A Proper Gander At Propaganda

Truth Transcends Community

"Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities. Propaganda is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to influence opinions. It's used in advertising, radio, newspaper, posters, books, television, and other media."  -  Propaganda in the United States - Wikipedia

"A man without a government is like a fish without a bicycle.” Alvaro Koplovich

Article index

Radio Astronomy Versus The Inverse Square Law: Which Do You Think Should Win?

The Inverse Square law is a description for demonstrable natural principle. Modern astronomy is a house of snake oil alchemical tarot cards built on a foundation of solar religious cult thought. The Sun was once thought to be the center of the Universe having replaced Mother Earth. Now the Sun lost his throne as the magical ever expanding, black holy multiverse cartoon thought balloon model has taken over "everybody's" imagination.

The Inverse Square "Law" Is Demonstrable Reality.

This would seem to contradict the idea that we can see stars from light years away. Would we not expect to at least see weakened light from the stars and not bright spark like effects? The Sun is also supposed to be a sphere that is extremely far away, would we not expect it to look more like a soft glowing ball than a sharp oscillating circle? Radio and sound waves and yes even observable light waves show us that the inverse square law is a natural reality. Consider too the very real effects of water vapor, dust and layers of atmosphere have on electromagnetic radiation. Mirages and other effects are the result of a mirror like atmospheric phenomena. The atmosphere and all the particles of matter it contains act like real electrical transformers and the result is a noisier electromagnetic signal. This so-called law explains why objects look smaller in the distance. Less imagined lines of force are received by the lens which is acting just like the satellite dishes so many of us have stitched to the roofs of our homes. As anyone who has driven a car outside of the transmitter range of the radio station knows, the closer you are the better the signal you receive. The further away the less electromagnetic information you receive. A lens in a telescope or a larger satellite like dish are able to receive more lines of imagined electromagnetic information. Larger lens and antennas mean more data or higher resolution "images" of one kind or another. 

Physics 8.1.03a - The Inverse Square Law  source: Derek Owens

The further away we are from the source of electric magnetic radiation, the more spread out it would be. These imagined lines of radiation should not result in a signal with parallel lines like radio astronomy claims. Compare to the video below. 

Radio Waves From Outer Space Come From A Long Distance Away So They Are Parallel

Please watch the video below and consider if this explanation really makes sense when compared with demonstrable reality. The mathematical "peer revered" model is the MATRIX like artifice that the modern university mind has been trained to turn to instead of actual Nature. This is another example of very real mythical thinking. Electromagnetic waves radiate out in a circular like fashion, like rain drop ripples in puddles in the street. These ripples are more accurately described as expanding rings and not as parallel lines. The description of the signal the radio telescopes are receiving would seem to indicate the source might be from the ionized and electrically active gaseous atmosphere around the Earth and not from some imaginably absurdly far distance away. Light years are mathematical constructs. Modern astronomy is an alchemical & mathemagical mix of fantastic ad hoc ideas and is not an example of a description of true demonstrable reality no matter how many parrots sing the same choral song.

There would seem to be a problem with the description. Does it make sense to describe radio signals as parallel lines?

Modern astronomy is claver mathematical alchemy and seemingly little else.

Understanding Radio Telescopes: Dr John Morgan source: Curtin University


I recommend watching the video in its entirety.


Most People Exist In Two Worlds: The Real, Natural One & The Artificial World Of Socially Reinforced MATRIX-like Constructs

The modern mainstream astronomical cosmology is a patchwork of obvious illogical mathematical artifices and nonsensical reasoned dogma.

The cartoonish comic strip thought balloon expansion theory relies on a narrow interpretation of all empirical evidence. All observable phenomena are filtered through a narrow mathematically modeled peer reviewed screen that results in a representation of reality that is far removed from the actual thing.

Edwin Hubble's Estimates Become Cosmic Law

"Arguably the most important Cosmological discovery ever made is that our Universe is expanding. Its stands, along with the Copernican Principle --- that there is no preferred place in the Universe, and Olbers' paradox --- that the sky is dark at night, as one of the cornerstones of modern cosmology. It forced cosmologists to dynamic models of the Universe, and also implies the existence of a timescale or age for the Universe.

It was made possible by in part by Vesto Slipher's measurements of the apparent radial velocities of nebulae, but primarily by Edwin Hubble's estimates of distances to nearby galaxies. Hubble deserves the credit for the discovery of the expansion, even though papers by Georges Lemaitre and H. P. Robertson using Hubble's data on the velocity-distance relation preceeded his 1929 landmark, because it was his systematic program of measuring galaxy distances and his 1924 discovery of Cepheid variable stars in M31 and his actual plot of the relation that finally convinced the community at large.

Low level controversy ensued almost immediately. Hubble's initial value for the expansion rate, now called the Hubble Constant, was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. The expansion age of the Universe inferred from this was only 2 Gyr, but by the 1930's, radioactive dating of rocks had already shown geologists that the age of the Earth was 3 Gyr. Astronomically Hubble's value also caused a bit of trouble, because the scale of the Milky Way itself was moderately well established and Hubble's calibration implied that the Milky Way was far larger than any other nearby galaxy except possibly Andromeda.


A Shoddily Constructed Glass House of Alchemical Tarot Cards Have Sprung From Newton's Demented Corpse:

"The astronomer Jan Oort took Hubble's scale to task for this reason in a 1932 paper, but the astronomical community continued to support and use Hubble's value. The solution, at least to the Earth versus the Universe problem, came in the 1950's from a combination of effects including Walter Baade's discovery of Population II stars and his subsequent recalibration of the period-luminosity relation for population I Cepheid variables followed by the realization of a confusion problem at large distances. What Hubble had thought were individual stars in his most distant galaxies were actually star clusters, thus he had not been observing ``standard candles,'' objects whose absolute luminosity did not vary with distance.

