Bangs, Holes and Shifts

Separating fact from fancy in the theories of science about the Big Bang, Black Holes and Redshifts.

Introduction

The Big Bang theory, first proposed in 1949, remains the prevailing cosmological model for the universe, except for a handful of dissenting scientists who believe it is not expanding. Much the same applies to black holes and redshifts. The supposed existence of black holes pits two fundamental scientific theories against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Redshifts, though a genuine, observable phenomenon, do not support the various theories reared upon them. It is these and other scientific puzzles which this new investigation hopes to unravel.

Exploding the Big Bang

The notion of an expanding universe was first introduced by the physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922. This was followed in the 1930's by the 'Big Bang' model. By the late 1960's this had seen off competing theories such as the steady-state model, and has ever since remained the prevailing physical theory for the existence of the universe. In The Origin of Galaxies by Martin J. Rees and Joseph Silk, published in Scientific American in June 1970, the authors tell us that: "If galaxies had always moved with their present velocities, they would have been crowded on top of one another about 10 billion years ago." This clearly hasn't happened, but let the authors continue: "This simple calculation has led to the cosmological hypothesis that the world [by which they presumably mean the universe] began with the explosion of a primordial atom containing all the matter in the universe. A quite different line of speculation argues that the universe has always looked as it does now, that new matter is continuously being created and that new galaxies are formed to replace those that disappear over the horizon." We must interject at this point that the supposition of a 'horizon' or boundary line presumes to limit that which is, in fact, limitless Space. They continue: "On either hypothesis it is still necessary to account for the formation of galaxies. Why does matter tend to aggregate in bundles of this particular size? Why do galaxies comprise a limited hierarchy of shapes? Why do spiral galaxies rotate like giant pinwheels?"

Fifty-six years after Rees and Silk produced their paper material science still does not have the answers to these fundamental questions. It provides plenty of guesses, speculations and assumptions, but no actual proofs, as the reader may swiftly discover by putting these questions to any AI-enabled search engine. Occult Science on the other hand, does have the answers. It states that ours is a spiral universe as we see in the formation of DNA which consists of two intertwined spirals connected to each other by thousands of rungs to form a long, thin, twisted ladder which science calls a double helix. So far astronomers have discovered that 77 per cent of galaxies are spiral. Some are elliptical, others are spherical, and yet others irregular in shape, and some are almost formless. This in itself indicates that these latter formations are in varying stages of development towards a spiral shape. Hence, the universe is neither expanding, nor contracting, but evolving in a rising, spiral movement. Nothing is drawn 'inwards' in the universe, or ejected 'outwards' beyond some supposed 'horizon'. Occult Science further states that everything in the way of heavenly bodies moves upwards in a spiral motion, until the apex of that movement is reached, and it turns spirally downwards in a clockwise manner, always around the Central Sun of the universe. It is only around that great Centre that, eventually, everything is drawn inwards. What happens then is a question no human being, however wise, can possibly answer, and we will not attempt to do so; it is a secret of the Supreme Deity.

Spiral galaxy M101, also known as the Pinwheel galaxy, located in the constellation Ursa Major.

The occult teaching that every heavenly body begins life as a comet is as old as Man. It is only after losing its velocity, and hence its luminous tail, that these 'Fiery Dragons' settle down into quiet and steady life as respectable members of the sidereal family, first as Suns, and later as planets. Born in the unfathomable depths of Space, out of the homogeneous Aether, every nucleus of Cosmic matter, suddenly launched into being, begins life as a comet under the most hostile circumstances. Through a series of countless ages, it has to conquer for itself a place in the infinitudes. It circles round and round between denser and already fixed bodies, moving by jerks, drawn towards some given centre that attracts it. Like a ship navigating dangerous reefs and sunken rocks, it tries to avoid other bodies that draw and repel it in turn. Many comets perish, their mass disintegrating through stronger masses, chiefly within the insatiable stomachs of various Suns. Those which move more slowly and are propelled into an elliptic course are doomed to annihilation sooner or later. Halley's Comet is an example of this type. Others moving in parabolic curves generally escape destruction, owing to their higher velocity. Material science knows almost nothing about these strange wanderers in Space. Despite the many advances in observation, in the development of increasingly sophisticated instruments, the genesis, growth, behaviour and ultimate fate of comets remain a mystery. And yet what is there so impossible in the proposition that a lump of cosmic protoplasm, homogeneous and latent, when suddenly animated or fired up — should rush from its bed in Space and whirl throughout the abysmal depths in order to strengthen its homogeneous organism by an accumulation and addition of differentiated elements? And why should not such a comet eventually settle down and become an inhabited globe? All the elements for so-called 'life' are present in comets, including water. In 2009, it was confirmed that the amino acid glycine — a fundamental building block of proteins — had been found in the coma of comet Wild2. Why, given this and similar discoveries, science remains in blissful ignorance of the evolution of comets into eventual life-bearing globes, remains a mystery.

