FOR POSTING: Big Bang Has No Credibility Left

Agreed with this. See document “Eight Three Refutations of General Relativity” on www.aias.us , Steve Crothers’ chapter nine of “Principles of ECE”, and papers such as UFT88, 99, 109, 255, 313, 255, 254 and 375. I have selected eighty three of the leading refutations, there are many other refutations on www.aias.us. Many other avant garde intellectuals have refuted Big Bang experimentally and theoretically for many years. Einstein himself rejected Big Bang long ago, in the thirties. This letter from Hawking and his angry friends uses the old disingenuous and anti Baconian dogma, that the empty minded crowd must be right. No logical argument is given as to why they must be right. They are in fact totally wrong. Einstein wrote that it takes only one experimental fact to refute his theory. It was refuted by the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy fifty years ago, it is refuted by retrograde precession in the S2 star, and by other well known experimental facts. Big Bang is full of adjustables, so one could fit and predict anything. I think it was written originally by a sixties Dalek in the wine cellar of Trinity College Cambridge. The Dalek had been at the bottles. As an Oxford man I am not surprised by anything that goes on there. “Not even wrong” as Pauli wrote with equal indignation. Louis de Broglie and Jean-Pierre Vigier rejected Big Bang on the basis of photon mass, so have thousands of others. So if we look at physics as a populist football match, there are more than six thousand supporters on our side, in fact there are several million judging by the scientometrics of www.aias.us, and they work at the best universities in the world. This site is very carefully ignored by the dogmatists. Dark matter was invented to cover up a regrettable inconvenience – the complete failure of Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). Big Bang is riddled with well known theoretical errors. I have written several times to Hawking as a Civil List Pensioner and did not receive the elementary courtesy of a reply. This means that Hawking is unable to argue scientifically with AIAS / UPITEC. So Hawking’s type of work should not be publicly funded. The censorship system of the dogmatists has been sieved by www.aias.us and http://www.upitec.org , which have recorded twenty two million hits since 2002. The censorious journal system has been replaced by the open access website system. A paper such as UFT88 has been consulted perhaps fifty thousand known times in a decade, and also by the best minds in the best universities, institutes and similar. Private consultations which I cannot identify probably amount to tens of thousands more consultations. It is high on the first page of Google, the dogmatists are finished as intellectuals. Anger is not an example of Baconian natural philosophy. It is a display of mindless arrogance – a skinhead at a football match, or a troll “Looking Back in Anger”, John Osborne, played by Richard Burton. Recently a dogmatist had a fit all over Stephen Crothers and that reached the newspapers. Parents should be careful what they do with their fees.

In a message dated 13/05/2017 13:34:21 GMT Daylight Time writes:

Dear Prof. Evans,
[cc: Dear Steve,]
[bcc: Dear Scientists,]

Stephen Hawking and 32 of his fellow scientists have written an angry letter responding to a recent Scientific American article about how the universe began. In it, they declare their “categorical disagreement” with several of the statements made, and explain why the theory of inflation is still one of the best models for the origin of the cosmos.,
https://www.thegwpf.com/cosmic-consensus-and-controversy-9000-scientists-cant-be-wrong/

It appears difficult to convince Hawking ‘et al’ of something when their salary depends on their not understanding it…

With kind regards,

Klaus W.

Lower Saxony


%d bloggers like this: