Mysterious, ‘Dr X’ says Universe Is NOT Expanding: A Note from Joseph A. Olson

WHAT first began as ‘rumored’ science on conservative websites is now being reinforced by what can only be described as the foremost authority on the Expanding Universe.  The thought that there was a Non Expanding Theory has been introduced by a trained engineer, who has turned rogue astronomer.  The following quote from Dr X does add credibility to this challenge to eight decades of ‘settled’ science:

    Dr X has “admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but
    implied that this was a cautious and colorless view.  Last week it was apparent that
    he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of red
    shift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a
    non-expanding one.”

What gives this Dr X usurper, along with that engineer turned rogue astronomer, the right to challenge this cornerstone of modern astronomy ?

The identity of the mysterious Dr X is none other than “Mount Wilson Observatory’s brilliant Astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble,” who with coworker Milton LaSalle Humason first observed the red-shift of light from distant stars.  Continuing, “It was assumed that the distant nebulae were retreating in all directions.”

One interesting fact is that this interview was for Time Magazine and was published as “Science: Shift on Shift” on Dec 14, 1936.  Here you have proof that the ‘father of the Expanding Universe Theory’ had misgivings just years after his 1929 disclosure.  Following the motto of P T Barnum, of “there’s a sucker born every minute” the existing ‘big science’ teams saw an unlimited opportunity to expand astronomy budgets.

The ‘sucker’ in this case is the taxpayer, forced by errant bureaucrats for fund side-show science on an ever expanding universe with ever expanding grants, awards and fellowships.  Bureaucrats do have an affection for expanding concepts, witness the vast expansion of planetary maladies they have been able to ascribe to the ‘expansion of carbon dioxide’ gas in our atmosphere. 

Dr Hubble (the previous mentioned Dr X) made his scientific discoveries on the 100 inch Hooker telescope, the world’s largest at the time.  In the Times interview, he communicated to the National Academy of Sciences that:

    “The distribution of these bodies [distant nebulae] in space forced him to conclude
    that a non-expanding universe theory is more economical and less vulnerable”

Having birthed this brand of Franken-science the good doctor was now powerless to stop what now had a life of its own.  He was “now willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists” and they we only too happy for this new gravy train.

In a Pontius Pilate moment during the interview, Dr Hubble states his hope that the new 200 inch Caltech super telescope to be completed in the 1940’s would settle this question.  Since the ability to gather light is a function of area, and therefore of a square, this new eye in the sky could see four times as much, four times as far back, as the Hooker telescope.

What dismayed Dr Hubble at the time was that the speed of the then edge of the universe was “equal to 25,000 miles per second”.  This was the speed that Milky Way sized galaxies were perceived to be moving.  The world had to take time out to counter a virulent form of ‘master race planet domination’ which caused a delay in completing of the 200 inch Mt Palomar telescope until 1948. 

When even deeper space light was showing even greater ‘apparent acceleration’ the mathematical cosmologists descended on the witless bureaucrats at the NAS for an ever expanding list of fanciful solutions, including dark matter, invisible universes and vacuum energy. 


No, this is not the tattooed armband coordinates for Anglia Jolie’s latest offspring.  This is the name for the newest and most distant cluster galaxy estimated at 9.6 billion light years away and closest yet observed to the 13.7 billion year old universe edge.  As the speed of these supposed distant galaxies are now approaching the actual speed of light, we are left to question some of the hypothesis of these bureaucratically over fed cosmologists.

One must question the hypothesis that 90% of the matter in the universe is invisible dark matter, yet light is able to pass such great distances unblocked and un-absorbed.  The supposed vacuum force is many times greater than gravity, but curiously also invisible.

The last count on invisible universes also included five invisible dimensions.  In addition to the four ‘visible dimensions’ of length, width, depth and time there were sorcerers equations for five more dimensions.  A radio interview last week indicated that a hopeful cosmologist was seeking grants for two new additional invisible dimensions.

With unlimited funding we will soon find that we live in a universe with more invisible dimensions than Starbucks locations.  What began with a real scientist and a Hooker at the observatory has turned into a science whorehouse.  What we must do is to show these spend thrifts the real meaning of ‘invisible’ as in the invisible universe that we are all now experiencing. 

We must show these NAS pimps and their cosmologist harlots the meaning of ‘invisible paycheck’, ‘invisible pension’ and ‘invisible health benefits’.  It is time for the honest voices of science to demand that this circus side show be closed.   I’m certain that Dr X would heartily agree.  By the way, that engineer turned rogue astronomer is ME.

