Confirmation of SQK: Planck Satellite Finds Evidence of Primordial Matter Creation Pockets

Map of the 3 K Microwave Background Radiation showing temperature fluctuations.

Map of the 3 K Microwave Background Radiation showing temperature fluctuations.

Astronomers report that measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the Planck satellite indicates the presence of twice as many “galaxy clusters” as can be verified with telescope observation.  This discrepancy is requiring them to rethink their cosmological models; see article below.  In other words, they are finding regions of microwave temperature excess where no galaxies are present.  This is exactly what subquantum kinetics predicts, namely that there should be “fertile supercritical regions” in intergalactic space where neutrons are materializing in space.  Subquantum kinetics has proposed that the microwave background is produced when nascent neutrons that have spontaneously materialized from the zero-point fluctuations in intergalactic space decay into protons and release energetic beta particles.  These in turn produce X-ray radiation which heats the materialized hydrogen plasma to the approximate temperature of 2.73° K, of the cosmic microwave background.  This is backed up by the corroborative calculations of David Crawford (1991, 1999, 2011).  Regions of space where materialization is actively occurring will produce more X-ray radiation and a slightly higher microwave background temperatures than voids where materialization is proceeding at a very low rate.  Consequently, the excess microwave hot spots that have no galaxy cluster counterparts are exactly these active pockets of creation that have yet to condense into stars and galaxies.  If ever there was a definitive proof of continuous creation, this is it.  But until astronomers begin to realize that the microwave radiation is not produced by the big bang, but is energized from the beta particle decay of neutrons continuously materializing in space, they will be unable to appreciate the miracle of creation this data is showing us.
“Astronomers challenge Cosmological Model”
Apr 03, 2014
(Excerpt)
It turns out that Planck (satellite) is also sensitive to the largest gravitationally bound structures called clusters, which contain thousands of individual galaxies and large amounts of dark matter. Curiously, however, Planck has found fewer clusters than was predicted based on the CBR cosmological analysis.
Now, in independent studies, the recent work of both Collins and McCarthy confirms the “Planck-cluster problem” in that there are much fewer massive clusters in the Universe than expected for the Planck best-fit cosmology, a result inviting a rethink of the underlying model.
Chris Collins explains, “we already knew that the number of clusters found by the satellite was lower than expected and we have now tested this by analyzing a new carefully constructed independent survey of some 1000 clusters over a large area of the sky using X-rays rather than microwave radiation and our findings confirm that the number of clusters is about a factor of two below the prediction based on the Planck CBR analysis.”
Warning: the above link may be harmful to your mental health.  There is no such thing as a big bang origin for the universe as the article assumes.  All data instead points toward the occurrence of continuous matter creation in a stationary universe.

 

6 Responses to Confirmation of SQK: Planck Satellite Finds Evidence of Primordial Matter Creation Pockets

  1. David says:

    Dr. LaViolette I am happy to have come accross the works of:
    “Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

    Whwhere he pretty much destroys the recent “Microwave Evidence” of the Big Bang postulated in: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/
    How extensive this “Anchoring” is in the scientific community, and the damage done by this Anchoring by making assumptions based on invalid “Laws” one can only imagine. Me, I find it too depressing to dwell on.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If you are accurately reporting what this professor states, then his claim that the 3 K microwave emission comes from water on the Earth can easily be disproved. For decades, this microwave emission has been imaged by satellites orbiting far above the Earth. They see it coming from all directions. If it was coming from the Earth, the signal would have been seen to come from beneath the satellite exclusively. Since it was not, the Earth origin theory is disproven.



      This does not mean that I agree with the standard big bang interpretation. As I have written before, this emission is connected with the process of cosmic creation — the continuous creation of nascent neutrons and their subsequent energetic beta decay which energizes the 3 K emission.

      • Tom Barnaby says:

        COBE was only ~950 km above Earth. It’s shield did not defend it from microwave pollution from below by means of diffraction. No monopole signal has ever been detected beyond Earth influence. No monopole was found at L2 by the Planck spacecraft. Without a monopole signal beyond Earth influence all talk of CMB and CMB anisotropies is baseless. Put a glass of water in a microwave oven and turn it in. Does the water absorb or reflect the microwaves? Microwave is not used in submarine communication systems because under water microwaves are readily absorbed by the oceans. A good absorber is a good emitter, at the same frequencies. About 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water. The oceans are not microwave silent. Radiation from the oceans is scattered by the atmosphere. The hydrogen bond between water molecules is the species by which water emits in microwave at an apparent temperature of ~3K as a blackbody source. It is known that an atomic explosion over water causes nearby water to turn black for a short time, recovering its normal appearance after the shock wave has passed. This is due to compression of the water lattice by the shock wave and demonstrates that water then acts as a blackbody in the visible bands. Water possesses a hexagonal planar structure, like graphite. Graphite is an excellent absorber and emitter. Here are Robitaille’s relevant papers:

        Robitaille P.-M.
        WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
        http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

        Robitaille P.-M.
        COBE: A Radiological Analysis
        http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

        Robitaille P.-M.
        The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets
        http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-02.PDF

        Robitaille P.-M.
        ‭‘‬Water,‭ ‬Hydrogen Bonding,‭ ‬and the Microwave Background‭’‬,‭ ‬Progress in Physics,‭ ‬Vol.2,‭ ‬April,‭ ‬2009,‭
        ‭http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF

  2. David says:

    Dr. LaViolette, This whole Saga of yours reminds me of one thing at the moment.

    “The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the road to heaven is paved with good works.”

    I would like to thank you again for your good works, and I will pray for us all to be saved from the “good intentions” of the mainstream science madness which ignores anything and everything that has a whit of sense to it.

  3. C says:

    Dr. LaViolette — you are so far beyond the mainstream gestalt, it’s almost laughable… please continue advancing & refining your innovative approach to cosmology. I preach your unique vision to whoever will listen!

  4. Patricia Lagrange Martínez says:

    Thank you Dr. Paul LaViolette for this marvelous information and all the light you give us. I appreciate your work very much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.