Modern Cosmology Revised in the Light of the Universal Law – a Critical Survey

Georgi Stankov, May 14, 2017

Today I was made aware of a heated dispute that is raging in the high ranks of modern cosmologists regarding the wrong assumptions on which this new science “cosmology” is based. In volume I, and much more extensively so in volume II, I have discussed the basic theoretical tenets of modern cosmology and explained why it is an utterly fraudulent science – precisely a “fake science” – even more so than its older sister physics.

In my series of theoretical articles on physics published in March and April this year,

I have already shown why the fundamental concept of dark matter in modern cosmology is one of the greatest blunders in science. Physicists have failed to understand their own definition of mass, which they use in all their other definitions and theoretical disquisitions, from a methodological and epistemological point of view. When properly interpreted it becomes obvious that the physical quantity “mass” is an energy relationship and not an intrinsic property of matter. As all systems of All-That-Is have energy, which is per definition the primary term of human consciousness for All-That-Is, all systems also have a mass. Period!

This would say that photons also have a mass and are not “massless” particles as conventional physics claims nowadays. I have proved not only that photons have a mass but that the mass of all elementary particles can be very easily calculated from the mass of the basic photon which is a fundamental natural constant I first discovered in 1995 (see Table 1). I have presented these derivations and the theoretical background in my full article proving that energy = space-time has only two dimensions – space and time, which in itself is the biggest revolution in science:

Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Full Article)

Present-day cosmologists have adopted this greatest blunder of all in physics, namely that photons do not have a mass, only because physicists have failed to grasp their definition of mass from a theoretical point of view and have perpetuated this blunder into veritable insanity in the field of modern cosmology. Because of their rejection of photon mass, they are unable to account for 95% of the theoretically calculated mass in the universe with respect to the mathematical models they have developed for All-That-Is as macro-cosmology. This fundamental blunder has necessitated the introduction of a plethora of further flaws and contradictory concepts that have made modern cosmology into a real joke and a total negation of rational, logical human thinking. The confusion is so big that only those who are not trapped in it can approximately comprehend it. For those who are embroiled in their insane world of pseudo-science, there is no hope.

I refer here to the heated debate that has recently exploded among the insane inmates of the small asylum called “Modern Cosmology” as this overview article explains. I will publish the full article below for the sake of completion:

Stephen Hawking And 32 Top Physicists Just Signed a Heated Letter on The Universe’s Origin. Sh*t just got real.

Fiona MacDonald, 12 MAY 2017

 “For centuries, people have puzzled over how our Universe began. But the heat just got turned way up on a debate that’s quietly been raging between cosmologists, with 33 of the world’s most famous physicists publishing a letter angrily defending one of the leading hypotheses we have for the origin of the Universe.

The letter is in response to a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory – the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang. The article went as far as claiming that the model “cannot be evaluated using the scientific method” – the academic equivalent of saying it isn’t even real science.

In response, 33 of the world’s top physicists, including Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, and Leonard Susskind, have fired back by publishing their own open letter in Scientific American. The Cliff’s note version is this: they’re really angry.

Inflation theory was first proposed by cosmologist Alan Guth, now at MIT, back in 1980. It’s based on the idea that a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded rapidly, spinning entire galaxies out of quantum fluctuations.”

Here we have the usual suspects and forgers of modern science exposed by their names. I have discussed these models as early as 1995 shortly after some of these weird hypotheses were first published, such as the so called “inflation theory” which, by the way, has very much in common with the inflationary debt fiat currencies of the fraudulent Orion monetary system. Now more than two decades later the chicken come home to roost.

Charlotte, who made me aware of this article summed it up excellently: “Scientists fighting for relevance now that their foundation has been exposed as false. Your moment of acknowledgement is approaching George!” Let us hope she is right and in the meantime patience is the mother /father of all ascended masters.

Here I would only comment on one chief forger named in this article – Stephen Hawking. This person actually does not exist – he is an empty holographic image of the dark ones who use his false reputation to promote all kinds of dark theories that fit their plans to install the NWO and confuse the minds of the people with rogue scientific concepts of despair. I am not sure if he is really alive or a clone or something else as he is unable to communicate directly but allegedly through a machine that reads his thoughts. Go figure!