Joseph A Olson, PE

May 22, 2010

This is ‘Big Bang Rebuttal, Part 2’.  Scroll here for Part 1 

“Science: Shift on Shift” is at,9171,757145,00.html 

Read more from Joseph in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” available at


41 Responses to Mysterious, ‘Dr X’ says Universe Is NOT Expanding: A Note from Joseph A. Olson

  1. cementafriend February 27, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    Joseph, I will be interested to read the next post explaining the theory.
    How, often to does one come across scientists with closed minds? Engineers are trained to think broadly and be innovative. That is why there are so many engineers (or Ingineurs) who oppose AGW.
    Keep strong

  2. ad February 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Come back when you can consistently spell Edwin Hubble’s name correctly, and when you learn the edge of the universe is NOT postulated at ~14 BLY by the BBT.

  3. Johnathan Wilkes February 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    “Come back when you can consistently spell Edwin Hubble’s name ”

    My, my something must have hit home, when the only objection you have, is a spelling mistake!

  4. TonyfromOz February 27, 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    What I specifically like so much about this Post is that it highlights the fact that Science, (any of those fields of Science) does not end with a full stop after something has been ‘put out there’. It is continually expanding. (if you’ll excuse my analogy)

    Refer that back to the Climate Change/Global Warming ‘Science’ which we are now told is a closed debate.


  5. Luke February 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    “Engineers are trained to think broadly and be innovative. That is why there are so many engineers (or Ingineurs) who oppose AGW.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA What a good one. What a hoot. Everything is a bridge…. or a coal loader ….

    Tell ya what too “We must show these NAS pimps and their cosmologist harlots the meaning of ‘invisible paycheck’, ‘invisible pension’ and ‘invisible health benefits’.’ BETCHA Jen would have snipped that is was on the other side.

    Hey who’s this Olson guy anyway ? And isn’t Lubos pushing the dimension stuff?

  6. jennifer February 27, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Ad, Sorry about the incorrect spelling. Fixed, I hope. Interestingly Edwin Hubble was also apparently a dreadful speller.

    Luke, Yep, When I first read it thought I should probably snip it… but then didn’t. Do you want me to now?


  7. Nasif Nahle February 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    @Joe, Ad, and Luke…

    One of the greater virtues of science is that we always are quick to hear and consider others’ arguments, even though those arguments are in the heat of contradiction to our arguments.

    For example, this Joe’s article and Luke’s comment (“HAHAHAHA”) contradict an important point of the theory of the Motherverse and the possibility that we are immersed in a real Multiverse and an eternally replicating Universe (think in the movement of amoebas; it’s something like that), and I won’t cry because we disgress. Joe and I could easily seat at a coffee table and discuss our differences. True, Joe?

    IMO, it is fundamental to have a mathematical history of the evolution of the well-known Universe based on the expansion theory, although we do not need any kind of “marvelous” Big Bang. This has been already recognized by Dr. Linden and others. Dr. Guth is flirting a bit on the elimination of the Big Bang from the horizon of events that gave origin to our Universe.

    Every time we talk about our theories on the origin of the Universe, we have to introduce some “weird” panoramas and hypothetical conditions which have been observed or measured in the reality; for example:

    1- We have to represent formally some physical conditions which “could” have happened simultaneously in the very precise moment of the exponential inflation.

    2- We have to picture an eternal, unbounded and cold “true void” for we are able to distinguish it from a “false void”.

    3- We have to resort to Higgs’ fields and Higgs’ particles –over which we have not a single demonstration of their existence- to explain why the Universe expanded so rapidly that the primordial homogeneity was not lost in any moment.

    4- We have to “calculate” the fraction of time when the Universe emitted the first two photons and the time they took to cross a distance equal to 13.8 billion years.

    5- We have to “sketch” a Mexican hat to explain how the universe’s expansion is maintained and accelerated until today after the rupture of symmetry.

    6- We have to “find” where the energy leaked by our Universe is going to. We have to “create” a wormhole open at its extremes by two blackholes, respectively, and so on, and on, and on…

    We do not say we have the perfect theory, but it is the theory that better explains the problems that the Big Bang hypothesis is not and will never be, able to explain.

  8. kuhnkat February 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Mr. Olson,

    you mention the farthest receding galaxies are now APPARENTLY approaching the speed of light. Is this relative to earth or the galaxies on the other side of earth?

