Tag Archives: edwin hubble

Edwin Hubble Admitted NO Evidence to Support Big Bang Theory; All evidence Points Towards Geocentrism and a Flat Earth

Edwin Hubble in “The Observational Approach to Cosmology” admits that his observations prove a small uniform, symmetrical, constant universe, that centers around earth. This he struggles to overcome throughout his entire lecture, trying to come to an alternative conclusion through assumptions, purposely disregarding the facts. He refuses to accept observable geocentrism saying that “the hypothesis (geocentrism) cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome…and must be avoided at all costs.”    

In order to avoid the obvious proof of a unique geocentric universe, he resorts to guesswork and the theory of relativity. This is how modern “scientists” continue to work. They refuse to accept what is actually observed (a small geocentric universe/flat earth), and instead create and promote false theories (evolution, the Big Bang theory) to support their Satanic agenda: hiding God and our importance and position in the universe.
There was little evidence in his observations to support a Big Bang induced universe and he knew it. This would require the observation of a thinning out of the nebula and an observable vastness. But shockingly, what he saw was the opposite. Instead of thinning out, the nebula and stars became more dense the farther they were observed. Also they were symmetrically and uniform on every direction, the product instead of a geocentric created universe with order and precision. This pointed towards a small earth-centered universe and a Creator. This conclusion he wished to avoid at all costs. 
It is interesting to note that Hubble was a Freemason (Luciferian) and gained much of his knowledge and mentoring from a Jesuit priest. There’s evidence that he stole his ideas of the Big Bang from a Jesuit (Satanist). It is obvious there purpose is to hide God. 

Here is the quote in its entirety from page 40 of “The Observational Approach to Cosmology.” You can find the pdf version here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
“The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its (heliocentrism/Big Bang theory) favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance”(Big Bang Theory).

“Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone – without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.” (Page 40)

Here he admits that there is not much evidence to support the Big Bang theory and a vast expanding universe. It wasn’t proven but “adopted quite early” before there was even any evidence to support such a theory. Clearly he had an agenda that had nothing to do with facts. He wanted the Universe to be heliocentric and without a Designer, so he ignored the truth and fabricated lies.

“Definite observational evidence to guide the choice was slow to materialize. Nevertheless, the larger universe, with all its significance, was adopted quite early, on the grounds of simplicity and uniformity.”(page 6)
Here Hubble faces a conundrum as he attempts to explain away the facts pointed to a small curved universe. If we are living on a flat earth enclosed in a dome, then the stars and “space” would indeed be curved around the dome. This also means that stars and all we observe are close, symmetrical, and surrounding a curved dome.

“The nature of the curvature has rather grave implications. Since the curvature is positive, the universe is closed. Space is closed as the surface of a sphere is closed. The universe has a definite, finite volume although it has no boundaries in three-dimensional space. The remarkably small numerical value of the radius of curvature is a complete surprise. It implies that a large fraction of the universe, perhaps a quarter, can be explored with existing telescopes. The small volume of the universe is another strange and dubious conclusion. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well.”(Page 47)
This conclusions has grave implications for him, a Luciferian Freemason, because it points to a Creator and a small geocentric universe.