However, all was not settled. In the 1960's a great controvesy over the value of the expansion rate grew again. Allan Sandage, Hubble's successor at the Mt. Wilson and Palomar Observatories, continued to drive down the value of H0. In the classic paper by Humason, Mayall and Sandage (1956), the value determined was 180 km/s/Mpc. Two years later, in 1958 Sandage pubished a value of 75 km/s/Mpc, and by the early 1970's estimates from Sandage and his longtime collaborator Gustav Tammann were hovering around 55 km/s/Mpc. The dramatic change over 5 decades is shown in figure 2. Meanwhile the competition, in the form of Sidney vandenBerg and Gerard deVaucouleurs continued to obtain values near 100 km/s/Mpc. By the late 1970's, this bimodality remained in the estimates of H0 and the middle ground was littered with the bruised and battered remains of young astronomers attempting to resolve the dispute between the two sides."


NASA Hollywood Fakery To The Rescue!

"The resolution of the problem came from the telescope that bears Hubble's name. In the early 1980's, prompted by the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Riccardo Giacconi, NASA and StScI convened four panels to discuss the concept of Key Projects. These were envisioned as large observational programs of such significant scientific impact that blocks of Hubble Space Telescope time would be set aside and separately proposed for to ensure that these projects would be completed in the early years of the HST mission in case the telescope failed after only a few years. The panels identified three such projects, a study of the nearby intergalactic medium using quasar absoprtion lines, a medium deep survey to be composed of exposures taken in parallel (basically turning on the cameras whenever one of the other instruments was primary), and a project to determine the Hubble Constant. The following summer, a number of astronomers interested in the Cosmic Distance Scale met at the Aspen Center for Physics in 1985 to discuss what to do next. Ostensibly, the program was arranged to give the local theorists (Aspen being the summer home of a large number of theorists!) the current view on H0, but the unstated reason for the meeting was to form a team or teams to propose for HST time. The group tried to combine to write a single proposal, but there really was no way to get the old timers to work with the young turks. In the end, a team of thirteen astronomers agreed to continue meeting to plan the HST project. The first draft of the proposal was prepared in Tucson, under the leadership of Marc Aaronson, a few months later. The original team members included Marc, Jeremy Mould, Rob Kennicutt, Wendy Freedman, Sandy Faber, Holland Ford, Jim Gunn, John Hoessel, Garth Illingworth, John Graham, Peter Stetson, Barry Madore and myself."


A Constant Stream of Modern Religious Dogma Presented as Science: Only One Narrow Peer Reviewed Interpretation Is Allowed

Please ignore the Earth beneath our feet as an obvious overlooked source of radio-active radiation.

The age of the Universe is something that is the product of pure imagination. One favored assumption is added to a pile of favored assumptions and a huge towering pile of steaming bull babel continues to be built. All reality is filtered through official peer reviewed process. Science by consensus is religion. Modern thinking seems to really confuse true demonstrable science with metaphysical musings.

"It's definitely worth a gander. The uncertainties in the local determination of the Hubble Constant are still dominated by the uncertainty in the Cepheid P-L calibration, followed by uncertanties in the local flow field (non-Hubble expansion galaxy velocities). The current state of published measurements is seen below.  One major additional change in the debate since the end of the 20th century has been the discovery of the accelerating universe (cf. Perlmutter et al. 1998 and Riess et al. 1998) and the development of "Concordance" Cosmology. In the early 1990's, one of the strongest arguments for a low (~50 km/s/Mpc) value of the Hubble Constant was the need to derive an expansion age of the universe that was older than, now, the oldest stars, those found in globular star clusters. The best GC ages in 1990 were in the range 16-18 Gyr.

The expansion age of the Universe depends primarily on the Hubble constant but also on the value of various other cosmological parameters, most notably then the mean mass density over the closure density, &OmegaM. For an "empty" universe, the age is just 1/H0 or 9.7 Gyr for H0 = 100 km/s/Mpc and 19.4 Gyr for 50 km/s/Mpc. For a universe with &OmegaM = 1.000, the theorist's favorite because that is what is predicted by inflation, the age is 2/3 of that for the empty universe.

So if the Hubble Constant was 70 km/s/Mpc, the age of an empty universe was 13.5 Gyr, less than the GC ages, and if &OmegaM was 1.000 as favored by the theorists, the expansion age would only be 9 Gyr, much much less than the GC ages. Conversely if H0 was 50 km/s/Mpc, and &OmegaM was the observers' favorite value of 0.25, the age came out just about right. Note that this still ruled out &OmegaM = 1.000 though, inspiring at least one theorist to proclaim that H0 must be 35! The discovery of acceleration enabled the removal of much of this major remaining discrepancy in timescales, that between the expansion age of the Universe and the ages of the oldest stars, those in globular clusters. The introduction of a Cosmological constant, &Lambda, one of the most probable causes for acceleration, changes the computation of the Universe's expansion age. A positive &Omega&Lambda increases the age. The Concordance model has an H0 = 72 km/s/Mpc, an &OmegaTotal = 1.0000..... made up of &Omega&Lambda=0.73 and &OmegaMatter=0.27. Those values yield an age for the Universe of ~ 13.7 Gyr. This alone would not have solved the timescale problem, but a revision of the subdwarf distance scale based on significantly improved paralaxes to nearby subdwards from the ESA Hiparcos mission, increased the distances to galactic globular clusters and thus decreased their estimated ages. The most recent fits of observed HR diagrams to theoretical stellar models (isochrones) by the Yale group (Demarque, Pinsonneault and others) indicates that the mean age of galactic globulars is more like 12.5 Gyr, comfortably smaller than the Expansion age."