  9. Nasif Nahle February 27, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    I think you could visualize the panorama of the theory about the eternally replicating universe here. (Sorry, Dr. Jennifer, for this personal promotion. If it is out of topic, please, snip it):

  10. el gordo February 27, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Yeah, snip Olson, cosmologists need to find new dimensions, just as much as Luke needs to find his global warming signal.

  11. Luke February 27, 2011 at 7:20 pm #

    Don’t snip it Jen – I love that sort of talk ! Something about robust discussion and letting it all out.

    Now not that I would want to divert the thread and please don’t here – but I’ll paste this on the past open thread especially for Val’s delectation – as he doesn’t get out much. also a good example of paradigm challenge at work – ahem ! Did engineers find this ? No don’t swing at it lads – it’s wide ball ball…

    as you were …. incidentally I did enjoy this about reality BBC Horizon 2011

  12. Dan Echegoyen February 28, 2011 at 1:33 am #


    In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
    As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
    The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
    The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
    The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
    Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
    The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
    Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge, being a gravitational depression, gathers more of the energy of the field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the same direction as the first torus. This collapse is a black hole to the first torus, and a white hole to the second torus, where the axes of space and time in that second torus have reversed.
    While gravity tends to draw depressions together locally on a dynamic torus, even to the point of field collapse, other areas on a torus expand and contract globally as the torus propagates along without regard to local phenomenon on the surface. This is quintessence. The inertia of the torus to propagate is its dark energy. This is a two-dimensional example of the process that we experience in three dimensions.

    From by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

  13. Nasif Nahle February 28, 2011 at 1:35 am #

    Joe’s article is excellent. I think Hubble stuff is all about “mainstreams” and “consensus”. Of course, the astronomer Hubble had nothing to do with mainstream and consensus.

    @Luke… The link to doesn’t work.


  14. Joseph A Olson, PE February 28, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    Traditonal science has been empirically based, a fact recognized by the founders of the “Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge by Experiment” in London in 1660. The motto for this society was the Latin phrase “Nullius in Verba” which ment, “Take no man’s word for it”. Since posting, my article titled “Nullius in Verba” has traded google ratings with the now just ‘Royal Society’ for top billing.

    I created my big bang series out of shear boredom with the ‘climate clown-logists’ and their lame misinterpertations of science. My college trained ‘bull-dung’ detector went off every time I heard….vacuum force, anti-matter, dark matter, invisible dimensions….a the host of other fictions which could ONLY be explained by theoretical mathematics and MASSIVE govenment funding.

    There was a time that I defered to ‘scientists’, that was until the AGW scam empowered me. I realized that I had as much Physics and a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. At that point I noted that a ‘scientist’ is just an engineer who did not want to go to school an extra year. As an engineer, I had to ‘apply science’ with the dual obligation of protecting the public health and safety AS WELL as being ‘correct’ in a court of law if I failed to obey proper science. My ‘author bio’ is on full public display at and at

    Some of my many admitted limitations are that I’m a dyslectic who flunked phonics and am my own worst proofreader. Consider those errors part of my human failing and further ‘comic’ relief that someone so imperfect can see the flaws of so many others. Thanks, and Part Three will be THRILLING ! ! !

  15. kuhnkat February 28, 2011 at 7:18 am #


    from you link,

    “Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.”

    Pot meet Kettle.


  16. Nasif Nahle February 28, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    @Dan Echegoyen…

    All you have said could have been expressed in threewords:

    Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.


  17. Nasif Nahle February 28, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    @Dan Echegoyen…

    Nevertheless, it forms no part of the structure of existence neither explains blackholes, galaxies, dark matter, etc. What you describe in your post is in opposition to the concept to spontaneous symmetry breaking regarding “dark matter”:

    L= ∂^u Φ ∂_u Φ – V (Φ)


    V (Φ)= -10|Φ|+ |Φ|^4


    Φ = = √(5e^iΦ )

    “Dark matter” is not real…

  18. Nasif Nahle February 28, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    I apologize for this shrapnel of posts. This is my closure on the topic about “dark matter”. Here more evidence on the imaginary nature of “dark matter”:

    I apologize. Next time, I will write all in one post.


  19. cementafriend February 28, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Jen, Great to see a discussion of this type on your site. Tallbloke (an engineer) at has occassional posts of a similar nature. Climate is a very complex subject with so many connections such as gravity (electro-magnetic attraction?), magnetic fields, electro-magnetic radiation, energy transformation (physical, chemical and biological), etc etc. The pseudo-scientists in the AGW “team” certainly have no understanding of the complexity of climate as they do not even understand the engineering subject of “heat and mass transfer”.

