Relativity, Big Bang Theory, and Theoretical Physics Are Wrong

I'm not sure how this works, but I channeled that William Blake was responsible, somehow, for teaching smart men that "whatever ideas humans come up with are what is."

This is going to be controversial, but not only is the Theory of Relativity wrong, but theoretical physics is invalid as a body of knowledge. (This means that Stephen Hawking's entire output is fictional. I channeled that Hawking was the reincarnation of both Sir Isaac Newton and Carl Friedrich Gauss.) Experimental/empirical physics is legit, as is the Scientific Method that is based on evidence and empiricism.

I've read the Isaacson biography on Einstein, plus Einstein's own book, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, as well as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's The Grand Design.

For me to challenge what they had put out there came about as a result of channeling.

Science has been based on building on what came before, and one issue is that if there are building blocks that aren't correct, the structures built on top of them aren't correct either. For one, galaxies, I channeled, are conscious beings, and the structures within them behave physically as a matter of central galactic control, and they are not held together structurally by the force of gravity. Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity works as a near-field phenomenon, but it overreaches by supposing that the solar system is held together by the force of gravity. Remember--he was not basing his claim on evidence, especially differential evidence with conclusions that were tested against controls.

It has been observed that there is a moon somewhere that orbits in a wave. No one seems to care that that challenges Relativity's explanation of gravity as a determinant of orbital motion. It would have to be some-sort of radial-crinkle-cut gravitational force that results in a moon that orbits a planet in a wave.

Newton posited that the tides are produced by the gravitational effect of the moon. I have a different theory. The moon has an orbital period of 28 days. The tides occur daily. There is one physical phenomenon that has a daily period and occurs at a scale big enough to affect the tides, and that is the daily rotation of the Earth. I theorize that the tides are a matter of the water in the oceans sloshing back and forth as the Earth spins on its axis.

Einstein developed Relativity based on observations within the solar system, and before humans had the ability to observe things beyond the galaxy. As soon as the Hubble telescope began sending us images of other galaxies, it was noted that some galaxies seemed to be spinning too fast to be consistent with what Relativity posited about gravitational pull. It was posited, then, that what we might be seeing are merely the inner cores of galaxies, which are surrounded, three-dimensionally, by outer cores of invisible, see-through matter, that hold the visible part together. This see-through matter was named "dark matter." It is now posited that between 85 to 95% of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy.

Or, you could call it "fudge factor"--we posit that it must be there because the theory says it should be. Not really--it's merely a way of trying to save a theory that can't explain the observations. If scientists were being honest, they'd ditch the theory when they see evidence that suggests it doesn't work.

Einstein was competing with other theorists to develop a theory with the explanatory power of Relativity, and he attended conferences where these ideas were being discussed. He was part of a conversation within the academy, and he had help with the mathematical part of it.

I have a hunch that his notion of the relativity of time is incorrect, based on my understanding of his thought experiment. A clock is not "time"--a clock is a mechanical device that uses fixed mechanical intervals in order to serve as a time-piece. It is the "map" of time, not the "territory" of time. Thus, it seems to me that movement is relative, not time. That's what we see dilating--movement, the movement that makes time-measuring devices work.

It was also channeled to me that black holes do not exist, and represent conceptual nonsense. Black holes are supposedly the product of points in space with infinite density. The problem: Infinity is not part of the natural number set, which is composed on the quantities that could exist in the physical world. Infinity, a number that "goes on forever," is an idea, not a quantity. It can exist as a rate, but not as a quantity. You could say that, in baseball, if a pitcher can't retire any batters, at this rate, we'll lose by a score of infinity to nothing, but that can't actually happen. You'll never get to infinity runs! There will always be a finite amount of runs scored, no matter how long you play.

Density, moreover, is the amount of matter within a given physical space. It's conceptual nonsense to posit that you could have an infinite amount of matter within a given physical space. Therefore, the concept of "infinite density" doesn't make sense.

Given what Einstein did to arrive at his Relativity theories, I channeled that it doesn't make sense to posit that there is an "ur-math" that leads to the mathematical formulae that describe the dynamics of what are ultimately disparate, distinct, physical phenomena. It's a conceptual error to posit that the formulae that describe the dynamics of physical phenomena, the "maps" of them, have "conceptual parents" that "underlie" them.

According to the wording on Wikipedia, "Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain, and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena."

I am positing that "rationalizing, explaining, and predicting natural phenomena" is a phantom, an abstract fantasy, and a description of something that doesn't exist.

What I've channeled about the nature of physical existence is something you could call Being Theory. Everything is a being. The Void in which all physical phenomena exist is the biggest being, and it is The Source, the Supreme Creator, and as Bishop Berkeley lifted from Hildegard of Bingen, everything is "ideas in the Mind of God." That is, there is this big void, which is the interior of the Supreme Creator's mind, and she imagines everything into existence from the inside out--and that "imaginary" activity has been physically detected at the sub-atomic level and called the "quantum." It has been described in other places as "the causal plane."

There is evidence of quantum mechanics and competing observations as to what could be happening there, all of which seem to be deterministic and one in particular is laugh-out-loud silly (that's "many worlds"). Relativity has one experiment that confirmed a part of it (Michelson-Morley), and the rest is assumed to be true, even when it flies in the face of physical evidence such as with "dark matter".

The Big Bang Theory was created based on having spent all of but a few years of initial observation of the dynamics of astronomical objects, and is based on the observation that the most distant galaxies are all red-shifting, which suggests they are moving away from us.

Somehow we're still at at the center of this movement away from us, and I've yet to hear an explanation of where the central, generative point is, the one that has apparently "back-filled" all the matter that stands between us and those distant, receding galaxies.

There's a simpler explanation, though, one that's consistent with what we know. It has to do with the nature of our measuring instrument. Red-shifting increases with distance. It is only natural that the farther away something is, the more red-shifted it appears to us. That is what explains the Doppler Effect. A car passing by us at a constant speed makes a noise that sounds like "eeeeeeeee," but with the Doppler Effect, what we hear sounds like "eeeeEEEEeummmm," as it speeds by us.

What I've channeled is that the Universe is a matter of Creation by a Deity and Intelligent Design. The Earth is such, also; it did not "evolve" into what it is, but was created at the beginning along with the rest of Creation.

The size of the universe is beyond human comprehension. The best way to approximate its size is to grasp the number of galaxies it contains: 8.43971887313 x 10 to the power of 100 quadrillion to the 100 quadrillion to the 100 quadrillion. That’s 100 quadrillion times 100 quadrillion times 100 quadrillion significant digits in the number of galaxies out there.

The age of the universe is also incredibly old. In years, it’s 5.3813973483 x 10 to the power of 6 quintillion years old. That’s 6 quintillion significant digits in the number of years the universe has been around. The Earth has been around the whole time.

There is no planet with beings living on the surface of the planet other than the Earth. This should be added to the Fermi Paradox: the problem of scale. If there were alien beings on other planets, what if they are about six feet tall like the ones on Earth, and they haven’t built anything artificial that’s the size of the planet, and therefore, we can’t see them?

The aliens that have been channeled, such as the Annunaki, are beings from previous “Earth epochs,” where there were different creatures, including different human-like beings, living on the planet. I channeled that the current Earth epoch including the age of humans, is about 200,000,000 years old. The oldest race of people still living are the Australian Aboriginal people, who were created about 180,000,000 years ago. Lisa Renee’s Ascension Galaxy is a very thorough channeling of the history of a past Earth epoch.