Let us see what more Rees and Silk had to say in 1970. "The distribution of galaxies in the sky is quite inhomogeneous. There are many small groups of galaxies, and here and there some rich clusters containing up to 1,000 members or more. Such systems vary from one million light-years across to ten million. Our own galaxy is a member of the 'local group', an association of about 20 galaxies, only one of which, the Andromeda galaxy, has a mass comparable to that of ours. The local group is about 3 million light-years in diameter. The Andromeda galaxy is some two million light-years away; the nearest large cluster of galaxies is in Virgo, about 30 million light-years distant. Even such clusters do not seem to be randomly distributed in Space. Some astronomers have argued that there is evidence that clusters are grouped into superclusters of perhaps a 100 members spread over 100 million light years. The universe appears to be uniform on scales larger than this." It is refreshing to find that some scientists at least agree that there is a 'pattern' in the heavens, even if they have little or no idea of what it consists or how and why it arose. Rees and Silk continue: "We are still plainly far from understanding even the broad outlines of processes whereby the observed aggregations of matter in the universe came into being. We are even further from understanding the detailed morphology of the bewildering variety of different types of galaxies..." This, at least, is an honest admission. You can read how a Solar System — and by extension — the universe itself arose in Vision 8 — The Kosmos — in The Golden Star by Jean Michaud. This luminous book is free to read online by following the above link. In addition, a hardcover printed edition is available direct from the publisher, Aula Lucis.

Just how big is the universe? How far does Space extend? Common sense tells us that the universe must be infinite, for it is impossible to imagine an absolute boundary somewhere with no Space beyond it. And since nothing can come from nothing, boundless Space must always have existed. The supporters of the Big Bang theory on the other hand, tell a very different story. They claim that in the 'beginning' — a mere 13.8 billion years ago — barely more than three days of Brahma according to Hindu cosmology — there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no energy, no consciousness, not even any Space. We would interject here that the whole period of Brahma's Age is 311 trillion, 40 billion years — more than 22 thousand times longer than the age of the universe according to science. It is important to add that these time periods pertain to our Solar System alone and not to the entire universe. Science believes that the universe suddenly popped into being out of nothingness as a result of a 'random quantum fluctuation'. In case you are puzzled by this term, Wikipedia helpfully tells us that it means "the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in Space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." What then, you may further ask, is this supposed 'uncertainty principle'? We turn once more to Wikipedia to enlighten us. "The uncertainty principle...states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known." This sounds perilously like opting out to us. Occult — as opposed to material science — recognises no unknowns so far as the properties of matter are concerned. There is nothing remotely uncertain about the Seven Universal Hermetic Laws that govern the universe, as we discussed in our investigation of the True Teachings of Hermes. But we can't expect the average astrophysicist or cosmologist to know these laws or even be aware of them, let alone the myopic, intuitionally-challenged editors of Wikipedia!

We are tempted to say at this point that the Big Bang theory is so very silly that it is a wonder it was ever accepted, let alone persisted for nearly a century. If there was no Space and no matter or energy before this hypothetical mega-explosion, there was obviously nothing to undergo a 'random quantum fluctuation' and nowhere for it to occur. But this doesn't seem to bother the Big Bangers. They long since abandoned the ordinary rules of logic and created a fantasy world of their own, based on advanced mathematical acrobatics. If the 'matter-energy density' of the universe is above a critical value, they believe that Space will curve round upon itself so that it is finite and yet has no boundaries. They think that such a universe will at some point in the future start to contract, and end its life in a 'big crunch' in which it annihilates itself, leaving 'literally nothing'. That at least is consistent with the general insanity of their ideas. As the universe came from nothing (according to the Big Bangers) it is logical that it should return to nothing. It gets worse. The Big Bangers posit that if the density is less than or equal to the critical value, Space will be infinite but will still manage to keep on expanding. But if Space popped into existence a finite period ago and expands at a finite pace, it could never become infinite. It is truly astonishing that such half-baked ideas have managed to be passed off as 'science'. But as George Orwell once said, "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them." It is worth reminding the reader that intelligence is an attribute of the lower mind, just as intuition is an attribute of the Higher. Hence, intelligence alone can never arrive at the truth about anything — a fact which leads so many scientists astray in their thinking.