    Joseph, thanks for speaking out to put forward your theories. As another registered professional engineer I agree with your obligations to comply with the code of ethics and the need to provide engineering advice which can stand up in a court of law. This is a contrast to most scientists, journalists, politicians and lawyers who have no interest in complying with a code of ethics. (sorry Jen, Cohenite and Val you are exceptions I am sure you will admit)
    Joseph, I also sympathize with your proofreading ability. I am the same. I recently saw a post that most people can overlook bad spelling -they only need the beginning and end of the word and the general context. However, leaving out words is difficult especially if it changes the meaning such as “not”
    Looking forward to the next part.

  20. Bruce of Newcastle February 28, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    I was reading about Dr McGaugh’s paper (see Nasif’s link) in New Scientist on the weekend and I was struck by the tonal difference compared with climate related articles. In NS the dark matter/MOND question is treated as a polite comparison of hypotheses, may the best one win, but anything to do with climate invokes righteous uncritical evangelisation of the IPCC line, or worse.

    Dr McGaugh made the comment in the NS version of article that he had actually aimed to falsify MOND by his study, and to his surprise found his data actually fitted MOND better than dark matter/dark energy did. That is what I as a scientst hope to do myself, which is set up the experiment, measure the data then check the fit with alternate hypotheses. So why does New Scientist, Scientific American, Nature and Science all go so gushy and one-eyed about CAGW? I’m stonkered as to an explanation. The data to me makes a strong case that almost all of the temperature record over the last 350 years can be explained by a mix of solar effects, oceanic cycles and just a small touch of CO2 for pepper & salt.

  21. el gordo February 28, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    All of you here will know this comment by Niels Bohr: ‘If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.’

    After watching the Horizon and Nasif Nahle vids I’m no longer shocked, but obviously I still don’t understand it.

  22. cohenite February 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Dark matter debates are conducted more politely than AGW debates because the money and power are not yet there; but my experience with academics is that there is still a fair bit of bitchiness involved.

    Luke has linked to a SC piece supposedly critiquing Spencer and Braswell’s papers on low climate sensitivity and clouds; the SC piece, as usual is rubbish; Spencer’s papers begin in 2007:

    And culminate with his 2010 paper which corrected and improved his 2008 paper:

    Spencer’s paper are based on observations and a 2 stage model; they are empirically based with the modeling following the observations unlike the Dessler and other contrary efforts which model first and data fit later.

    Some general comments about Spencer’s and the IPCC’s approach are needed to counter luke’s usual scurrilous reliance on the insidious SC. Climate sensitivity, feedback and tipping points are all part of the AGW lexicon and are stated to be high, increasing and imminent respectively. There is no evidence for this. The IPCC attributes ACO2 as being the forcing agent, F, for this scenario, with water vapor the feedback, f, and temperature, t, the parameter for the change; the interaction of these variables is measured by the state vector, S, which would itself change if F has the effect the IPCC alleges. IPCC represents this dynamic thus:


    IPCC assumes that f is +ve so if we intergrate by dividing both sides by fS+F, and multipling both sides by f*dt we get:


    The problem with this is because it predicts that as the final value of t, t2, approaches infinity, the value of S2 becomes infinite. This is wrong because if there is a climate forcing in operation, at infinite time, the temperature anomaly should approach its finite equilibrium value even if there is positive feedback. This is shown by Venus which is paraded by AGW supporters as being the inevitable result of AGW; but, if there was any greenhouse effect on Venus it has now stopped despite high levels of CO2 and obviously its equilibrium was less than infinity. The correct formula for measuring feedback is done by Spencer and Braswell:

    Their equation 2 is:


    The difference with S&B’s equation is that it introduces a term for the stochastic properties of clouds, N and breaks F into -^T and f; f is ACO2 and -^T is a total feedback term which must be negative so that an infinite equilibrium is impossible. S&B ran their equation using observed variations in radiative flux related to random cloud movements; their model is therefore much more realistic than the IPCC’s formula which is limited to temperature and ACO2 forcing. S&B found that in the real world, even assuming a +ve forcing from ACO2, climate senstivity and feedback were much smaller than that relied on for AGW.

