The ‘Big Bang’ theory is the opposite of authentic science. It is as clear as daylight to see that it is solely a dreadful lie intended to stop us asking questions.
Untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable and unverifiable
Clashes with the Standard Model of Particle Physics
Creates dozens of paradoxes with other areas of proven science.
As a theory, it doesn’t even fulfil its purpose - to explain the origin of the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory
Coined by Astronomer Fred Hoyle during a BBC Radio show in 1949, but only catching on from the 1970’s, the Big Bang theory itself dates back to 1912 when American Astronomer Vesto Slipher (1912) measured the first Doppler shift that confirmed the universe was expanding in all directions.
A sensible hypothesis is arrived at by tracing time backwards to an original starting point – thus giving us the Big Bang theory. Yet vividly, breaking all Laws of Physics, it doesn’t fit the bill and should have been discounted long ago.
An equally sensible hypothesis is arrived at by tracing time forwards - Cosmic Inflation. Another sensible hypothesis – Simulation Theory - was proposed by French Post-Modernist Philosopher Jean Baudrillard (1981) – a true genius whose work inspired The Matrix film franchise.
Yet these and all other wholly testable alternatives appear to have been entirely discounted without any effort whatsoever to look for the glaringly obvious evidence.
Pictured: The Big Bang predicts our universe to have a 'spherical space' structure, bound by impassable barriers and with our star system somewhere inside it.
Sky-high glaciers… waterfalls to hell… Unnavigable barriers blocking our path simply do not exist in nature. The debunked Flat Earth Hypothesis taught us this eons ago. But it doesn't stop there...
The glaring problems with the Big Bang theory
Olbers Paradox - Black and White do not occur in nature, and yet we see the dead black of Darkness in space (Hellyer, 2008)
If there was a Big Bang, the sky would be pure fiery redshifted Light, burning with the distant intensity of a ferocious birth to the eternal serenity of our cosmos.
In science, the word 'Darkness' is often used a label for inexistence. In a physical construct, black could not exist. But in a construct of consciousness, the limit of reality would manifest as black. In cosmological terms, the black we see indicates a Cosmic Horizon. And in Quantum Mechanical terms, the black we see indicates a 13th Quantum Field of Consciousness - authenticated.
Paradox of Light - Our universe appears to run on software (the Standard Model) and hardware (the limit on the speed of Light) (Khan, 2021).
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a tried and tested backbone of the Laws of Physics. Anything that violates it, like a Big Bang and a limit on Light speed, should be viewed with suspicion.
Non-relativistic, absolute and an inexplainable maximum speed which limits the limitless and violates the Laws of Physics (Standard Model) that govern our universe. Rather than a hardware limit, the Speed of Light appears to be an anomaly directly linked to The Clarke Paradox. Confirmation of our waning Human consciousness. Today, with 8-billion characters on Earth, Wise Humans too are an endangered species. As is all life in our cosmos.
Anthropic Principle - The sheer number of programmed constants and formulas are near endless, where even a slight variation in any single one would render our universe uninhabitable to life. This seems too good to be true (Bostrom, 2020)
Jean Baudrillard regarded binary as the hallmark of artificial deception. Central to his 1981 Simulation Theory is A) if you can create a simulation of real life, chances are you’re already in one, and B) our cosmos was clearly created with purpose.
But a truly simulated multiverse would be very grim indeed and without meaning. Fortunately, the cyclic, spectral complexity of the only observable trinary system that is our Human Identity plus the extraordinary nature of our Collective Human Imagination / Presence of Mind (George Berkeley, 1710; René Descartes, 1637) proves this is not the case. Testably, sapient Human Beings are as real as it gets. Only our environment exhibits the pseudo-simulated hallmarks of Intelligent Design.
Since most of existence doesn’t exist, Humans simply don’t see those regions. Humanity can only see the interior of its own brain, as that is the only place where intelligent life could ever be found
The Anthropic Principle, by Ludwig BoltzmannWe/Human (Bostrom, 2002)
Theory of Panpsychism explained
Consider for a moment, the structure you live or work in would not exist without the vision, purpose, drive, ambition, ingenuity and determination of its architect. Now multiply that concept up to a global scale and you begin to see how the entire world is what we make of it. The universe to. Change Makers can create any Meaningful Change imaginable. Even the ultimate one – our existence (Jaskolla & Bruntrup, 2017).
'Omniconsciousness': What is our universe really?
In 1935, Einstein, Rosen & Podolsky found waves change into particles purely upon our observation. Reconciling the Double-Slit’s findings, they concluded our fundamental understanding of reality must be flawed. Yet none built significantly on their work - until now.
The conclusion is simple. Our universe isn’t real. As in, rather than a physical construct, it is a construct of ‘omniconsciousness’ - our Collective Human Identity (Dei, for short). Essentially, we live inside someone's brain.
Whilst that may seem initially like a bit of a shock, its actually (mostly) fantastic news.
That’s because Humanity’s consciousness still manifests our universe physically (as particles – per the Double Slit experiment; Young 1804)
And being formed by an intelligent consciousness of waves explains where all this hard coding has come from, without the forlorn conclusion we live in a simulated and thus pointless existence.
But in a construct of Human consciousness, it makes dehumanisation fatal to us. There’s always a sodding catch.
The book that changes everything
Unlocking this and more secrets of our Cosmos is just one of 130 meaningful discoveries, cracked conspiracies and other unique information gifted to curious minds by our new non-fiction book ‘The Sciences of Change’ – out now in print and ebook across 170 countries.
The product of 5,000 hours primary and secondary research plus 1,500 hours writing by our Founder of Light, Ian Clarke, it explains to a legal and scientific standard the nature, causes and solutions to the hatred, division, inequity and oppression that plagues all our lives and our entire world today. It’s potential to create meaningful change and save life is immense. But only if you read it.
This book is for the Change Makers.
For more information or to grab your copy, be curious and visit our website.
References and Citations
Slipher, Vesto. (1912). “The radial velocity of the Andromeda Nebula”. Lowell Observatory Bulletin, 256–257.
Baudrillard, Jean. (1981). Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée.
Hellyer, Marcus, ed. (2008). “The Scientific Revolution: The Essential Readings”. Blackwell Essential Readings in History. Vol. 7. John Wiley & Sons. p. 63.
Khan, Fouad. Confirmed, we live in a simulation. Scientific American, 2021
Bostrom, Nick. (2020). "Was the Universe Made for Us?". Anthropic Principle.
Levine, Timothy R. (2016). “Duped. Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception”. The University of Alabama Press.
Einstein, A; N Rosen; B Podolsky (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?"
Bruntrup, G., & Jaskolla, L. (2017). “Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Berkeley, George. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Trinity College, Dublin.
Descartes, René (1637). “Je pense, donc je suis”. Discourse on the Method.
Young, Thomas (1804). “The Bakerian lecture. Experiments and calculation relative to physical optics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 94.
