LUCIFER is an acronym for the instruments lengthy title, “Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research.” Why would someone choose such a name? Even the acronym was crafted from only some of the letters of the words in the title above. They had to work at getting that name, like they really wanted to say something, or at least get our attention. Well, they have it now. The instrument called LUCIFER is attached to the University of Arizona’s Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) located on Mt. Graham in south-eastern Arizona. And the Vatican-owned Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) is adjacent to it.1
Cover of the book Exo-Vaticana. (Credit: Defender)
According to Tom Horn and Chris Putnam, the Vatican is awaiting an alien saviour. This is what they write in their book “Exo-Vaticana”, so says Ecumenical News.2
Horn said Brother Guy Consolmagno, who has also been called the papal astronomer, told the authors some astounding information. (emphasis added)
“He (the papal astronomer) says without apology that very soon the nations of the world are going to look to the aliens for their salvation”, said Horn.
What’s in a name?
A lot really. Currently people like President Barak Hussein Obama is telling the world that ISIS, which stand for Islamic State in Syria, or as he prefers to call them ISIL, the Islamic State in Levant, is neither a state nor Islamic. He only ever refers to it by its name ISIL not ISIS. Here David Wood explains why. He also explains the method by which those who become radicalized do so. They are just following the tenets of their religion.
But ironically Isis was the Egyptian queen (female deity), the moon-god, sister to and wife to Osiris, the sun-god. Who are they really serving? It is not the Lord Jehovah.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 John 4:8)
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16)
The Standard Model of particle physics (SM) has been very successful at describing the elementary particles and the forces that bind them together. However, the Standard Model presents some significant problems for big bang theorists. This is because the SM does not contain any Dark-Matter particles, and the neutrinos in it are described as exactly massless. Which means that in its present form, it is in clear contradiction with the big bang model as required by various observations.
Those observations have led to the need to include Dark Matter in the standard (ΛCDM1) big bang model, particularly during the period of nucleosynthesis, just after the big bang beginning when the light elements were allegedly formed from hot hydrogen. Therefore, the Standard Model of particle physics is in stark disagreement with the requirements necessary for the formation of the first elements in the alleged big bang.
Where are the Dark-Matter particles?
All challenges to the standard ΛCDM big bang model have been met and overcome, so far, by assuming ‘unknowns’ particularly Dark Matter and Dark Energy, wherever and whenever needed. Astronomical observations have led big bang astronomers and cosmologists to look for these new unknown Dark-Matter particles to solve many of their problems resulting from such observations; for example, the formation of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters, the testing of the big bang model with type Ia supernova measurements, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies, galaxy rotation curves, and in particular, as focussed on here, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).2 Continue reading
Dark sector physics and the sterile neutrino
Abstract: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:4) In this modern era darkness has developed a new meaning. From various problems in cosmology a need has developed to postulate the existence of unknown types of energy and matter from the dark side. These are sought for in the dark sector of particle physics and in the description of the expanding universe acted upon by gravitation. Besides dark energy and dark matter, now a new dark component is being promoted—dark radiation—in the form of a sterile neutrino, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation or matter except via gravitation. This has come about because of the dichotomy that has occurred when the total mass of the universe has been measured using two quite different methods. But this new development underlines the problems that have developed in cosmology, especially when the model (paradigm) being considered is a clear departure from the historical account in Genesis. Article first published by Answers Research Journal 7 (2014):357–361. PDF available here.
Is something dark going on in cosmology? If you thought dark energy and dark matter were hard to understand (and justify), now a new component has been added to the dark side—dark radiation.
When astrophysicists measure the total amount of matter in the universe using different methods, and different data sets, it has been found that they get quite different answers. Continue reading
In March 2014 a team of astrophysicists announced to the world, through a public press release, that they had made the biggest discovery of the 21st century. Using the BICEP2, a telescope located at the South Pole they claimed that they had discovered evidence of the early inflation epoch of the big-bang universe. In several articles I mentioned that not only I but also other physicists doubted that this would bear out. Some suggested it was dust emission from within our galaxy that caused the particular B-mode polarization of the photons in the CMB, which was their claimed signature of the putative epoch of inflation.
Map showing the tiny variations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) observed by Europe’s Planck satellite.
Credit: ESA/Planck Collaboration
Then it was revealed that the authors of the claimed biggest astrophysics discovery of the century admit they may have been wrong. On June 20th, 2014, the BICEP2 Collaboration published a paper published in Physical Review Letters,1 making their claim. It was 25 pages long but with a half-page disclaimer saying they might be wrong and they would have to wait the outcome of the data analysis of the Planck satellite team looking at the same region of the sky and the same frequencies.
Well, that has now been published, and it’s not good news for the BICEP2 team. Continue reading
The universe is bright but are they in the Dark?
Using computer simulations, researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science have determined that in the intergalactic medium (IGM)—the space between galaxies—there is actually more light being emitted than there should be by a factor of 400%.1
The light observed coming from the ionized hydrogen atoms in the IGM is five times more than there should be.
Simulations of the early big bang universe agree with the amount of light generated by sources observed at those epochs, but they widely disagree with the universe we observe much closer to home, in the low-redshift universe, meaning much more recent in its alleged history.
Figure: An artist’s impression of a quasar. There’s just not enough of them to account for interstellar light, say researchers. Credit: NASA/ESA See Ref. 1.
Cosmologists have this problem because they assume that along with active star-forming galaxies, quasars—extremely active galaxy-sized objects, which emit a lot of radiation and often have large redshifts—are the main sources to have photo-ionized the IGM. This is because they assume that having large redshifts means that they are predominantly the occupants of the early universe, from which all normal galaxies that we see at low redshifts ultimately are supposed to have evolved. It is this initial big bang model assumption which brings them unstuck. Continue reading
8 reasons are presented that make evolution an impossible idea. The term evolution is used in the general sense applying to the universe beginning at the big bang, and including cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies, the solar system and Earth, and the origin of life and biological evolution.
The questions are taken from the cosmos, from geology of the planet Earth and from biology. The reasons that make evolution foolish as a viable scientific theory are posed as the lack of any reasonable answer to 8 questions:
Where did the Universe come from?
How did nothing explode?
How did stars and galaxies form?
How come all rocks dated with Carbon-14 give ‘absolute ages’ less than 56,000 yrs?
How do you determine the absolute age of a fossil?
Why hasn’t evolution been observed?
How does specific complex coded information in DNA arise by chance?
How did life arise from non-living chemicals by random chance?
See my article 8 REASONS WHY EVOLUTION IS FOOLISH. Note the questions and my answers also at the end of the web article. You can find a pdf tract of the same title in English or other languages under Downloads on the front page.
This is a lecture delivered at the University of Adelaide on June 6th, 2014. I presented the lecture to an audience of about 55 and spoke on the topic for about 60 minutes presenting my 8 reasons via 8 questions which, so far, have not been answered by evolutionists. Following the lecture we had about 40 minutes of Q&A. The lecture was attended by an atheist group who attempted to catch me with ‘straw men’ and misdirected questions, see: ATHEISTS TURN OUT TO STRIKE AGAINST CREATIONISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.