  23. Bruce of Newcastle February 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    Luke – re Spencer’s CO2 sensitivity value, ie empirically measured 2XCO2 of 0.5-0.6 C fits with several other authors who’ve likewise found it seems to fall in the range 0.4-0.6 C. I thought OK that is interesting, then worked it out myself by two more different ways (one by SST’s, one by difference) and yep, it seems to be in that ballpark. You can do it too, all you need is a spreadsheet, or even a calculator to get a rough number. The IPCC values of 2.5 – 4 C don’t fit the data record at all, eg HadCRUT since 1850, CET since 1659 (note – when modelling it helps to include this big ball of fusing hydrogen in your calculations). If you calculate delta T using 2XCO2 of 0.6 C and the Mauna Loa pCO2 data you get a ‘CO2’ related temperature rise of 0.29 C since Romulus & Remus did their thing. Actually that sensitivity is for all GG’s summed, so CO2 probably only speaks for 0.25 C of it.

  24. cohenite February 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    Anyone who thinks dark matter does not exist should visit Deltoid.

  25. wes george February 28, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    There is no such thing as “traditional science” just one scientific method, please. All else is pseudo-.

    Olson hasn’t presented any evidence other than his personal incredulity that the universe in which we live isn’t as weird as the current orthodoxy has painted it. I would posit it is far more weird than the orthodox or perhaps any of us is capable of imagining! But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stretch our minds out into the dark void.

    There is no evidence that mere human intelligence was selected for in order to make logical sense of the very cosmos which spawned us. Perhaps we are more adept at avoiding collisions with real trees rather than seeing the forest holistically.

    Somehow heckling those who strive to understand the limits our science and move it forward from there seems unbecoming unless one can be bothered to spell out some other evidence-based paradigm to pursue…

    On the other hand the current cosmological orthodoxy is so riddled with cognitive dissonance that Olson’s incredulity is completely understandable, if not his animosity. Sure, cosmology is a bloody mess. Name me a purely logical, utterly rational human exploration of any phenomena where research money is rarely wasted and no cronyism exists?

    The charitable interpretation of Olson’s rant is that those of us who believe that science, cosmological or climatological or any kind of science is any where near completion is badly mistaken.

    Science and humanity is a work in progress.

  26. Nasif Nahle February 28, 2011 at 5:51 pm #


    Anyone who thinks dark matter does not exist should visit Deltoid.

    What’s Deltoid?

    I think the inventors of “dark” matter avoided labeling it as “invisible” matter for very good reasons.


  27. Luke February 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Spencer = wrong. Science paradigm = wrong.

  28. cohenite February 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Nasif asks “What’s Deltoid?”

    Nasif I am really worried about linking you to Deltoid but you can’t remain innocent all your life!

  29. cohenite February 28, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Luke, brevity is the soul of wit, but the brevity has to make sense.

  30. Joseph A Olson, PE February 28, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    Heres a case where Spencer is most definately wrong….”Yes Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” posted at his blog site. This title and article are as a COUNTER intutive as one can get. Spencer uses a false experiment to prove a false hypothesis. I countered with my article “Rocket Scientist Need NOT Apply” posted at Canada Free Press.

    The reason the Traditonal Science opposes AGW is the total non-compliance with the Laws of Thermodynamics. We’ve battled this ‘technical’ issue for years and finally in the worlds first on-line peer review between the ‘Extreme Deniers’ and the ‘Luke Warmers’ the truth came out. The Infra-Red radiated at night by Earth is only slowed briefly on exit and the 28 giga-tons of human caused CO2 will soon be converted to dirt. AT 125 lbs per cubic foot, this 28 G-tons of CO2 is less than 3 cubic miles of soon to be ‘carbon cycled’ dirt.

    When doing a Thermodynamic equation of similar materials the ONLY factors become mass and temperture difference. What is the required ‘temperture difference’ for 3 cubic miles of miscroscopic atmospheric ‘dirt’ to influence the temperature of 259 trillion cubic miles of mostly molten rock ?

    My article “OMG….Maximum CO2 will Warm Earth for 20 Milliseconds” posted at gives further details. There will be two further posts on the Big Bang Hoax. Hubble was not alone in his stated disapproval of this ‘pop’ science. My thanks to Jen, to my readers and to all who join in our great internet debate. WE must forever challenge static science.

  31. hunter February 28, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Perhaps anonymous sources discussing basic cosmology are not the best things for a blog on environment and cliamte?

  32. Nasif Nahle March 1, 2011 at 2:59 am #


    Nasif I am really worried about linking you to Deltoid but you can’t remain innocent all your life!

    Is Tim Lambert made of dark matter or what? Heh! 🙂


    Perhaps anonymous sources discussing basic cosmology are not the best things for a blog on environment and climate?