When confronted with any scientific theory, it is important to distinguish between facts on the one hand and assumptions and speculative interpretations on the other. It is also necessary to examine opposing points of view. But scientists who challenge any prevailing theory invariably encounter major obstacles in trying to make their voices heard. This results in the public remaining blissfully unaware that any alternative ideas exist. In an article published as long ago as 2002 listing the top 30 problems with the Big Bang, astronomer Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) pointed out that the theory is constantly undergoing makeshift adjustments in order to accommodate new, unexpected discoveries. This is pretty much par for the course so far as all the material sciences are concerned, as we pointed out long ago in our article 'Why matter matters'. Never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a theory so widely accepted by both scientists and the public. Even the most basic element of the Big Bang theory — the expansion of the universe — has many alternative explanations, or as physicist Wallace Thornhill put it rather more bluntly: "Forget the glossy astronomy books and magazines — the Big Bang is pure fiction."

The shaky edifice of the Big Bang theory and an expanding universe rests on the even wobblier astronomical phenomenon known as redshift. This refers to the fact that If light from stars or galaxies is passed through a prism or grating, a spectrum is obtained, consisting of a series of lines and bands. These spectra can be used to identify the atomic elements present in the objects concerned, as each element has a distinct spectral 'signature'. If we compare the spectral lines of distant galaxies with those produced by the same elements on Earth, we find that in every case the lines are displaced towards longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as the redshift, and is the subject of intense scientific controversy. Those astronomers and cosmologists who subscribe to the Big Bang theory interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed, "like raisins in an expanding pudding," as Martin J. Rees and Joseph Silk put it in The Origin of Galaxies mentioned earlier. But not everybody agrees with them. Some scientists have suggested that the redshift might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through Space. Several scientists have shown this theory fits the data far better than the expanding-universe hypothesis. Furthermore, if redshifts were caused mainly by velocity they ought to show a continuous range of values, but instead they sometimes show periodicities, being multiples of certain basic units. Most Big Bangers have studiously ignored this anomaly. The entire edifice of the Big Bang theory is therefore built on a single unwarranted assumption — that galaxy redshifts are primarily caused by recession velocities. Mainstream astronomers believe that because quasars normally have very high redshifts, they must be situated near the edge of the observable universe, and are rushing away from us at velocities approaching the speed of light. If they were really as far away as their redshifts seem to imply, some quasars would be radiating a thousand times more energy than an entire galaxy, even though they are only as big as our Solar System. This has led to the belief that they must be powered by monstrous 'black holes'.

With the advent of radio astronomy in the late 1950s astronomers identified a small number of anomalous objects with properties that defied explanation. One of the most enigmatic of these objects are ‘quasars’ (quasi-stellar radio sources, to give them their full name). Based on their redshifts it is thought that quasars are thousands of millions of light years away; that they are smaller than galaxies but emit much more energy — equal to one hundred normal galaxies. Science currently believes that quasars "are the blazing centres of active galaxies powered by a supermassive black holes." But despite the latest research, or perhaps because if it, these mysterious objects remain theoretical, no matter what science says to the contrary. In an article published in Nature in March 2013, American astrophysicist Robert Antonucci stated: "We have found thousands of quasars in the past 50 years, but we still don't have good physical models for how they radiate their prodigious energy," Without predictive theories, we have nothing. Our best hope for understanding quasars is that extraterrestrials might drop in and explain them to us." The emphasis is ours. So much for 'exact' science!

The reasoning behind these theories is even shakier than the Big Bang model. Not only is the redshift not a reliable measure of velocity; it is not a reliable measure of distance either, for there is abundant evidence that galaxies at the same distance can have vastly different redshifts. The redshift of a galaxy appears to depend partly on its age, for active, low-redshift galaxies are sometimes surrounded by high-redshift galaxies (often quasars) that have apparently been ejected from them; pairs of these embryo-galaxies often line up on either side of the parent galaxy and are connected to it by luminous bridges or jets of matter. The redshifts of galaxies and stars appear to decrease as they get older. Orthodox cosmologists have systematically tried to ignore, dismiss, ridicule and suppress this evidence. We explore the vexed subject of redshifts and 'tired light' further in our Afterword. Meanwhile, if Space is truly infinite, how can it get any bigger?

