purpose of a Nobel Peace Prize!!

    “A careful reading of that document indicates that the authors considered bodily integrity–including the integrity of one’s brain–to be a fundamental human right. In 1949, the Nobel Committee screwed up big-time.”

    Yup, blowing up men, women, and children along with their brains would appear to not match their goals.

  7. Joseph A Olson, PE March 4, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    The peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter shared the Arafat prize and bloody hands. Barry Obama was given a ‘pre-emptive’ prize in case he was ever responsible for ‘peace’. Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize for isolating Uranium four years before he actually did that correctly.

    “Two Australian scientists, Dr Robin Warren and Dr Barry Marshall won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2005 for their pioneering cure for peptic ulcers. What is most revealing about ‘established science’ is that these gifted and dedicated doctors had made this discovery in 1982. Established orthodoxy moves at a snail’s pace when confronted by unorthodoxy”. A quote from “The Cure for Cosmology’s Peptic Ulcer”.

    Statements made by Einstein at the announcement of the ‘big bang hypothesis’ were that the Universe could not be static. Expansion or contraction were the first obvious solutions. In Part 4 we will examine the ‘other’ unorthodox solution, that the Universe is in fact ROTATING. This is a suppressed theory and the whole point of this series. In a rotating Universe, limited time travel is axiomatic, which could give one motivation to supress this area of debate.

  8. AusieDan March 5, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    Well, if you look at galaxies – everything seems to be rotating.
    The constituants of atoms, solar systems and so forth.
    What is the universe but a collection of galaxies, with lots of small stuff and lots of space in between?
    Does electricity and magnetism not pulse and rotate?
    Do the various small and large elements of the climate not cycle?
    Why should time itself not cycle as well?
    But I feel that the idea of time travel is a construct of mathematics and imagination.
    I doubt that it is founded in reality.

  9. wes george March 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    Olson,

    OK, I’ll bite even though I object to your free association of polarising political polemics in a cosmological debate. 😉

    How does the Big Bang theory disprove the existence of God? It doesn’t.

    It fits like a glove with not only Biblical prophecy for an End Times, but also Genesis. “Let there be Light!” spoketh God. This might account for the psychological resonance of the BB theory with the public, as it does with CAGW mythology?

    In fact, if the Creationists were smart they’d latch on the Big Bang as evidence of Special Creation and the odd initialisation of the universe, which happened just so…Oh, wait they already have. It’s called Intelligent Design.

  10. wes george March 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    How could our existence be a “random accident?”

    All the evidence supports evolution—galactic, stellar, chemical, biological, cultural – and point to the inevitability of intelligent life evolving on planets like Earth.

    No chance about it, except in the optional details. We could be furry and green, for instance. Or an asteroid strike could have reset evolution back to the Cambrian a million years ago.

    I’ll punt if we could re-run Earth’s history all the general features of evolutionary solutions would unfold in a similar fashion as the first run. You know, chromosomes, genes, cellularity, mitochondria, cell colonies, sponges, and on to the cilia, mouths, alimentary tracts, fins, ears, eyes, legs, backbones, fur, spines, organs There would be a great age of chitinous creatures (trilobites) no doubt because their fractal design components are a universal engineering solution that will always arise in primeval oceans. Likewise, chordate animals must emerge through the evolutionary process in earth-like primeval oceans. No chance there.

    If you mean by “random accident” that at the higher levels of evolution, say, the dinosaurs could have evolved neo-cortex advanced brains and thus began to evolve culturally, precluding the rise of mammals and ultimately us, and that by now there might well be dinosaurian colonies spread out across our solar system. Cool. I’m with you.

    But, if you mean that the general trajectory of life, in and of itself, is an accident, I’m not.

    Because there is ZERO evidence for “superior” life forms in our galaxy, other than the fact that life is inherently a naturally occurring evolutionary process wherever favourable conditions exist, rather than a random accident.

Website by 46digital