The Big Bang is categorically founded on a 3-D premise. In what is insisted to be an ‘acknowledged’ 4-D Universe.

Refer, George Orwell's 1984 *Doublethink & *NewSpeak : *Two mutually conflicting parallel lines to infinity : endless gridlock.

The Big Bang imposed retroactive progression to the bygone past's intersection of three dimensions to a point of origin (the anticipated end of retroactively expanding space - traced backwards in time) - to an 'inevitable intersection' and consequent point of 'beginning', does not apply to a four dimensional space-time continuum...

The past of which is progressively smaller, to endless 4-D infinity, when the observed, spatially expanding (Big Bang originated; 3-Dimensionally fixated) universe is traced backwards through past time, from the present.

Back tracking the observed spatially expanding universe is popularly said by Big Bang advocates, to eventually arrive at an intersection where space ends: in three dimensions.

There is no open argument against the omniscience of the four dimensional space time continuum here. It is simply and altogether excluded as a solution (refer option/ AKA, ultimatum).

The Big Bang Theory denies/excludes/ignores altogether here, what its perpetrators say they acknowledge (the 4th dimension)...

Meanwhile. The Big Bang Theory instantly goes extinct, when it comes in contact with the (Invisible, What? ) four dimensional space-time continuum.

Whereas, in four dimensions (when space-time is not excluded from the universe, as the Big Bang Theory excludes the 4th dimension altogether), past space goes on ever-smaller, forever; smallness proceeding as endlessly as largeness: with the relativistic center (source of expansion) located everywhere in the occurrence of matter-field 'particles' (without a spatial limitation at the falsely assumed and foreseen intersection of all matter, culminating in the alleged explosive <Big Bang> beginning); in the increasingly distant, ever smaller past to infinity, and growing ever larger forever in the increasingly distant future; to infinity.

I.e. A Steady State Universe without beginning or end.

There are other another scientific disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,

415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

14 May 1976

"An Accelerating Universe?"

"...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.

'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).

'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

Very Truly Yours,

David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

(Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)

_____________

"The Mt. Wilson astronomer, Carl Sandage, found that stars in a cluster called NGC 188 appeared to be at least 24 billion years old. 'We are in trouble', said Sandage... for the earth could certainly be younger than the universe, but if the universe has been expanding at the present rate for 24 billion years, it would seem that it should be more spread out than it is. So the astronomers have a new problem to resolve." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49-50

Asimov states in the same discussion on the only recently discovered 'expanding universe':

"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49

Although black holes have yet to be proven, they are nonetheless very controversial and have taken the foreground of discussions in theoretical physics. Theircause- if they exist at all - is not controversial.

Presently, with the exception of this offering, there are not even any formally submitted guesses as to their cause. If black holes exist, until further notice, they are - ostensibly - the causative result of a contracting four dimensional space-time continuum; that is to say, a four dimensionally contracting material system, becoming ever smaller and more dense: to microcosmic infinity.

Another perspective of this same 4-D consideration, is concepualizing a ‘black hole singularity of infinite density’ as being 3-D matter, getting relatively ever smaller and more dense, in inverse proportion to the 4-Dimensionally expanding universe surrounding *it (*any given ‘black hole singularity’).

The four dimensionally expanding steady state universe (universal density) remains always the same relative density; consisting always of the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over - creatively becoming - an ever enlarging space; from microcosmic infinity, to macrocosmic infinity. Without infringement on the law of conservation of Mass-Energy

Matter is found to be expanding; regardless of why. 4-D smallness (of past space-time) as infinite as 4-D largeness of future. With the present eternally in the middle of microcosmic Past-smallness and macrocosmic Future largeness.

"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron ('disturbed area') in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."