Big Bangers argue that, within infinite Space, the distance between galaxies increases because the Space between them expands. But since Space is said to have an intrinsic energy, which is not diluted by expansion, how can new Space appear without the continuous creation of energy out of nothing? It requires truly Herculean mathematical acrobatics to get over this intellectual stumbling-block. A feat beyond the ability of most of us, but not, as we shall see, a hurdle for the Big Bangers. Some writers have drawn superficial parallels between the 'expansion' of Space and the 'outbreathing' of Brahma described in Hindu philosophy, but this is a misunderstanding. As H. P. Blavatsky explains, "expansion from within without" does not refer to an increase in size but to a change of condition — "the development of limitless subjectivity into limitless objectivity." In other words, outbreathing and inbreathing, or expansion or contraction from an occult scientific perspective, refers to the process of differentiation; the One emanating the many, and the subsequent reabsorption of the many into the One, in a never-ending cycle, or cosmic heartbeat, of evolution and involution.

In order to solve the innumerable problems with the Big Bang model, its proponents — with breathtaking insouciance — decided in the early 1980s that during the first ten-million-trillion-trillionth of a second after the initial explosion, 'Space-time' underwent a period of hyper-rapid 'inflation', in which it expanded immeasurably faster than the speed of light, growing from a minuscule point to a volume several hundred million light-years in diameter. Then it somehow braked abruptly to a more leisurely rate of expansion. From this it would seem that Big Bangers entertain even wilder fancies than those we find in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. "One can't believe impossible things," says Alice dismissively. The White Queen replies: "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." It is important to point out that no one has ever measured any expansion of Space. There is no evidence whatsoever that atoms, galaxies or galaxy clusters have increased over time. Big Bangers therefore claim that Space must be expanding between galaxy clusters and superclusters, a fanciful caveat every bit as nonsensical as the White Queen's intellectual gymnastics, since this suppositious expansion cannot be measured by any existing instruments or experiments. Much the same applies to black holes, which are the next 'impossible thing' to be discussed in our investigation.

Down the (Black) Rabbit Hole

Black holes have been all the rage in orthodox cosmology ever since American physicist John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) first coined the phrase in 1967. Black holes are believed to dwell at the centre of many galaxies, and when sufficiently massive stars die, they supposedly undergo gravitational collapse and implode into black holes. British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) described the black-hole mania, along with Big Bang cosmology in general, as "a form of religious fundamentalism." As we shall see as we develop our theme, he was not altogether wrong. The tendency towards fundamentalism — towards entrenched dogmas — is the fatality of material science. We saw this with the covid pandemic when honest enquiry and sceptical criticism were thrown out of the window in favour of what became known as 'THE Science' — a dogmatic fundamentalism that could not be questioned, least of all by the layman. In physics this tendency has given rise to what we might call a black-hole establishment; a cabal of like-minded evangelists who are absolutely certain of the existence of black holes. Yet there is not a scrap of observational evidence to support their belief. Black holes are theoretical entities. Much like an honest politician they are believed to exist, but no one has ever discovered one.

The basic idea behind a black hole — that 'gravity' can become infinite and compress a large volume of matter to an infinitesimal point (or 'singularity' as it is termed) — defies all commonsense. Added to which, gravity itself, as we proved in our investigation of this supposed 'force', is not what science thinks it is. The concept of black holes is derived from the purely mathematical manipulations of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which seeks to 'explain' gravity as a warping or distortion of Space around material bodies — a notion we thoroughly debunked in the Afterword to our article on so-called 'gravitational waves'. The further one delves into the theoretical construct of black holes, the clearer it becomes that one has fallen down a phantasmagorical rabbit hole that makes Alice's Adventures in Wonderland seem entirely logical. It must also be said that Einstein was by no means happy with his theory. It was gravity that stumped Einstein, or rather its 'misbehaviour'. It simply wouldn't do what he expected it to do, nor what his theory predicted it should do. We explained why in our article on 'The weighty problem of Gravity'. We will not repeat ourselves except to say that so-called 'gravity' is the result of the operation of Attraction and Repulsion inherent in the Hermetic Law of Polarity which keeps all things and beings in balance.

