Wednesday, August 9, 2017

The Big Bang Fable

The Big Bang is a sordid topic. Factually, no one knows, nor can they know, what was present at the universe's origin. No one can know if the universe “originated” at all. Despite no verifiable evidence, nor substantiated causality, nor any benchmark determined from the information and technology available; an analogous frame of reference - the universe was dated (more or less) 13+ billion years old. Some scientist received an award for that bit of speculation. Proving the universe older than seven thousand years - as a majority of Religious/Biblical scholars assert… was the totality of the deliberation. Or so science thought. 
The creation of the universe, if that is a reality, is unknown and I assert unknowable. The changes present in science’s 13 billion year old universe are considerable, but science presumes it static – one big bang - and except for expansion, everything else remained static. Hoofah!  The proper place to begin is the moment of creation. We know the Bible details one. Only the scope is not entirely clear. Comparing what is known and accepted by science when applied to the Big Bang theory is an exercise in futility, but it does expose science’s fealty to secular assumptions.
The “Uncaused First Cause” - and the origin of the matter resident in the Big Bang - are obstacles science blatantly ignores, or, Presumes into existence. Presumption…  That’s just like God creating the earth out of nothingness! Creating something from nothing is apparently A-Okay - if secular science is doing the creating. The God(s) aren’t something science will consider, let alone attribute causality in their efforts.

Going back to the first sentence - presumption and science are antithetical and off limits – UNLESS- Darwin's theory or God(s) are factors. Most of the conjecture on the Big Bang version of the universe’s creation presumes matter existed "In Situ" RE: matter was inexplicably present - and the matter underwent movement caused by forces unknown…  The reader needs be aware we don't even have gravity yet!  The Pre-Universe, or Proto-Universe, and any matter, energy, and/or physical rules therein - are unknown and undefined. Very importantly – they are undetermined!  What is present in the universe now is not reflexively distributive to the Pre or Proto - Universe. (Misapplying commutative and distributive math functions are how exclusive reliance upon mathematics can bleed into other areas and gum up the substance and accuracy of the theories proposed.) Any matter and energy present in the proto universe more than suggests the universe, or something like, was present before the alleged Big Bang. The theory gets confounding, then bizarre as you will read.
The Red-Shift is asserted as proof a Big Bang occurred. The red-shift is a term adopted to describe the light received on earth from very distant stars showing a red color tinge. Science asserts that color is a result of the sources of light (stars/universe) moving. “Expansion” is the term science applied to the speculated continuing movement of matter in the universe. The matter was set in motion by the Big Bang. Science backed into this assumption. Because there is movement of matter in the universe, (i.e. the universe is expanding) the universe was set in motion by some event – so says science. This again is preemptive. If the Red-Shift conclusion(s) are at all accurate, does not axiomatically infer expansion from an explosion, or Big Bang. Analogous findings, by interpreting what can be seen, actually reveal nothing about the matter, energy, and/or origin of the universe - save the assertions science makes. The interpretation offered - proves the theory offered!  A hypothesis and a hypothetical explanation that suits all the conditions of the hypothesis does not equate to fact or legitimate efvidence. The claim, the universe is expanding, is not provable with the tools currently available. The objects used in that red shift study, and their current state, used to develop the equations proving suggesting expansion, cannot be known. More importantly, even if objects in the universe are moving, uniformly, in no way means a Big Bang occurred. No one can know the velocity of the Big Bang, ergo; the speed of objects moving through the vacuum of space cannot be compared, nor verified, so they cannot be tied to the Big Bang.
Theoretically, since space is a vacuum, the object released at the Big Bang will continue to move at the same velocity, unless and until, the object strikes something that alters its trajectory and velocity – per Newton’s first law. This expansion theory cannot be known or proven. However, an unethical person can guess-timate, or analyze what they see and attempt to measure the current velocity of the object. Science may construct equations and back into these object’s velocity – and several other variables. THAT guesstimate is the process most commonly used by science. There are some benefits to this type of speculation. At least the scientific calculations provide work and mental stimulation. That is a better alternative to sitting around, staring at stars, and not being able to actually prove a thing.
The potential causal forces moving objects through the universe are many; gravity, solar explosions/Nova, solar wind, black holes, etc. and combinations of these forces. There probably are forces man has yet to identify. The Nova and Super Nova are what moved science to conclude something like them created the universe. Attributing the universe’s creation to an event similar to a nova is unmitigated conjecture!  It is Not Knowable!  It is one of innumerable, potential explanations…

