The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!

[Hughe]

p8lKQMEYYLw

Professor Herouni's antenna - documentary
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fVCCCf3HCSijVeoE7

[RogeRio]

i can't keep up the details of scientists explanations, but for me, the Big Bang theory its more related to justify the (suposed) expansion of the universe than other things.

one interesting question here, is -- If they can't rearch de borders of the universe yet, how can say It are really expanding itself ?

the moves of galaxies and stars indicates something, but hypotheses and theories are very different of physical laws and axioms, that cannot be taken apart, unless be proven there are others more better to replace.

BTW, very interesting subject ..

[shaberon]

I would appreciate some type of transcript.

Big Bang was adopted by religion when the old belief of creating the earth around 3,000 B. C. started looking ridiculous.

The argument against "expansion" is called Tired Light, which says that a redshift is produced as light interacts with dust and particles that fill space. Otherwise, according to Relativity, this is a Doppler effect which indicates expansion in the "x" direction, or every direction, spherically. The border would be undefinable or be farther away than information could travel at light speed for all time, so it could not ever be found or explained as a border to "what".

Relativity must be pretty accurate since it agrees with a large number of observations, but, it may be incomplete.

[Bill Ryan]

That's VERY VERY interesting. Thank you! :thumbsup:

Yes, the Big Bang is one of many scientific sacred cows, that aren't allowed to be questioned. One of the YouTube comments was (do read them!) —



I shared this to an astronomy group on Facebook and was immediately blocked.

[Hughe]

When you removes the complex mathematics out of Theory of Relativity, it becomes nonsensical hypotheis which does no base on physical reality.
If you spend enough time in physics and astronomy, all the outstanding examples that prove Theory of Relativity is right have alternative theories that are simple, logically consistent. For instance light bends near the Sun's surface. Relativitists claim it's proof of General Relativity. Refraction provides greater accuracy of light bending near the Sun's surface.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Snells_law.svg/220px-Snells_law.svg.png

[Bill Ryan]

When you removes the complex mathematics out of Theory of Relativity, it becomes nonsensical hypotheis which does no base on physical reality.
If you spend enough time in physics and astronomy, all the outstanding examples that prove Theory of Relativity is right have alternative theories that are simple, logically consistent. For instance light bends near the Sun's surface. Relativitists claim it's proof of General Relativity. Refraction provides greater accuracy of light bending near the Sun's surface.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Snells_law.svg/220px-Snells_law.svg.png

That image comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index. The text states:



Refraction of light at the interface between two media of different refractive indices, with n2 > n1. Since the phase velocity is lower in the second medium (v2 < v1), the angle of refraction θ2 is less than the angle of incidence θ1; that is, the ray in the higher-index medium is closer to the normal.
That's all correct, of course, with two mediums of different refractive indices (like air and water). But near the sun, there aren't 'two mediums'. There's a vacuum. Relativity predicts the gravitational bending of light precisely.

Happy to have a relativity discussion here, but maybe on a different thread. There's one here:


Requiem for Relativity (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71343-Requiem-for-Relativity)

:focus:

[Hervé]

[...]
That's all correct, of course, with two mediums of different refractive indices (like air and water). But near the sun, there aren't 'two mediums'. There's a vacuum. Relativity predicts the gravitational bending of light precisely.
[...]Right... unless the sun has some kind of "atmosphere"...how about "Diffraction":
Diffraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction)

Diffraction refers to various phenomena that occur when a wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave) encounters an obstacle or a slit. It is defined as the bending of waves around the corners of an obstacle or through an aperture into the region of geometrical shadow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra) of the obstacle/aperture.
Anyway: :focus:

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

That's interesting.

Just as an aside, and completely unscientific, from the mystical (spirit) point of view, as well as from many an 'alleged' ET source, our understanding of the Big Bang is essentially, generally correct. I've seen and heard this many times. So who knows.

Weirdly, this host never blinks. People that don't blink kind of bothers me for reasons I can't explain!

(correction, he does blink, once, right at the very end).

[Cara]

Related, here is a new documentary from Ben Davidson / Suspicious Observers on plasma cosmology. It addresses issues with dark matter, Big Bang and other problems. It’s fairly technical.

It includes a segment on the Herouni antenna at around 24:00 in.

E4pWZGBpWP0

Premiered Aug 1, 2019
Plasma Cosmology contains interviews with top professors and government scientists, examining the problems with the prevailing dark matter paradigm. Dr. Peratt describes what the government learned and classified during secret nuclear tests underground.

~30 minutes in, the tables turn completely
~43 minutes in, the bomb drops, both literally and figuratively

Dr. Peratt's Book: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma...

The song Future Gladiator by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

[Ernie Nemeth]

The more this new understanding of plasma cosmology seeps deeper into the collective awareness the more the inconsistencies between it and standard cosmology will become apparent.

It is liberating merely to contemplate an alternative with a viable solution to all the conflicting theories of today.

It cannot be over-stated how much this last fifty years plus of illogical conclusions has cost the science of the very big. With the tenets of the old science taught to us and upheld as sacrosanct, it became almost impossible to even consider the obvious - that we were veering off on a philosophical dead end. A mechanistic universe is a dead universe.

It truly makes me think that there has been an agenda from the start, beyond the massive egos of the leading scientists of the day, that intentionally steered cosmology, and other branches of science, away from plasma physics and related areas of study.

And while in the past the gateways to information could be policed it has become a nightmare for these nefarious groups to control the narrative in the modern age of the WorldWideWeb.

I am personally very glad that this glaring insult to and assault on truth has been uncovered. It has been a long time coming...and obvious from the start to some of us here, I would suspect.

It doesn't take a prognosticator or an insider to reveal that our intellectual realm has been commandeered by a coordinated effort to mislead and obfuscate the simple truth by introducing complication and falsehoods. This has lead to the predicament of today where the obvious is refuted and rhetoric replaces honest contemplation and logic.

[shaberon]

It truly makes me think that there has been an agenda from the start, beyond the massive egos of the leading scientists of the day, that intentionally steered cosmology, and other branches of science, away from plasma physics and related areas of study.


The start was around the point Isaac Newton was more or less taken hostage. This results in the use of Tensor Calculus instead of quarternion equations the way Maxwell equations were originally done, which is posted somewhere in the Science forum here. Newton was really into Natural Science, which is astrology and alchemy. This "was" science in the early academic world and was completely whisked away by Materialism, and especially through the French Revolution and Encyclopedists. The same thing continues to marginalize everything from Plasma Cosmology to organic farming.

The actual behavior of plasma and the type of quantum foam that permeates all space, and that all matter is really just a type of diffraction pattern made of electricity, to me, is much more interesting than if or how there was a beginning. I cannot say for sure there was one.

Newton vs. Leibiniz is a fairly definitive continuation of Aristotle vs. Plato and certainly is a turning point where most educational systems started falling in manipulative hands.

Einstein is not even on his own side, he said if there is an ether, he is wrong. So again like Newton, his material is pretty much pushed over everything else, by vested interests.