Recently, one thinking scientist has come very close to this occult truth by proposing the heretical notion that 'gravity' originates from atomic nuclei rather than from mass or the curvature of Space-time. This new theory presents gravity as an electromagnetic force generated by positively charged nuclei. To validate this theory, Kumar Bittu, an independent researcher from Vel Tech University in Madras, India, conducted a simple experiment. A hollow metal sphere weighing 194 grams was charged to equal magnitudes using a Van de Graaff generator. After applying a positive charge the measured weight of the sphere decreased from 194 to 124 grams — a reduction of 64%. Bittu correctly interpreted this as the result of electromagnetic repulsion between the Earth's positively charged nucleus and the positively charged sphere (like poles repel). After charging the sphere negatively, the weight increased to 399 grams, a difference of 205 grams, almost double the original weight of 194 grams (unlike poles attract). To anyone other than a purblind, scientific fundamentalist, this is proof positive that so-called 'gravitational force' is actually electromagnetic attraction and repulsion, as Hermes taught thousands of years ago.

A damaging blow was dealt to the black-hole theory by a study published in 1995, based on observations of 15 quasars by the Hubble Space Telescope. 11 of them were found to have no surrounding material that could fall into any hypothesized black holes, yet they were somehow producing intense radio emissions. More recent observations have continued to cause embarrassment to the Black Holers. Galaxies M87 and NGC 6605 are emitting jets of material and are supposed to have supermassive black holes at their centres. The jets were thought to be fed by a doughnut-shaped dust cloud around the M87 black hole and an accretion disc of attracted matter around the NGC 6605 black hole — but no trace of either can be found. Significantly, matter is nearly always seen moving away from galactic nuclei, instead of towards them as the black-hole theory requires. This is also true of our own Milky Way galaxy. The radiation coming from its centre does not match that expected to come from a black hole. Several scientists have concluded that the centres of active galaxies are regions of matter creation rather than matter destruction. In this connection, Hoyle quotes Sir James Jeans, who in the late 1920s suggested that "the centres of the nebulae [galaxies] are of the nature of 'singular points' at which matter is poured into our universe from some other, and entirely extraneous, spatial dimension." As the occultists among our readers will have realized, this comes perilously close to confirming the Laws of Occult Science described by Madame Blavatsky, Jean Michaud and others. From all we have said so far it must be clear that the notion that matter can disappear from our plane by being sucked into a 'cosmic plughole' and crushed to an infinitesimal point is a thoroughly laughable proposition. It is worth noting that, according to Occult Science, the originally ethereal globe of a newly-formed planet, for example, condenses and contracts during the first half of its life-cycle, and then re-etherealizes during the second half as its cohesive and attractive forces weaken. We explained this in our investigation of the Cycles of Sleep and Waking to which every Solar System and galaxy are subject.

Other key ingredients of the Big Bang universe are 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. Big Bangers used to claim that up to 99% of the mass of the universe was composed of dark matter. According to Wikipedia, that fountainhead of scientific orthodoxy, "the mass — energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy." CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) helpfully informs us that "Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in Space." We were always taught that "Nature abhors a vacuum," (after Aristotle, who coined the phrase). Perhaps Nature changed her mind in the intervening centuries? So what exactly is 'dark energy'? We are told by Wikipedia that it is "a proposed form of energy that affects the universe on its largest scales." A better and truer explanation is that 'dark energy' is a will-o'-the-wisp invented to 'explain' the alleged accelerated expansion of the universe arising from the Big Bang. The latest estimate is that about 68% of the mass of the universe consists of dark energy, 27% of dark matter, and the rest of ordinary matter. Since infinite Space cannot expand in the first place, its alleged accelerating expansion is just another scientific pipe dream based on false assumptions and faulty reasoning.

As we pointed out in the Afterword to our article on the Occult Sun, Space is not a vacuum. It is filled with a subtle fluid which Occult Science calls, as the ancients did, Aether. This fluid, which cannot be detected by any of our physical senses and is presently incapable of investigation by any known scientific instruments, is unchangeable in composition, indestructible, invisible, and pervades all material things and beings. In addition to the presence of this subtle fluid, there are ‘dark' concentrations of matter in our universe — vast dust clouds composed of fine solid particles — but these are quite as material as the dust that accumulates in our homes. Suppositious dark matter, on the other hand, is said to consist of exotic, never-detected, imaginary physical particles which, unlike all other known physical matter, neither emit nor absorb light. This implausible conceit was partly based on the apparently excessive speed of certain galactic motions, but as this observational evidence is founded on several questionable assumptions (including the redshift-equals-velocity myth), it also may be discounted as a chimera. The main reason for postulating the existence of so much dark matter was purely theoretical; the Big Bang would not work without it. Furthermore, most dark matter had to possess 'unusual' properties if was not to upset other aspects of the Big Bang model. In other words, the existence of this exotic 'dark' matter (now replaced by 'dark energy' is just as fictitious as the Big Bang itself. H. P. Blavatsky was once asked what was the most important thing necessary in the study of occultism. Her answer was: "common sense" — a quality scientists might make good use of were they not blinded by dogma. When asked what she would place second, she replied: "a sense of humour." Arguably this is even more useful when confronted with the latest scientific theories. Asked what she would place third, Madame Blavatsky replied: "Oh, just MORE common sense!"