Planets orbit stars. Stars orbit in galaxies. Gravity is causal for the orbits. Galaxies orbiting around each other is likely. The entire universe in motion is plausible. I agree. That gravitational motion does not mean the universe is expanding because of a Big Bang. Facts and evidence needed to substantiate the Big Bang using an appropriate comparative and time scale is not currently available. What is needed to prove the Big Bang is unavailable. What we are seeing is science agreeing to codify a guess - and then using the guess to make other guesses. Not scientific.

Per science, the Red-shift stars used in this Big Bang theory are billions of years away from earth. The light emitted from some distant star that arrives at earth in the red-shift termed condition, is light energy released from a sun billions or tens of billions of years past. For all we known, the stars may have reversed direction. They may have been swallowed by a black hole. If those stars exploded in a nova, the stars are no longer there. If the star no longer exists, the stars cannot move. If the star changed direction, they theory collapses. We have no way of knowing the status of those stars, save light released billions of years past. Moreover, the light those stars released eons ago is moving at light speed, and we know gravity can bend light. We have no way of knowing the number, or size, of the gravitational sources between us and the source of the light. Nor can we know the gravitational effects each planet, solar systems, or galaxy exerts upon the emitted light – making it appear to change color. More importantly, we cannot know, we will never know the status of those objects. We will not live long enough to know.
Undeterred = these FACTS do not sum as reason enough to modify or silence many scientists - whose short earthly lives predicate they will never have answers to the questions they ponder. It’s Sad. I appreciate they want to know, but they won’t and guessing makes their efforts “invalid”. Why do they do it? There is wealth and fame available for the taking. So few people can, or will, investigate what scientists claim, and other scientists are equally determined (willing to sacrifice their ethical credibility) to make a name for themselves, on a topic, in a discipline, where most recent discovery or theory cannot be proven or disproven. They may conspire to deceive for the purpose of self aggrandizement and reap the benefits of fortune and fame. Some scientists may not care - if century’s later, accurate evidence makes their work laughable. They’ll have spent the money and enjoyed the notoriety while alive. Since they believe no God exists, they won’t have to explain their actions and there is no hell to encounter for their deceptions.
“Incredible!”  Madness comes in many forms.

Since the universe moves on an eternal time scale, no one on earth will be alive in a billion(s) years to learn the actual fate of the stars in question. The state of the universe - as seen through telescopes examining light billions of years old – is… Unreliable. The telescopes are not an accurate measurement device for these purposes and they are suspect – again using science’s own standards.

Let’s examine a hypothetical. Suppose a fossil of a Stromatolite was ejected into space when a large asteroid struck earth a billion years past. Imagine that fossil travels through space and lands on an alien planet. Suppose an alien finds the fossil and concludes all live on earth is Stromatolite. The alien is using the same flawed logic as science uses inferring the Big Bang. Drawing conclusions from billion year old light, is no different than an extraterrestrial alien assuming life on earth is Stromatolite - because the alien studied a billion year old fossil from earth that landed on their planet.

The Big Bang is just another Chapter in Darwin or Nietzsche’s secular liturgy – its science’s version of Genesis. The theory is extremely problematic. The theory uses a premise science specifically created to avoid mentioning a higher power, a God; or that the God may have influenced the universe’s origin, or… to acknowledge the universe always existed as it does. The Big Bang theory is a mind boggling journey into infinite irrationality.

