Alien Intrusion Page 10

  Expanding Balloons

  The theory is a little convoluted, but try to imagine the universe and its galaxies existing only on the surface of a small balloon (i.e., the galaxies are like sequins stuck onto the two-dimensional surface of a balloon). As the balloon expands (in three dimensions), all the galaxies move away from each other in every direction in two dimensions. Imagine you were an ant on the surface of the balloon. No matter how far you kept traveling in any direction, you would never reach the “end” of this two-dimensional “universe” because there is no edge, even though you might eventually end up where you started. Since there is no edge, there is no center to this two-dimensional space, either.

  But our normal understanding of three dimensions (height, length, and breadth) is not adequate to explain the big-bang theory. We have to shift our balloon model “up a gear” to include a fourth dimension called “hyperspace.”[11] In effect, just as our ant’s two-dimensional (2-D) world was wrapped around a 3-D sphere, this 3-D universe of ours is, in big-bang thinking, wrapped around a 4-D hypersphere. So, just as the balloon’s surface had no edge or center, neither does this model of our universe. As the 3-D expansion of the balloon causes a 2-D moving apart of the objects on the surface, so a 4-D expansion of our hypersphere causes every object to move away from every other object in 3-D. This is why, say big-bangers, all distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us. If we were out on a distant galaxy, everything would also appear to be moving away from us. If you are having trouble imagining this, don’t worry — you’re not alone! Experts say, “It’s impossible to imagine — you’ve just got to accept it.”

  There is a reason for detailing these complexities. Most think that the details about the origin of our universe have been worked out. But it is a non-testable and convoluted theory, and there are some prominent figures in the world of astronomy who reject it. And “just accepting” scientists’ conjectures has enormous implications for our study.

  The emptiness that is supposed to be inside the balloon is known as hyperspace. This part of the theory allows science fiction writers to imagine traveling through “wormholes,” or to conceive of “folding space” so that their imaginary vessels can make shortcuts across hyperspace. But what scientific evidence has led to this idea?

  Because the universe gives the appearance that it is (or has been) stretched by expansion, the light traveling to Earth from distant galaxies has also been stretched. This causes the wavelength of the actual light to be redshifted, or its wavelengths lengthened (or stretched) toward the red end of the light spectrum. (Conversely, if light wavelengths were contracted/shortened, they would be blueshifted.)

  Initial observations from the earth showed that the light from distant galaxies in every direction has been redshifted, interpreted to mean that all galaxies are moving away from the earth. A very normal and reasonable explanation for this would be that our galaxy, the Milky Way (and thus Earth), is somewhere near the center of the universe. (This would be so even if there had never been a primeval “big bang” from some single point.)

  We will now see one reason why we stress that philosophical assumptions underlie all origins science. The prima facie,[12] obvious, and straightforward interpretation of redshifted light is unacceptable because it lends itself to the notion that the earth is in a special place; i.e., it is the result of purpose or design. The famous astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the Hubble Space Telescope is named) admitted this:

  Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome… . But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity [smoothness or evenness].[13]

  Hubble was really saying that, although the evidence suggests we are somewhere near the center, it was an unacceptable proposition to him.

  George Francis Rayner Ellis is another high-profile cosmologist who has co-authored papers with big-bang guru and science populist Stephen Hawking. In a profile in Scientific American, he honestly admitted the role of philosophical assumptions:

  People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… . For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… .

  You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria [beliefs] in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.[14]

  The belief in cosmological evolution has spurred the belief that ETs have filled our universe. Dr. Carl Sagan, although a UFO skeptic, believed that extraterrestrial life had proliferated throughout our universe. Yet in calculating the odds that life could evolve on just one planet, he estimated it to be roughly one chance in ten followed by two billion zeros. This number is so unimaginably large that it would fill several thousand copies of this book.[15]

  In contrast, current astronomical discoveries about redshifts make sense within the cosmology of the Bible — perhaps the most widely held alternative explanation for how our universe came to be. For instance, the Old Testament of the Bible contains 17 separate verses that state, in one form or another, that God “stretched out” the heavens during His process of creation. Many cosmologists find this claim unbelievable because they consider the Bible to be just a collection of stories written by “early” men thousands of years ago, who had no knowledge of such things. But many UFO believers think otherwise, deducing that the Bible’s scientific insight must have come from an extraterrestrial source with “superior” knowledge of the universe.