If this increasingly scarce quality were more widely distributed among scientists they would quickly dismiss the existence of black holes. Leaving aside the weird theories about what is supposed to go on inside these imaginary objects, what evidence is there that they actually exist? Black holes can never be observed directly, so scientists look for indirect evidence of them: namely, their gravitational effects on matter in their vicinity, and radiation coming from their direct environment (attributed to material falling into them). However, as Fred Hoyle and other critically-minded astronomers have noted, the available evidence merely points to the existence of highly condensed aggregates of matter which produce very strong gravitational fields — but these objects generally appear to be undergoing explosive activity rather than swallowing things up. As 'gravity' itself is a theoretical construct, as we showed in our investigation of this non-existent 'force', the entire specious argument for the existence of these Alice in Wonderland objects, falls to the ground. The great 'advantage' of the black-hole theory, insofar as most scientists are concerned, is that it requires no new physics, because it is a product of general relativity theory. It does, however, require faith in irrational mathematical concepts such as curved Space-time and so-called 'singularities of infinite density'. The prevailing view is that a theory supported by tens of thousands of scientists can't possibly be wrong, no matter how illogical or nonsensical it may seem.

No one denies that galactic nuclei emit intense radiation and that large amounts of gas are seen moving radially outward from them. Since black holes can only devour and destroy matter, placing a black hole at the centre of galaxies requires the invention of highly complex, and sometimes torturous, mechanisms to explain how matter-energy ends up moving in the opposite direction to that predicted. A key role is assigned to the accretion disc, another fictitious entity believed to consist of gas orbiting a black hole. Unfortunately, the same outpouring of matter-energy is often observed even when no accretion disc is present. Furthermore, there is no convincing, generally accepted theory to explain how black holes could form at the centre of galaxies — with or without imaginary accretion discs. Molecular gas clouds within spiral galaxies do not appear to be condensing into black holes. If we take the evidence at face value, galactic nuclei appear to be generating and expelling matter-energy rather than gobbling it up. Can physical matter be created out of nothing? The Big Bang theory says it can. But those who prefer the commonsense notion that nothing can come from nothing or be annihilated into nothing will find this proposition about as plausible as one of the White Queen's 'impossible things'.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out that Albert Einstein was highly sceptical about the existence of black holes, believing that the extreme conditions necessary for their formation were not physically possible. Throughout his career he maintained that the conditions required for a star to collapse into a black hole were implausible and that the concept of singularities represented a failure of the black hole theory rather than a genuine physical reality. What a pity so few contemporary scientists share his wise view of the universe which he famously summed up with the words: "I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."

This peer among scientists further said that: "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Search our website

Tired Light

In our Afterword we examine the theory of redshifts upon which so many of the deductions and conclusions of material science depend.

Why is the sky blue? Not because air is empty, but because it isn't. Molecules in the air scatter sunlight, bouncing the shorter, bluer waves across the atmosphere until they fill our view. At sunrise and sunset, there is much more atmosphere between the sun and our eyes. Much of the blue light has scattered before reaching us, leaving only the longer, fiery oranges, reds and purples that have survived the journey. If air can filter light by scatter and absorption, why should we assume that dust and plasma in Space cannot? The Hermetic maxim 'as above, so below' tells us it can and must.

There is no way to directly visualise the movement of a galaxy over time on human timescales. What astronomers actually measure is colour, the peak wavelength that makes it through, not motion directly. Light from a star or galaxy doesn’t reach us as a single pure note, but as a layered chord with many overlapping wavelengths stacked together. What is measured is the peak wavelength that makes it all the way to us. The farther away the light source, the more its peak skews toward longer wavelengths. This is what science calls redshift.

A simple analogy may make this clearer. Let us imagine hearing a familiar piece of music through a thick wall. The melody is still there, but the pitch seems lower, and some of the higher notes didn't make it through clearly. The piece is recognisable, but it's distorted. That's what happens with light. The pattern survives, but not always in its original form and not always cleanly.