The theory gets more bizarre. Let’s examine what The Big Bang prescribes: All the matter and energy in the universe, before the universe was even a universe, was gathered together by some unknown, undetermined, “force” (remember gravity is not yet created). Amidst this nothingness, the undetermined force created a singularity. The singularity occurs when all the matter and energy in what would become the universe, are randomly gathered together and compressed – gravity is presumed the force. But, I’ll repeat, gravity is not yet a verifiable, legitimate force in the proto-universe. Somehow, the force compresses all the matter and energy in the proto-universe smaller than the size of one atom. The singularity is not the size of one atom – it is smaller!  You read that right – all the matter in the universe compressed to a size smaller than one atom…  Let’s also examine the matter  supposedly compressed, smaller than an atom. These are collections of masses so large it take hundreds of thousands of years to travel across them moving at the speed of light. Science speculates over two billion galaxies exist. The Big Bang asserts all the planetary and solar matter in the estimated two billion galaxies was compressed… to a size smaller than one atom.

 I’m getting redundant, but I want the reader to accurately consider the lunacy of this Big Bang theory. It is preposterous, and idiotic. Staring into the universe and trying to measure and comprehend the infinite scope and variety of events occurring is mind numbing. The universe is too immense for a mind to thoroughly grasp. It’s like wrapping the mind around eternity. Humans can’t do it. The Big Bang is want, hope, and need - unchecked. There is not a way to prove the existence of the objects used, or that a force existed, or that they were compressed – to a size smaller than one atom. The theory is hyper-ventilated wishful thinking and not very scientific despite the dubious measurements advanced to prove – WHAT – exactly?  A snapshot of light, billions of years old, reveals evidence of what?  That snapshot from the past proves nothing about now… exactly… precisely.

On its face, the Big Bang is a ridiculous proposition. All the matter in the universe compressed to sub-atomic size is gratuitous, unsubstantiated, all the physical laws surrounding us defying Nonsense! It is an impossibility, if what we currently know, and can prove, are considered for comparison. Undeterred, cosmologists plodded along and concocted the most outrageous origin for the universe possible – they had to concoct even more idiotic nonsense to validate the Big Bang. It is so beyond rationality, it cannot be properly challenged – and science knows this. The Big Bang is another blind faith tenet of the liturgy of Lucifer - Evolution.
These behaviors in science are noted because science is the primary resource used by secular interests to gather evidence that supposedly disproves God exists. Science replaced God in their minds when Darwin’s theory proposed evolution. Darwin’s theory gave science the information used to dissemble God and claim the authority of the holder and giver of information. They will not give it back and must be forced to relinquish it. 

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Academic Abrogation: Standardized Test Scores vs Socio-Economic Solvency

Let's examine if, as alleged, money in the home and the homes' location predicates academic outcomes. 
The location of a building/school, the building's design and attractiveness, the components within the building - desks, chalkboards, cafeteria, auditorium seating, vary. Some are newer and contain the latest technologies. Others not so much.
Teachers are usually assigned to a school.  The younger more energetic teachers will be placed in the older, uglier schools, serve their time, acquire tenure, and finally move on to the nice new school when they are exhausted from teaching and less enthusiastic. So, from a practical perspective, new schools ought to have a less enthusiastic faculty.
So what explains the disparity of grades and test scores among students?  These are significant.  Progressives and their useful idiots believe the age of a school, it’s location, the average family income of the school's students - have a direct bearing upon academic performance. This belief is gratuitous and repeatedly proven untrue.  Causality for performance is not attendant income in the home or the condition of the school building. 
Let’s examine some statistics.
Students in the same buildings, students in the same classroom, do not score the same - ever.  A broad spectrum of scores is evident in each school – usually in each class. Students from the wealthiest families do not often score well, or at the apex. 
Money in the home and the location of homes does not assure superior performance.  The same is true in the old school.  Some students in the old schools score extremely well when tested.  These students are presumed to live in shabby old homes, located in shoddy older neighborhoods, and the family income must be lower accordingly.  Within the old school district, there may be a large percentage of students scoring poorly. We must note the same outcome may be true in the new school.  
It could happen, but usually does not. Your author knows from personal experiences the disparity in a classroom.  My high school was the best in town and populated with the children of the most affluent adults in the community.  Many of their children did not score well in school.  Some dropped out.  Others excelled. 
The correlate between scores and the age/condition of a school are not causal or comparative.  Nor is money or access to money causal.  
So what is – causal?

