Primary “news” faker the Associated Press (AP) reports the Hubble Space Telescope has “peered back to a chaotic time 13.2 billion years ago…” 
And you thought time travel was impossible. After all, an Internet search for time travelers was submitted to science by Robert J. Nemiroff and Teresa Wilson on December 26, 2013, and no “prescient content” was found. Hence (apparently) no time travelers. Case closed, as Gerald Posner would say.  And yet here we have the Hubble Space Telescope “peering back” 13.2 billion years!
AP explains it is “complex physics tricks” which has allowed the telescope to see the supposed “infancy” of the Universe. What AP fails to tell its readers is that light from the far-off Universe can take a long time to reach Earth. The light seen by the Hubble Space Telescope is so far away it has taken billions of years to “arrive.” Hence, contrary to what the AP report seems to say, no time travel has been involved in the “peering back.”
But how could the Universe have had an infancy? Isn’t the Universe like God, which always IS? Some semi-gods don’t like the conception of a Universe which is infinite and eternal. They favor an “expanding universe” model which was born from a “big bang” about 13.7 billion years ago.
“Big Bang” Theory (BBT) is the dogma. All must kneel before it, say some high priests of so-called “science.” And “news” faker AP dutifully kneels before the dogma. Once upon a time, says AP, the star formation was “ramping up.” They obediently defer to high priest astronomer Garth Illingworth, and do not doubt His Mightiness when he refers to the “big bang” as if only a fool would not immediately genuflect.
If you rely on Associated Press (which really runs the country, not talk radio), you do not know that there are many dissident astronomers, many of them having great prestige, who doubt and even disagree with the “Big Bang” theory. “They bee heretics!” cries the Amun priesthood of Big Bang. One such “heretic” is Hilton Ratcliffe. In my series, “Crisis in Cosmology”, which ran between December 21, and December 30, 2013 on Ersjdamoo’s Blog, I relied on Ratcliffe’s book, The Static Universe, to briefly try to explain why “Big Bang” Theory (BBT) is ridiculous. 
In The Static Universe, Ratcliffe recommends to readers that they first read his book, The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer. I did it backwards, and only now have finished Virtue of Heresy. Both of Ratcliffe’s books are generally accessible to the layman, although at times the author forgets his audience and uses scientific ideas he has not yet explained. (In such cases, Ratcliffe then backtracks and explains the complexities for his lay readers.)
What I especially liked about The Virtue of Heresy is that it confirms a doubt I myself had had. In Gulliver’s Travels, the people of Laputa are great fans of mathematics, but are unable to make practical use of it. How do you translate abstract mathematical ideas into the physical world? Albert Einstein however had no trouble making the leap from Euclid’s geometry to concluding “space” did not exist in the material universe. After all, Euclid’s geometry deals with objects and shapes, and never with “space.” This must mean there is no “space”! (Background: Our Friend, The Ether (Part 13), Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of November 6, 2013.)
That was my doubt: How could mathematics, tool of science, have risen to the point where mathematics ruled over science? There is no “space” in Euclid, okay. But how does that mean there is no space period!? “Alas, I am just a layman,” I sighed. “I must be missing something.” Therefore I was delighted to find that Hilton Ratcliffe hammers on this very point in his book, The Virtue of Heresy:
- “First off, we need to understand very clearly that Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical theory.”
- “Mathematics is not logic!… Mathematics is a symbolic representation of logic. Like your models of the universe, you need to get it the right way round. Physics (by that I mean reality) does not have a mathematical basis; rather, mathematics has a physical basis. There’s a very important difference. Logic doesn’t take instructions from maths, and the universe doesn’t obey models.”
- “Mathematics is essentially an artificial description of natural processes, and unfortunately, it drifts away from its roots. Delusional wanderings eventually give it an inversion of priorities, and somehow or other it takes on a position of primacy in the equation. Mathematics becomes the piper and the pipes, and reality is expected to dance.”
If you can take just one thing away from today’s blog entry, it is this: There are many dissident astronomers who do not agree with the “Big Bang” theory.
And take away this question also: Why is it that the Associated Press never even mentions that there is significant dissent about the “Big Bang” theory?
——- Sources ——-
 “Images peek into galaxy’s past”, AP. Published in the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, January 8, 2014
 “Searching the Internet for evidence of time travelers”, by Robert J. Nemiroff and Teresa Wilson. http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128
 Series “Crisis in Cosmology” begins with “Crisis in Cosmology (Part 1)”, https://ersjdamoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/crisis-in-cosmology-part-1/