In the standard model of cosmology, redshift is interpreted as evidence that the distance between galaxies is increasing. Not because the galaxies are moving through Space (which Occult Science says they are), but because Space itself is expanding — the so-called Big Bang theory discussed in our article. This explanation rests on the erroneous assumption that Space is a near perfect vacuum.

This is palpably untrue. The universe is filled with regions of dust, gas clouds, and complex plasma structures. These objects are not uniform, but they are present in every direction we look. Every large galaxy is surrounded by a sheath of ionized plasma known as the circumgalactic medium, extending hundreds of thousands of light years in all directions.

Galaxy clusters are wrapped in even larger halos, millions of light years across, filled with turbulent, magnetised plasma. We can see this in such astronomical objects as the famous Crab Nebula shown below. Even our own Solar System sits inside a plasma bubble called the heliosphere. This was proved when the spacecraft Voyager 1 crossed over it in 2012, followed by Voyager 2 in 2018. With each passing year, we learn that outer Space is not nearly as empty as science has long assumed.

More than ten tons of Space dust falls on Earth every day. These particles typically range in size from a few molecules up to a tenth of a millimetre in diameter. Astronomers divide them into several categories. Intergalactic dust, found between galaxies; interstellar dust, found within galaxies; interplanetary dust, found within our Solar System; and circumplanetary dust, found in the rings of certain planets, such as Saturn. But when all is said and done, it is all the same kind of dust!

As light traverses this complex and variable environment, it doesn’t all make it through. As we said earlier, the thin plasmas and dust clouds of Space are much like our terrestrial atmosphere. The shorter wavelengths, ultraviolet and blue, scatter or get absorbed more easily. The farther away the source, the more opportunity light has to be filtered. Over billions of light years this effect becomes more pronounced until the spectrum that finally arrives is shifted towards the red, as shown in the diagram below.

Every year we learn more about the way intergalactic dust and plasma shape our view of the universe around us. Some astronomers have suggested that what science calls redshift may not be a single phenomenon at all, but a record of everything light passes through on its way to us. Every direction we look in offers a unique filter. Each wavelength interacts differently. The farther out we look into Space, the more those filters matter.

So far so good. But how did the theory of redshifts arise? To answer that we need to use some technical terms and dart about a bit in modern scientific history. Although many famous names are involved we will restrict our survey to only those which have a direct bearing on our subject.

We begin with the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953), after whom the famous Space Telescope is named. In 1929 he established that each galaxy appeared to be moving away from us with a radial velocity, indicated by the Doppler shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum, which is directly proportional to its distance. Appropriately, the constant proportionality relating distance and velocity is called Hubble's constant.

Hubble's original estimate was 93 miles per second for every million light years. Modern estimates have drastically reduced this figure decade after decade until it is now thought to be between 10 and 20 miles per second for every million light-years. Science explains the decrease by saying that their understanding of the universe is not yet complete. We should say that is something of an understatement!

Next came the American astronomer Milton La Salle Humason (1891-1972) who in 1954, using the Hale telescope at the Mount Wilson observatory in the USA, announced that the redshift had been extended 50 percent farther into the depths of Space than ever before. Measured by the redshift, he found that faint, distant nebulae were rushing away at speeds that were more than a fifth the speed of light.

Science wrongly interpreted this to indicate that the universe was blowing up which gave rise to the Big Bang theory. Some scientists went even further, still harping on that relativity which Einstein himself said he could not understand, so that when Hubble discovered that the redshifts continued to increase with greater distance, the renowned English astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) coolly declared that the universe was not only expanding, but had already exploded!

Such notions are flatly contradicted by the behaviour of our nearest neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy, which far from 'rushing' away at high speed, is rapidly closing in on the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is a tiny member. This anomalous behaviour is explained away by the fictitious 'dark matter' discussed in our article.

Oddly enough, this mysterious attraction does not seem to affect nearby galaxies outside our Local Group, where, science tells us: "material is actually moving away from the Milky Way." We will spare you the fanciful explanation given by astrophysicists for this puzzling contradiction, for it is just as implausible as the Big Bang theory and the non-existent black holes and their equally fictitious accretion discs.

Even if all the galaxies were running away from each other, where do they run to? For they must go somewhere, though science seems to ignore this elephant in the ether. The occult truth of the matter is that galaxies, like all other astronomical bodies, including our Earth, revolve around a greater body, be it a sun in case of a Solar System, or what Occult Science calls the Hidden Sun in the case of a galaxy.