  The reason that many reject the Bible’s cosmology is religious, not scientific. Cosmologists who reject the Bible’s viewpoint have already discounted the idea of an intelligence behind the universe, and they have invented other models in an effort to solve the problem of redshifted starlight without giving Earth “a favored location” or supposing an intelligent Creator. Evolutionary cosmologist P.W. Atkins explains:

  My aim is to argue that the Universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being… . Our task should be clear… . We have to embark upon the track of the absolute zero of intervention… . The only faith we need for the journey is the belief that everything can be understood and, ultimately, there is nothing to explain.[16]

  One should take notice of the language here. “My aim … our task … the only faith.” When it comes to origins, many scientists are intent on proving their pre-existing beliefs.

  Has the big bang’s bubble burst?

  The fantastic and ingenious idea of the big bang stretching the universe on a 4-D sphere is an attempt to solve the redshift problem. It provides a naturalistic interpretation for those who reject the supernatural. Unfortunately for them, there are substantial problems with the big-bang idea.

  • Differing models

  There are various models of the big bang, such as the eternally oscillating model (which dispenses with the need to explain the original kernel of energy). Some models have finite universes, and others have infinite universes. Obviously, not every model can be correct. The conflict between theories highlights the conjectural nature of origins science, and big-bang ideology in particular.

  • What lit the fuse?

  There is no coherent explanation of how the initial primeval ball of pure energy came into existence, or what caused it to expand. What caused a quantum fluctuation in nothingness? What caused the laws of physics that govern the behavior of such fluctuations in the first place? Who knows?

  • No antimatter

  Our understanding of physics requires an equal production of antimatter for all
matter created in the process of converting energy to matter. Yet there is a scarcity of detectable antimatter in the universe. This is a very serious objection to the big-bang hypothesis for which there has been no satisfactory explanation.

  • Stars dying

  Even though it is argued that there is some evidence of stars forming, it is unlikely that this is the process by which stars came into being in the first place. There is no known mechanism by which stars can form by gravity collapse from a cloud of gas, unless something like an exploding star compresses the gas (it would take a star to make a star). And there is more direct evidence of stars dying, outnumbering any that may be forming. The evidence overall is for a decaying universe, not an evolving one.

  • Inadequate gravitational force to form planets

  According to the accretion theory, dust particles in clouds (supposedly the remnants of exploding stars) were initially attracted to each other and eventually formed lumps and, subsequently, planets. Although even small particles have a minuscule gravitational attraction, it is too small to allow planets to form in the alleged time frame of the universe.

  • The problem of uniform temperatures in background microwave radiation

  Low-energy microwave radiation permeates space (only about 3 degrees Kelvin “K”, which is minus 270°C — 3 degrees above absolute zero when all atoms effectively stop moving). This radiation is supposedly an afterglow of the energy from the big bang. This claim is really “much ado about nothing.” Whatever the temperature of deep space, the evolutionist could always say that this was an afterglow of a big bang. If cosmologists had discovered lower or higher temperatures, they could easily have fiddled with their start-up assumptions to make the evidence fit. Such fudging has been demonstrated.[17] And the statement that the exact temperature was “predicted” by big-bang theory is factually incorrect.[18]

  In reality, this background radiation is a serious problem for the big-bang theory. The temperature is apparently even (homogenous) all over the known universe. In the conditions predicted by the big bang, there is not enough time for the heat to have dissipated evenly from one side of the universe to the other, even though infrared radiation travels at light speed.

  Cosmologist Robert Oldershaw was quoted in New Scientist as saying:

  The Big Bang model has several serious problems… . When the original inflation model ran into contradictions, it was replaced by a modification called the “new inflation.” Some have even advocated a second inflationary period — “double inflation.” … Let us consider some of the problems. First, the big bang is treated as an unexplainable event without a cause. Second, the big bang could not explain convincingly how matter got organized into lumps (galaxies and clusters of galaxies). And thirdly, it did not predict that for the universe to be held together in the way it is, more than 90 percent of the universe would have been in the form of some strange unknown dark form of matter… . It is astounding that the Big Bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously.[19]

  He goes on to say:

  The first trend is that physicists are increasingly devising mathematically elegant hypotheses, which they say are “compelling” but which nevertheless cannot be verified by experiments or observations. The second trend is that theorists are reluctant to give up their elegant notions, preferring to modify the theory rather than discard it even when observations do not support it… . There are many … hypotheses of the “new physics” that suffer from a lack of testable predictions. Some that come to mind are the existence of “hidden dimensions,” “shadow matter,” “wormholes” in space-time, and the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics… . We are in serious danger of ending up with elegant theories that have little or nothing to do with how the real world works… .”[20]

  The evolutionary origin of life in the universe is supposed to have been started by the big bang — an event that most people, including scientists, believe just happened. It is central to the ETH for the evolution of extraterrestrial life to have occurred on other planets. This is why we have spent considerable time on the big bang, demonstrating the philosophical nature of the unverifiable ideas involved.