I saw him personally in 1998 in a scientific conference in Berlin/ Potsdam and even then he did not seem real to me. Since then he has not attended any conference according to my knowledge and is kept in the shadow from where his puppet masters publish regularly obscure scientific comments in his name that only serve their purpose. So much about this rogue personality that has the nimbus of the greatest fraudster-scientist of modern times. However he has a lot of predecessors as rogue representatives of fake science in this darkest pisspot on earth – GB – as I have proved beyond any doubt in the General Theory of Science and Gnosis as presented on this website in 15 books and several thousand articles.

Below I will publish my introduction to modern cosmology where I discuss the major false assumptions of this fake science in the light of the new theory of the Universal Law. I wrote this article in 1996 first in German and then translated and expanded on it in English in 1998.

Modern Cosmology in the Light of the Universal Law

Georgi Stankov, 1996-1998

While physics has evolved to become a study of particular levels and systems of space-time that are closely associated with human demands, one would expect that cosmology has been developed into a study of the primary term when the principle of last equivalence is considered. This is, however, not the case when one analyses the few acceptable textbooks on this discipline.

The outstanding feature of modern cosmology is the lack of a clear-cut definition of its object of study – the universe, space-time, energy, or cosmos – is described in a vicious circle in the same mechanistic and deterministic manner as are its systems and levels in physics. Similarly, cosmology has failed to develop an epistemological approach to space-time as an entity consisting of only two dimensions / constituents – space and time. Nevertheless, there is a subconscious pattern behind all cosmological concepts that constitutes an intuitive perception of the primary term. This is a consequence of the fact that human consciousness always abides by the Universal Law.

The objective of this short survey on modern cosmology is to reveal this aspect. As we cannot consider all heterogeneous schools and ideas of this discipline, we shall restrict ourselves to the standard model of cosmology (which is different from the standard model in physics) that represents the mainstream of cosmological thinking today. Based on the Universal Law, we shall reject this model and debunk the present system of cosmology. The remaining mathematical facts will be integrated into the new Axiomatics.

Modern cosmology is a new discipline. It began in the twenties of the last century when the general theory of relativity was being developed as a geometric study of empty space-time and applied to the universe as an ordered whole by Einstein, Lemaître, de Sitter, Friedmann etc. Its core is the standard model, a collection of heterogeneous ideas which have been put together in a similar manner to that in the standard model of physics. Hence the same name as first suggested by Weinberg  in 1972.

The standard model of cosmology is a hot expanding world model based on the following primary ideas:

1. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on average, at any place, at any time. This is called the “cosmological principle“. This philosophical concept is basic to any cosmological approach. It is an application of the principle of last equivalence – the primary term is perceived in the same way by anybody, at any time, at any place. This allows the establishment of an objective Axiomatics that leads to the unification of science – the latter being a metaphysical level of space-time. This is essentially an anthropocentric definition because for obvious reasons we have no idea of how other conscious beings (aliens) perceive the physical world.

The cosmological principle, being a rudimentary idea of the primary term, was first introduced by Milne (1935) and then further developed by Einstein as a variation of his principle of equivalence (see Volume II, chapter 8.3). Einstein departed from the Mach principle. It postulates that the inertial reference frames adopted from classical mechanics should be regarded in relation to the distribution and motion of cosmic mass, that is, in relation to the actual space-time relationships (1). Einstein generalized Mach principle (as he did with the relativity of space and time in electromagnetism developed by Lorentz and other physicists before him) and applied it to the whole universe. Einstein has never had a truly original idea of his own.

This was an arbitrary decision (degree of mathematical freedom), since the local space-time relationships which we observe are heterogeneous and discrete. Indeed, the universe consists of clusters of galaxies separated by photon space-time which is empty of matter, as is confirmed by recent astronomic evaluations, for instance, by the Hubble telescope. Therefore, the cosmological principle, which postulates a homogeneous and isotropic universe, does not assess the real properties of space-time, but is an abstract equivalence that is built within mathematical formalism. This fact reveals the absurdity of Einstein‟s endeavour to exclude human consciousness from any scientific perception of the physical world (2).