    IMO, it is positive to discuss some basic cosmology because a wide panorama about the split of the fundamental forces that are working in our Universe and driving the climatic and biotic phenomena is provided.

    For example, the already observed quantum tunneling phenomenon, which is pictured in my hypothesis on the origin of the universe like a “crack” on some spot of the false void field, could be happening in the core of our planet and could be affecting our climate more than we think. It could be that the main primordial “force” by which the first coacervates became biosystems into cavities in agglomerative substrates, along with the influence of condenser agents, had been a quantum tunneling event.

    Regarding anonimity, I don’t care whose behind those names… I put my attention exclusively onto the absurdities many of them say. (Don’t take it personal, Luke).


  33. kuhnkat March 1, 2011 at 4:56 am #


    “Spencer = wrong. Science paradigm = wrong.”

    Pretty much sums up all of your arguments Luke. Nothing but your side making statements with scientific backing found in a fortune cookie.

  34. Bruce of Newcastle March 1, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    A discussion of cosmology is a very good thing in a blog which also discusses climate. Cosmology is infested with controversies: dark matter, string theory, branes, MOND, you name it. Yet they can argue in a friendly manner and listen to each other.

    Argument is a good thing, ad hom is bad, and (seemingly) great oozing piles of money are even worse for good science practice, at least in the climate sphere.

  35. gordon eliott March 2, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    it is interesting to see that the overwhelming orthodoxy of the CO2 theory is starting to be correlated with the overwhelming orthodoxy of the big bang theory.

    there are however a number of scientists who see the universe as an electrical and magnetic phenomenon as much as a purely gravitational one.

    99.9% of the universe is plasma and there are plenty of links to follow. there are several possible explanations for redshift and there is no actual evidence for the big bang apart from redshift. various fudges like inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes etc can wait until there is experimental evidence for them.

    gordon eliott

  36. el gordo March 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    I agree with Hunter’s comment that ‘perhaps anonymous sources discussing basic cosmology are not the best things for a blog on environment and climate?’

    How about another Luke post? I enjoy searching for the flaws in AGW and it’s important that we are ready to explain to those 38% of the electorate who are sceptical, yet uncommitted.

  37. el gordo March 2, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Slightly off topic, searching for the Higgs Boson in W+ W- production.

    Still have a year up their sleeve.

  38. wes george March 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    I agree with hunter and gordo. Trust me, I sitting on a long boring screed about why, but I’ll spare ya’ll…for the moment

    Yeah, I suppose that’s a threat…;-)

  39. Larry Fields March 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    That was an interesting historical note, and an interesting polemic about over-funded cosmology research, with which I mostly agree. However Wet-Blanket Larry has a stoopid question about the actual science, if that’s not too off-topic:
    Aside from the expanding-universe theory, are there any reasonable explanations for the mostly-true generalization that galactic redshift is an increasing function of distance? (Yes, I already know that Andromeda is an exception.)

    I hope that I’m not being too demanding, but I’d prefer your own deathless prose, with complete sentences and with a minimum of acronyms, over a link to a billybobscosmologyandroadkillrecipesdotcom type of website.

  40. sunsettommy March 11, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    The expanding universe idea make no sense.

    The Universe has for at least 40 years now,been shown to have a distinct clustering effect.

    We have cluster of Galaxies.Super cluster of galaxies.

    We have star clusters and Global clusters.They are also shown to be in groups in the sky too.

  41. william c wesley May 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    It is outrageouse that explorations of alternatives to the expanding universe idea are derided as the same as attacking evolution, anyone who says this should be ashamed of themselves. There are no viable scientific alternatives to the basic concepts of evolution but an imaginative child can formulate alternatives to the big bang. Reluctance to even imagin alternatives is cowardly and resorting to insults instead is beneth contempt. The tired light hypothisis WORKS so insults will not make it go away. I don’t care how many revered scientific saints back up your “scientific” gang, your on your own in this, stick to the science and explain clearly and concisly why tired light is not an explination for the red shift, show me point by point why it does not work. Big names and vast membership mean NOTHING in real scince, only resoned discourse counts so step up to the plate you critics and do your own explaining. where are the observations that show distant galaxies shrinking in our fireld of view which must be the case if they are moving away from us at near light speed? where are the observations showing distant galaxies seeming to revolve in slow motion compaiered to close by galaxies which must be the case if it is a doppler shift we are seeing?

Website by 46digital