Direct Primary Causalities:
Determination is an essential causality.  All the IQ in the world will not realize a good score if the student doesn’t apply himself - see your author.  The smarter may need less time to learn, but they still must examine the study material.
IQ is the second causality factor.  IQ typically increases an average passing score.
However - The low IQ will defeat all the determination in the world.

Teacher: A Teacher is potentially causal -if we assume the teacher is competent and not belligerent against students – unfairly scores work assignments, uses personal or ideological bias in the classroom.  
Peers: A student’s peers/friends can influence a student positively and negatively.  The Community where learning occurs may moderately impact a student’s score. That only obtains if the student permits it to impact them. Some dullards negatively influence their peer group.
Parents: Parents can rate higher - as high as #2 - but they must value education, demand determination, and help the student. 

What is REALLY causal - few want to learn or know.  A majority of parents surely do not want to know, because so doing will negatively reflect upon them!  Genetics are shown to be the primary causality for IQ – high or low. Parents and their genetic legacy determines a child’s intellectual potential.  No parent wants to learn their stupidity directly retards their child's abilities. Ergo, "educators" lie and obfuscate. Recall determination is vital.  However, determination must accompany an average IQ.  Determination maximizes potential, but... it cannot increase potential.  All factors being equal - a child’s IQ determines their scores – EVEN in PoorSchools!!!

SO, why do students in older schools score poorly?
Progressives, as usual, have the equation backwards.  Intellect creates wealth.  Wealth does NOT create intellect.  Smart people are more often successful people. They earn more money. 
The offspring of smarter parents are usually smarter students.  Smart parents place a high value on school and study = good grades and high test scores.
ERGO- Smart people live in nicer, wealthier neighborhoods.  Nice neighborhoods have nicer schools because they are NEW, not because of the parent's wealth.

The offspring of dumb parents are dumb students.  Dumb parents place little or no value on school and study. That yields poor grades and lower test scores.   Dumb people are often less successful people – less money. 
ERGO - Poor people live in older delapidated neighborhoods.  Poor neighborhoods usually have older schools because the neighborhood is OLDER. 

The above explains WHY increased spending on education has NOT moved the student academic performance dial whatsoever.

(Supporting Causality)

In the 1980s - A judge in or near St Louis, MO believed this tripe - wealth/prettier schools caused better student performance.  Racial animus was also blamed for poor test scores.  When a case came before him alleging the school building made some students dumb  perform poorly, he ordered the school system to build several new schools – state of the art schools - with better gadgetry and superior athletics arenas than the schools in the wealthiest St Louis neighborhoods.  The schools were built.  They were impressive and costly – several billion dollars worth of schools.  Student performance was measured the next few years.

Student performance in the new schools – DECLINED! A greater percentage of students dropped out of school.  The results were not published.  The judge was not charged for wasting tax dollars, nor was he removed from the bench - as should be the case whenever a moron judge enters the social engineering fray.

(VERY POOR) John D Rockefeller – the richest man ever – didn’t graduate from high school.
(DIRT POOR) Henry Ford – virtually NO education – His father told him he would be a farmer and saw no need for education. 
(Hill Billy POOR) Abe Lincoln – attended a decrepit, ugly one-room log cabin prairie school for a couple years.  He taught himself with any book he could get his hands upon.
Mark Twain – left school age 11 – another crappy one-room prairie school
(POOR) Albert Einstein – dropped out of high school and could not pass the version of the SAT in his day.  He too took up the study of physics on his own.  He published one of his greatest discoveries before being accepted to college.

These examples prove innate IQ will triumph over adversity and lack of income in the home.  

Asia and Indian immigrants typically score higher than Low-Income Americans.
IMPORTANTLY - they score higher while attending the same OLD schools, same teachers, AND... overcome language/cultural barriers. 

The Stupid choose behaviors that keep them STUPID
1.     They have very high self-esteem – contrary to popular fiction.
2.     They think they are better than others
3.     They think they are so superior they needn’t work to advance – Study is for suckers.
4.     They think they have all the answers and needn’t study
5.     They avoid anyone doesn’t agree with them
6.     They are obsessed with image – Bling!  Name Brands
7.     They underestimate obstacles – See #3
8.     They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past – doing nothing
9.     They blame society/others - out to get them, keep them down, for their failures