2. The universe expands according to Hubble’s law with the escape velocity v of the galaxies, which is proportional to the distance dl of the observer from the galaxies:

 dv = dl/dt =  Hol = [1d-space-time],

Hubble’s law is an application of the Universal Law for one-dimensional space-time.  Ho is called the Hubble constant. It is reciprocal conventional time and thus a constant quantity of time:  Ho= f. The epistemological background of this constant is not known in cosmology. We shall prove that this specific magnitude gives the constant time of the visible universe:  Hfvis.

In astrophysics, the Hubble constant is roughly estimated from the intensity of selected galaxies. Its value varies from author to author from 50 km/s to 80 km/s per Mpc (megaparsec). Latest estimations tend towards the smaller value. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant 1/ H is called “Hubble time“ and is thus an actual quantity of conventional time. It is regarded as the upper limit of the age of the universe AU ≤ 1/ Ho when the gravitational forces between the galaxies are ignored. As the traditional cosmological units of space and time are highly confusing, we shall convert them into SI units. This will significantly simplify our further discussion.

The cosmological unit of distance [1d-space] is:

1 Megaparsec (1 Mps) = 3.086×1022 m.

We obtain for the Hubble time (= age of the universe) the following conventionally estimated value:

 A= 1/ Ho  = 3.086×1022 m / 5×10ms-1 = 6.17×1017 s

This corresponds to an estimated age of the universe of 20 billion years. According to the standard model, the present universe has a “finite“ age that is determined by the big bang; this initial event is defined as a “space-time singularity”. This assumption is in apparent contradiction with the primary axiom of our Axiomatics which says that the universe, that is, its space and time, is infinite.

At present, the actual age of the “finite universe“ is estimated to be about 10 – 15 billion years, when the gravitational forces between the galaxies are theoretically considered. However, as the mass of these galaxies cannot be determined – more than 90% of the estimated mass of the universe is defined as “dark matter“, which simply means that scientists do not know anything about it (see the calculation of neutrinos’ mass here) – these estimations are of highly speculative character.

It is important to observe that all basic space and time magnitudes in cosmology, such as the Hubble constant, can only be roughly estimated. This fact shows that present cosmology is anything but an exact empirical science. As these quantities are basic to the standard model, fundamental paradoxes have emerged, depending on the values employed. I refer to the famous “mother-child-paradox” in cosmology that describes the finding that some galaxies as children are older than their mother – the universe – if the big bang hypothesis of finite age of the universe is accepted. This is already a strong indication that the standard model is not validated at all.

From AU one can easily obtain the radius of the finite universe RU as postulated in the standard model. According to Hubble’s law, the actual magnitude of the second constituent of the universe is defined as the maximal distance that can be observed, that is, the maximal distance which the light that is emitted from the remotest galaxies covers before it reaches the observer:

RU = cAU = 2.9979×108 ms-1 × 6.17×1017 s = 1.85×1026 

According to Hubble’s law, both values are natural constants. While this fact confirms the constancy of space-time (universe) as manifested by its systems – in this case, by the visible universe – it is in apparent contradiction with the assumption that the universe “expands“.

Modern cosmology does not give any explanation of this obvious paradox between Hubble’s law and the hypothesis of the expanding universe as put forward in the standard model.

A major objective of this section on cosmology in volume II is to prove that:

The two magnitudes, RU and Ho = 1/AU, are universal cosmological constants that assess the constant space-time of the visible universe. When modern cosmology speaks of the “universe“, it means the space-time of the visible universe, which is a system (U-subset) of space-time. The visible universe is not identical to the primary term of space-time (energy = universe = All-That-Is).

The primary term cannot be assessed in a quantitative way, but only in philosophical and meta-mathematical categories. Thus the visible universe is a specific, concrete cosmological system of space-time. It determines the limits of human knowledge at present. Therefore,

the visible universe is the only possible object of study of cosmology.

Like any other system, it has a constant space-time – it is a U-subset that manifests the properties of the whole. For this reason, its space (RU) and time (Ho = 1/AU) magnitudes are natural constants. As space-time is an open entity, we shall prove that these constants can be precisely calculated from known space-time constants which can be exactly measured in local experiments. In this way we shall eliminate the necessity of performing expensive research of doubtful quality in astrophysics.

While proving that modern cosmology can only assess the constant visible universe, we shall refute the erroneous hypothesis of an expanding universe from an infinite small space of incredible mass density, called the “big bang“. This state is believed to have existed about 15-20 billion years ago.