  Noah’s flood on Mars?

  It seems that mankind has been obsessed with Mars for as long as we have had records. Early last century, an astronomer named Percival Lowell spent 25 years studying the surface of Mars. In 1905, he concluded that water from the icecaps of Mars was flowing down into canals that had been constructed by intelligent beings. He was inspired by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who in 1877 saw thin, dark lines on the Martian surface. Schiaparelli called these lines canali, which, translated, simply means “channels” without implying intelligent construction. Lowell had simply misunderstood the description.[21]

  Schiaparelli’s Martian canals.

  Yet Lowell’s mistake influenced many people, including H.G. Wells, whose writings influenced many others, as we have already seen. Before long, most people thought there actually was life on Mars. For example, in the United States, a public symposium was held in 1928 called Eminent Astronomers Give Their Reasons for Their Belief that Life Exists on the Great Red Planet[22] — a widely held belief founded on an unproven hypothesis. However, as more powerful telescopes and unmanned craft scoured the surface, it proved to be uninhabited by any alien race. Canyons on Mars suggest that the surface may indeed have been scoured by water at one time. The Valles Marineris is one such canyon, the walls of which seem to have sedimentary layers (layers of rock deposited by a moving fluid, such as water). The canyon is so large that the earth’s Grand Canyon could fit inside it several times over. Writer Robert S. Boyd commented:

  A flood of Biblical proportions — enough to fill the Mediterranean Sea — gushed down from the highlands of Mars, a billion or so years ago, the latest pictures from the Pathfinder confirmed Monday.[23]

  Incredibly, many believe that Mars may have been globally covered with water. The observational evidence, including heavily layered canyons and channels, suggests it to be the case. Adding support to this claim, NASA scientists also indicated that some rocks gave the appearance of having been saturated with water at some past stage. Curiously though, these same scientists reject the possibility of a global flood on the earth, where sedimentary layers cover most of the surface, and which is 70 percent covered with water. The quote above is, of course, a reference to Noah’s flood, recorded in the Bible.

  There are a few who believe that this “Great Flood” on Earth was somehow triggered by advanced aliens overseeing mankind’s evolution, cleansing the earth of impure beings. In language reminiscent of the Bible, many of these believers in a past alien flood believe that the Bible foretells a future cleansing by aliens, as well. UFOlogists and UFO cults often refer to biblical texts as proof that the ancient extraterrestrial astronauts have witnessed or overseen the historical events recorded in them.

  God drives a flying saucer

  Why do our “alien visitors” seem to be obsessed with the Bible more than any other religious book? Religious beliefs aside, the Bible is regarded by many scholars as the most accurate ancient book in the world, so it would make sense for UFOs to be “in it” if they are real. Many writers have taken up the cause of uncovering UFOs in the Bible. A practicing Catholic teacher and scientist by the name of R.L. Dione suggested that UFOs are God’s messengers (angels) and are the ones responsible for prophecies, the content of the Bible, and the miracles recorded in it. This is a popular view held by many prominent “movers and shakers” in the UFO movement. Even Jesus supposedly had energy channeled to Him by ET craft that enabled Him to perform His miracles. Dione’s book God Drives a Flying Saucer claimed to prove that God was not supernatural but a supertechnological being who created man in His own image. He wrote:

  Flying saucers are not only real, but closely associated with the Christian religion… .[24]

  And that:

  … God, while humanoid, is nevertheless i
mmortal through technology… . All of these conclusions will be documented, explained, and proved in the pages that follow.[25]

  Traditional Christianity still flourishes, so it is fair to say that Dione’s “proof” was not as earthshattering as he claimed. His scientific conclusions were based on interpretations. He operated in the realm of historical science. UFO researchers Clifford Wilson and John Weldon stated that Dione’s views were based on his presuppositions — his belief that science and technology can explain everything. Dione also claimed that heaven was merely a supertechnological society. But where is this heaven? Where did God — this super ET — come from? How did He come into being? Because many discount a supernatural explanation for any aspect of reality, they hold out hope that perhaps ancient and advanced extraterrestrials could hold the key to our past, present, and future.

  Writing in Science, author James Mullaney muses:

  Can it be that an eventual understanding of the UFO mystery will bring us into closer touch with reality and the universe itself?[26]