Posts Tagged ‘Cosmology’

Outra teoria cosmológica: Criação continua como sugeriu os diversos mitos esotéricos.

Thursday, June 4th, 2020
Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation
https://www.scribd.com/book/351487119/Genesis-of-the-Cosmos-The-Ancient-Science-of-Continuous-Creation

Provides compelling evidence that creation myths from the dawn of civilization correspond to cutting edge astronomical discoveries

• Exposes the contradictions in current cosmological theory and offers a scientific basis for the ancient myths and esoteric lore that encode a theory of continuous creation

• By the scientist who was the first to disprove the Big Bang theory on the basis of observational data

Recent developments in theoretical physics, including systems theory and chaos theory, are challenging long-held mechanistic views of the universe. Many thinkers have speculated that the remnants of an ancient science survive today in mythology and esoteric lore, but until now the scientific basis for this belief has remained cloaked in mystery. Paul LaViolette reveals the remarkable parallels between the cutting edge of scientific thought and creation myths from the dawn of civilization. With a scientific sophistication rare among mythologists, LaViolette deciphers the forgotten cosmology of ancient lore in a groundbreaking scientific tour de force. In direct, nontechnical language, he shows how these myths encode a theory of cosmology in which matter is continually growing from seeds of order that emerge spontaneously from the surrounding subquantum chaos.

Exposing the contradictions that bedevil the big bang theory, LaViolette offers both the specialist and the general reader a controversial and highly stimulating critique of prevailing misconceptions about the seldom-questioned superiority of modern science over ancient cosmology. By restoring and reanimating this ancient scientific worldview, Genesis of the Cosmos leads us beyond the restrictive metaphors of modern science and into a new science for the 21st century.

New Victory for Matrix Theory and new data against the Standard Model

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
See the article: 

A “Hot Saturn” That’s Not So Odd

By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 April 2009
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/401/2#comment-blockAnd see the coment below posted under that article:ALERT ! This is not Scientific Journalism!The author, Mr. Phil Berardelli is doing a bad service to Science Institution.The error is here: “… Each system basically starts out from a diffuse cloud of gas and dust, called a protoplanetary disk, within which gravity begins to clump material together. When the parent star ignites,..”.  And here: “ giant, gaseous planet to migrate toward the star, as have gas giants in other solar systems”.  Never, but, never, nobody and nowhere have seen, or documented, the event of formation of a solar system. Never, anybody has watched a giant gaseous planet travelling toward a star.  We have no scientific theories, the standard model of solar system formation is only a hypothesis, since that the last ones planets saw showed too many contradictions. So, the student and layman when reading something like that (… each system basically starts out from…) will believe that it is thru, scientifically approved and confirmed. It is not, it is merely an individual supposition from people of a given epoch. Mr. Berardelli never saw any solar system formation, like nobody saw God creating life, so, the two affirmations is about religion, no Science.The right thing to write should be: “Accordingly whit the theoretical models, they suppose that each system…”, or something like that in a better English. And this: “ … as we suppose that there are such kind of migration…” If you are a scientific thinker, passionate, and advocate of scientific method, you must be alert and correct such mistakes. See what is happening with Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory, being attacked from every side and being banished from some schools: they did the mistake of selling a theory as it being the ultimate truth.There are other models, even hypothesis, about cosmology and astronomic bodies’ formation where the last discoveries fill better. For instance, the models of The Universal Matrix Theory: it previews the existence of astronomic bodies like HD 149026b. Who has the authority to choose “the standard model”? The models of Matrix Theory do not deal with solar system formation, like cell molecular biology does not deal with atom formation. The models deal with cosmic bodies’ formation, like Biology deals with cellular organelles formation. Those models have no problem with the quantities of iron and nickel, neither has with bodies with giant rocky core and thick envelope of gas. The models suggest it must happen when a old planet is becoming a new pulsar. The models suggestions is that the hot gas envelope is due increasing volcanoes activity (  then, we will looking for volcano activity in HD 149026b).  The models suggest that only younger planets, without volcano activity migrate toward stars          The standard model must be investigated serious because it has a lot of problems. Here is a sample: “The most plausible explanation was that it resulted from a primordial collision between two or more gas giant planets.”. Never nobody saw collisions between astronomic bodies. What we have seeing about the sky it is suggesting that, there, reigns the natural state of order, not chaos, like in the biosphere. But the standard model, because it is basically based in the believe of events like “origins of something (as life, astronomical bodies and systems) by absolute chance”, or accident, leads normally the believer to suppose cosmic accidents like collisions. So we have “cannibals black holes”, supernova explosions, etc. Never any event like that has saw, but the student is forced and reinforced to believe in it, and when the student becomes astronomer, he/she will be ferocious advocate of a myth! The fact is that the standard model of solar formation has no link with the scientifically proved event which happened inside a solar system: the development of biological systems (mistakenly called “life”). Where is the forces, the elements, the ingredients used for the formation of a system that is the ancestral of the biological systems? Nobody even asked this question, the human rationality is not working, because astronomy became a matter of faith.

The method and instruments used here (they examined HD 149026b’s parent star and found that it contains twice the concentration of heavy elements, such as iron and nickel…) is totally proved? When we got real material from a distant body which previous analyze by the same method confirmed the prevision? Standard models with a Cosmo vision that offers no rational think for life origins and a health hope in human existence must not be sell to our children before a rigorous scientific examination. The problem of too many controversies around Evolution Theory is due the scholar texts making the same error here: they begins talking that it is a theory, but, at a given moment ahead, in the same text, it is no more a theory, they are catching doing strong affirmations as it were scientific approved… We must avoid the same happening with Cosmology and Astronomy… . But… I could be wrong… or not?