According to this view, the universe has evolved from this “space singularity“ to its present state by expansion which still persists.

3. The standard model describes this past and present expansion of the universe. This model is based on Hubble’s law and the existence of the cosmic background radiation (CBR). The latter is regarded as a remnant of the initial, extremely hot radiation of the big bang that has been adiabatically cooled down to the present temperature of 2.73 K. The theoretical basis of this hypothetical, hot expansion model is the theory of relativity, which is geometry applied to the visible universe and deals essentially with the level of gravitation (see Einstein’s cosmological constant in Volume II).

Therefore, the method of definition and measurement in cosmology is mainly geometry (topology) of space. In addition, the statistical method is used. The standard model is highly limited to philosophical introspective, for instance, it forbids questions like:

“Where does the universe expand?

Where does the space which opens between the expanding galaxies come from?“,

and so on.

In other words, this model evades any questions that should trouble the mind of any sincere cosmologist and deals with a true knowledge of the universe.

The standard model cannot explain many facts that have been accumulated in the last few years. For instance, new measurements by the COBE telescope have confirmed that the CBR is not isotropic and homogeneous as postulated by the standard model, but exhibits a local anisotropy. These conflicting facts have necessitated further modifications of the standard model.

The so called “inflation hypothesis“ has been developed by Guth and Linde (see article below) to overcome the problem of CBR-anisotropy, which is of major theoretical importance. However, this hypothesis is of such a speculative character that it cannot be verified by any means. It rather exposes cosmology as science fiction. ( I wrote this conclusion in 1996, 21 years before this dispute occurred in cosmology this year.)

For this reason the inflation hypothesis is not considered part of the standard model, but a complimentary conceptual contribution of provisional character. The standard model excludes alternative cosmological explanations, such as the steady state-models of Bondi (1960) or Dicke (1970). These models reflect more adequately the constant character of space-time. As these models do not represent the mainstream of cosmological dogma, they will not be discussed in this short survey on cosmology.


1. ”Einstein adopted, as Mach‟s principle, the idea that inertial frames of reference are determined by the distribution and motion of the matter in the universe”. P.J.E. Peeble, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1993, p.11.

2. Einstein believed that natural laws existed independently of human consciousness. The logical reversion of this belief is that consciousness does not follow natural laws – hence his pledge for the elimination of subjective human consciousness from science. This epistemological antinomy is inherent to modern scientific outlook. The role of consciousness in defining all scientific concepts in an abstract manner, which are confirmed in a secondary manner in the real world, is eliminated from current scientific considerations. Instead, empiricism is celebrated as the only source of knowledge.

However, it still operates in an unpredictable manner at the subconscious level as human intuition. In the new Axiomatics, we eliminate this artificial antinomy by proving that consciousness is a system (level) of space-time that obeys the Universal Law, just as any other system or level. All primary concepts which have been historically developed in science reflect more or less the Universal Law. Unfortunately, this intuitively correct perception is frequently lost at the alleged rational level of current human argumentation – be it scientific or trivial. This is particularly the case with all non-mathematical ideas of science. The hidden psychological force behind this rejection of the Universal Law at the rational level is the “angst (anguish) structure“ of human beings, which is of rigid energetic character and determines their illogical thinking and behaviour to a great extent. I have elaborated this energetic aspect of human behaviour in a special book on esoteric Gnosis based on the Universal Law “The Evolutionary Leap of Mankind“.



Stephen Hawking And 32 Top Physicists Just Signed a Heated Letter on The Universe’s Origin

Fiona Macdonald, 12 May, 2017


For centuries, people have puzzled over how our Universe began. But the heat just got turned way up on a debate that’s quietly been raging between cosmologists, with 33 of the world’s most famous physicists publishing a letter angrily defending one of the leading hypotheses we have for the origin of the Universe.

The letter is in response to a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory – the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang. The article went as far as claiming that the model “cannot be evaluated using the scientific method” – the academic equivalent of saying it isn’t even real science.

In response, 33 of the world’s top physicists, including Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, and Leonard Susskind, have fired back by publishing their own open letter in Scientific American. The Cliff’s note version is this: they’re really angry.