The maddest theory of all was that the redshift indicated not that the universe was expanding, but that light on its long journey toward Earth had lost energy! If so, some astrophysicists argued, the very remote stars would be seen by 'tired' light which is a little redder than it ought to be! Conveniently for science, the 'tired light' theory has now gone the way of so many others and is currently languishing in the wastebasket of discarded scientific theories.

As time went on, ever more powerful and sophisticated instruments pushed the horizons of the heavens ever further distant, while the rates of speed of far off objects appear to increase constantly. In consequence, many scientists have repeatedly declared and still state, that the universe appears to be 'larger' than has been generally assumed.

We would add that the universe is not only large, or 'larger', but that it is beyond all human conception in 'size'. Occult Science has long known that the universe is absolutely boundless and that it is not expanding. Nor can there be any question of age at all, for the age of the universe is wider, broader, deeper, higher and huger than even that which is understood by Eternity, which is beyond all time or duration or computation by the puny mind of man, that arrogant pipsqueak inhabiting an infinitesimal speck of dust in the vastness of interstellar Space.

As we pointed out in our article, the tired-light hypothesis scores better than the expanding universe hypothesis on a number of observational tests, but neither hypothesis alone is sufficient to explain all the data. Over the past few decades abundant observational evidence has emerged that galaxies at the same distance can have very different redshifts. In particular, there is evidence that low-redshift parent galaxies can eject high-redshift embryo-galaxies (usually quasars), whose redshift declines as they age.

This undermines the expanding-universe hypothesis, as it contradicts the assumption that redshift is invariably a measure of velocity and distance. While the black hole theory can accommodate matter being flung away from around these Alice in Wonderland objects, it can't handle the ejection of embryo-galaxies from galactic nuclei, and that is why evidence of this has been banished from the major scientific journals. This does not happen because the scientists concerned are trying to hide the truth — but because they are absolutely convinced they already know the truth.

Albert Einstein had something to say about this regrettable tendency among all too many scientists. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." One astronomer who played a pivotal role in bringing redshift anomalies and galaxy ejection processes to light was Halton Arp (1927-2013). Not that it did him the slightest good. On the contrary, he paid a very heavy price for his heresy.

He was a vocal critic of the Big Bang theory and an advocate of a 'non-standard' (meaning unorthodox) cosmology whose forthright views were set down in Seeing Red: Redshift, Cosmology and Academic Science, published in 1998. One leading astronomer objected that if Arp's results were correct, we would have no explanation for the redshift. This was a conclusion so heretical that Arp became the subject of vitriolic attempts to block research which the guardians of scientific orthodoxy feared would upset the apple cart of redshift theory.

Arp argued that the traditional interpretation of redshift as solely indicating the recession velocity of galaxies is incorrect, proposing instead that redshifts may be intrinsic and not related to distance. He presented evidence that many observed redshifts may arise from physical processes rather than cosmic expansion, such as interstellar dust clouds, meaning that some high-redshift objects might actually be nearby.

You will recall that we mentioned interstellar dust in the beginning of this Afterword in connection with the filtering of light rays. This challenges the Big Bang model and the use of redshift as a measure of distance. Heretical stuff indeed!

Recently, we once again find material science belatedly confirming Occult Science. We quote from an article by Stuart Gillespie published in Scientific Reports in October 2016: "Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought. Our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky." This is exactly what Halton Arp found several years earlier, and was soundly anathematised for it.

This discovery has since been confirmed. We quote from a new study conducted by Professor Young-Wook Lee of Yonsei University in South Korea published in November 2025 in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "Our study shows that the universe has already entered a phase of decelerated expansion at the present epoch. This finding turns the prevailing cosmic narrative on its head. Rather than accelerating forever, the universe might already be slowing down."

Or, as we said in our article, the universe is neither expanding, nor contracting, but ever evolving in a rising, spiral movement. But this conclusion is as yet a step too far for science.

The Golden Star

The Golden Star expounds the most ADVANCED OCCULT TEACHINGS, never before revealed to the public, yet in such a fascinating manner as to hold and extend the interest of the beginner. The book is written in the form of a story, in which two Egyptian pilgrims, Ma-u and Ma-uti, are conducted through the higher and lower planes by Neteru-Hem, a Messenger from the Divine. The many subjects covered include the origins of the universe, witchcraft, magic, spiritualism, psychism, clairvoyance, and the occult constitution of man.

The Golden Star can be read online, downloaded as a FREE PDF or purchased in a high quality, smyth-sewn hardcover edition at thegoldenstar.org

occult mysteries