- JWN Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

"Although relativity theory replaces gravity by a geometrical warping of space-time, it leaves many basic questions unanswered. Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion? Almost all physicists agree that the warping moves like a wave and that these waves travel with the speed of light. There is also good reason (sic) to believe that gravity waves consist of tiny indivisible particles of energy called "gravitons." In 1969, Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, announced that his equipment, consisting of huge aluminum cylinders, had detected gravity radiation. It seemed to be coming from cataclysmic events at the center of the Milky Way. Since then, dozens of attempts have been made to confirm Weber's claim, some by physicists with detecting equipment more sensitive than Weber's. The results have been negative. The present consensus is that Weber misinterpreted his readings, and that gravity waves have not yet been observed. (Have not yet been proven).

“As for gravitons, no one has any knowledge of what a graviton is like, although many physicists are trying to invent theories that will predict some of its properties. Presumably it contains a tiny bit of space-time curvature, otherwise large numbers of gravitons would be unable to transmit curvature through space. At the moment the graviton, like the particle physicists' quark,' remains a hypothetical beast that physicists hope someday to capture."

- p. 106, THE RELATIVITY EXPLOSION, by Martin Gardner

The 4-D space-time continuum continues to be 'acknowledged', while its ongoing effects - concepts of a Steady State, Cosmological Constant governed universe - go unrecognized.

pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE. Author Scientist J.W.N. Sullivan, summarily endorses and punctuates Thompson's dismissal of the experimental results (2+2 must equal 5).

How obvious is it? How Obvious It Is:

"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."

- Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan (again):

“These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."

(Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - yesteday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than todays, and todays is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared; all frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly tenuous...)

And so it has, and continues.

‘Extremely Difficult To Avoid Unstable Disturbed Areas In The Recent, Profoundly Disconcerting History Of Science, Which Have Yet To Receive Their Proper Interpretation.’

Continued:

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...

“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.

“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosm ological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.”

- George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth (Outlawed and uglified, ‘again, and again, and again’... ):

“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24

The fact that Einstein was persuaded to abandon his Cosmological Constant - repelling force - dominated Unified Field, calling it the biggest mistake of his life has become a mantra in scientific circles...they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.

P.D. Ouspensky, has the same kind of trouble in his

NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.

An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.

Attired in 4-D raimants and then, timelessly banquets in 3 dimensions, at the 4-D round table.

P.D. Ouspensky sets an example of being so near and yet so far...

“It is difficult to describe even approximately the significance which the discovery of the 4th perpendicular in our Universe would have for our knowledge. The conquest of the air. Hearing and seeing at a distance; establishing connections with other planets(How about if we start with establising connections on this planet, in the everyday pedestrian, office space and livingroom environment of our own perpetual experience?)or with other solar systems; all of this is nothing compared with the discovery of a new dimension.”

(*What about the 4th dimension of space-time-gravity, the 5th of electricity, the 6th of magnetism? How much less are all of those projected ‘nothings’, compared with this ensemble of newly discovered physical dimensions?)

Ouspensky continues:

“But so far it ('the discovery of a new dimension') has not been made ."

(*Alas, the undiscovered 4th dimension is dismissed for 'lack of evidence'; on the grounds of only humanly being too realistic? The 4th dimension has had a psychotic departure from reality?).

What We Must Do, continued:

“We must recognize that we are helpless before the riddle of the 4th dimension, and we must try to examine the problem within the limits accessible to us.”

- P.D. Ouspensky, Chapter: THE 4TH DIMENSION, in the title: A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. p. 68

(*With all due respect, sir: How about a drop in the bucket? All the answers are there, looking up at the observer - ut infra, ut supra - not caring a ripple if the answers therein are recognized or not...)

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” - Albert Einstein, IN SCHLIPP (1949) p. 112

For an even more detailed documentary of the remarkably employed Art Of Missing The 4-Dimensional Point, refer pages 69 thru 97 in P.D. Ouspensky’s A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a very well written and illustrated book and chapter (The 4th Dimension), by a deservedly esteemed and dedicated author - well worth reading. Ouspensky exemplifies and dramatizes the standard refusal to recognize what is proven - over-ruling results of objective experiment and mathematics with subjective misunderstandings.

Commentary, criticism, questions and/or contributions welcome here.