Inflation theory was first proposed by cosmologist Alan Guth, now at MIT, back in 1980. It’s based on the idea that a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded rapidly, spinning entire galaxies out of quantum fluctuations.

“By the time it slowed down, what had been a tiny, quivering quantum realm was stretched out until it looked smooth and flat, save for speckles of denser matter that later became galaxies, stars, and planets,” writes Joshua Sokol for The Atlantic.

In the following years, Guth’s original idea was improved and updated by Stanford physicists Andrei Linde, and they’ve since spent their careers refining the inflation model – which has become the leading theory for how the Universe was born.

In fact, most of us were taught inflation theory at high school and university when discussing the Universe’s origins.

Guth and Linde, along with cosmologists David Kaiser and Yasunori Nomura, were the ones who recruited the other 29 signees behind this week’s letter.

Interestingly, one of Guth and Linde’s former colleagues, physicist Paul Steinhardt, is part of the trio they’re rallying against. Guth, Linde, and Steinhardt all shared the prestigious Dirac prize “for development of the concept of inflation in cosmology” back in 2002.

But in the years since, Steinhardt has gone rogue, and has become an active critic of inflationary theory. He was one of the authors of Scientific American‘s February feature, originally titled “Pop goes the Universe”, along with Princeton physicist Anna Ijjas, and Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb.

Scientific American

That article highlighted recent research into the cosmic microwave background, which doesn’t match up with the predictions of inflationary theory.

It also criticised the fact that inflation would have generated primordial gravitational waves, which have never been found.

“The data suggest cosmologists should reassess this favoured paradigm and consider new ideas about how the universe began,summarises an In Brief wrap up of the article.

That criticism in itself wasn’t a huge deal – these kinds of arguments are healthy in the science world.

But what really pissed off Guth, Linde, and the 31 other signees, was the suggestion that inflationary theory couldn’t actually be tested in the first place, and therefore wasn’t really science.

“They [made] the extraordinary claim that inflationary cosmology ‘cannot be evaluated using the scientific method’ and go on to assert that some scientists who accept inflation have proposed ‘discarding one of [science’s] defining properties: empirical testability,’ thereby ‘promoting the idea of some kind of nonempirical science’,the physicists write in their open letter.

We have no idea what scientists they are referring to. We disagree with a number of statements in their article, but in this letter, we will focus on our categorical disagreement with these statements about the testability of inflation.

Their argument is that inflation theory is based on many models, and there’s no illusion that all of these models are correct. Over the past 37 years, some of the models have made correct, testable predictions – including the average mass density of the Universe, and its flat shape. (In order to fully understand the concept of mass density of the Universe read chapter 9.3 “FROM NEWTON’S LAW TO THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE (ND)” in Volume II; Note George) Many are still unresolved.

But either way, these models are all testable, which means they’re proper science, and they can be proven or disproven depending on the evidence we find in the coming years.

Ryan F. Mandelbaum has done incredible coverage of this feud over at Gizmodo, and points to a blog entry by Sean Carroll, one of the physicists who signed the letter, on the controversy:

“We judge theories by what predictions they make that we can test, not the ones they make that can’t be tested. It’s absolutely true that there are important unanswered questions facing the inflationary paradigm. But the right response in that situation is to either work on trying to answer them, or switch to working on something else (which is a perfectly respectable option). It’s not to claim that the questions are in principle unanswerable, and therefore the field has dropped out of the realm of science.”

The authors of the original article have since responded to the letter with their own extended FAQ on the debate. And they maintain their position – that inflation was once testable, but “what began in the 1980s as a theory that seemed to make definite predictions has become a theory that makes no definite predictions”.

Which takes us right back to where we started… some cosmologists have publicly slammed inflation theory, and others have angrily responded.

Unfortunately there’s no neat resolution to this debate on the horizon, with both sides standing pretty firm. The one thing they both agree on is the fact that inflation theory isn’t perfect, and we should all keep an open mind about what really happened at the birth of our Universe as new data comes in.

Or as Guth told Mandelbaum in the ultimate mic drop when asked what would happen next: “I think we’ll all continue on with our research.”

You can read the original article here, the responding open letter here, and the original authors’ response here.

 Read alsoStephen Hawking among 33 scientists on offensive against critics of popular universe origin theory

This entry was posted in Ascension. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.