New observations hint dark energy may break scientists’ best models of the universe. Physics, in the original hard science, he said, it’s the science on which all other sciences are based. You know, Newton was physics. He brought together physics and calculus. As a matter of fact, when I was in college, what they did was they taught us, you take the physics and the calculus simultaneously, you know, as they’re introducing these different topics, they worked it out so that you got the math to understand it. And of course, you can teach, my friend who went to West Point said they had two different tracks of physics at the time.

And this was in the 1970s, so 50 years ago, West Point’s a very different place today, I’m sure. Today, they’ve got DEI majors and stuff like that. But at the time, he was laughing about it. He said, yeah, there’s a physics track. And then there’s one we call physics for poets and lovers. And it just kind of, you know, there’s this thing called gravity. And then there’s this other thing, which you don’t do anything with it. You don’t try to calculate anything about it. You don’t do anything with kinetics or statics, nothing about that.

It’s just, you know, arts, the artistic approach to it. But anyway, it is a hard science. And by that don’t mean that the calculus is difficult. Then what they mean by that is that it’s not soft. It’s not subjective. It’s objective is what they mean by that. In the article, the Economist article, they say physicists are acknowledging that they have almost no idea how 95% of the universe works. I’d say it’s pretty bold. They think they know how 5% of the universe works. Yeah, he says your mic wasn’t working, but he says he thinks it’s pretty bold that 5% of them think that they know how the universe works.

That’s a really good comment, Travis. Yeah, there’s not 5% of them who know how the universe works at all. 5% hubris 95% honesty. If physics has almost no idea how 95% of the universe works, what does that tell us about other scientists that are trying and usually failing to mimic physics? The social sciences have been attempting to copy the language and the style of physics for more than a century, but the social sciences are trying to copy Newtonian physics, which has already given way to relativity, which is about to be superseded by some new theory that can better explain recent data.

It reminds me of Thomas Massey. He was questioning somebody, I think it was about some of these mandates about electric vehicles and stuff like that. He goes, so what’s your degree at? Is it political science or is it really in science? Because he’s got a real science degree. He and his wife who just recently passed away, the two of them went to MIT. They started a tech company. He sold that, made a lot of money for that, essentially retired and got involved in politics. Immunology is much more complex than physics, writes Toby Rogers, because it’s a combination of physics, biology, chemistry, psychology.

It involves almost an infinite number of poorly understood variables, but I’ve never seen the field of immunology admit error. I’ve never seen the field of immunology learn from their mistakes. The immunology that is forced on us today is based on ideas from 1796 that have not advanced much since then. Almost no one in the field of immunology is honest enough to acknowledge what they don’t know because there is so much money to be made from pretending to know. And the bottom line, I’ll give you a spoiler alert, the bottom line of this essay is he said, so what’s going on? Why is it that these immunologists pretend to know everything and the physicists, in the most part, pretend to know nothing? Well, he says it’s the way the money works.

If you say, we don’t know, but we need better telescopes and more investments and things like that, you know, then they give you the money to look more accurately or something like that. The immunologist, however, like to put themselves out there as the experts. That’s how they get their government grants. And it’s all about the government grants, which is, of course, what Eisenhower warned us about, warned us that the military, industrial, and academic complex would take over science and destroy it because it takes us back to before the scientific method. Francis Bacon specifically talked about the scientific method as a counter to arguments from authority.

He called it academia because at that time, if you were somebody who had a reputation at a reputable school, everybody would just bow before your pronouncements. You didn’t have to prove anything. Francis Bacon said, no, let us have data. Tell us what you think, how it works. Better yet, we need to have some kind of an equation describing it, but we need to be able to reproduce your what you’re saying here. And if we can’t, then it’s not science. Doug, thank you very much for the tip on life and I appreciate that.

Thank you. Uh, continuing back with the article, uh, the economist in Arizona at Kitt peak national observatory telescope has spent three years building a three dimensional map of the heavens and examining the light from tens of millions of galaxies, the dark energy spectroscopic instrument. They call it Desi, like a Desi Arnaz. Yeah, more stars than there are in heaven, may have found, you could say they’ve got some explaining to do. Desi, you’ve got some explaining to not Lucy, but does he? Yeah, that’s great. They think they have found something astounding. Now his comments, he says, we almost never read about basic bench science and immunology these days.

Moderna claim that it’s coronavirus vaccine was designed in just two days. That’s a quote from them and wallah, it must, we, it must work less injected into 5 billion people. Desi, as its name suggests, going back to the economist, Desi, as its name suggests, is a tool to investigate the nature of dark energy, a mysterious entity that accounts for 68% of everything in the universe and which pushes space apart in a repulsive version of gravity. That’s the anti-gravity. Though they do not know what it is, scientists have hitherto assumed that the density of dark energy has been the same since the start of the universe.

But Desi’s initial results suggest this assumption may have been wrong. Perhaps, says Desi’s scientist, the density has been changing over time. It’s so bizarre, says Dragan Hutterer from the University of Michigan, who was involved with the work. If the findings prove true, it would catapult cosmology into a crisis. We don’t know. And we don’t even know what we don’t know. Put Rumsfeld in charge of this. He comments, he says, physics began as an exploration of the iron laws of the universe on the assumption that they were knowable, that they were fixed, that they were unchanging.

You see, that’s why so many Christians were so foundational at the beginning of all this. People like Isaac Newton, people like Francis Bacon, everything. They believed that the universe was created by an intelligent designer and that it was knowable. Well, it would make sense that it is organized, that it has a system and everything, but it was still created by an infinite being, infinite intelligence and the rest of this stuff. And he says, it turns out that the iron laws of the universe may change over time. I don’t know if the laws are changing, but the other thing that we need to understand is that God didn’t create the universe and wind it up like a clock and then go off and leave us alone.

There is a strain of Christianity called deism that says exactly that. Many of the founders of this country were deists. Yeah, God created everything. He put it together. It’s like this clockwork universe and he’s now gone off. Well, as I said yesterday, when we’re talking about miracles, I don’t believe that’s the case. Yes, God does have an order there, but he is still Lord of the universe. And the God who created the universe can step in at any moment and he can do another miracle. The creation of the universe was a miracle.

He can step in and he can intervene in any of it because he is Lord of the universe. He keeps it together and he can make exceptions to it. And we need to really understand that. We need to stop having so much faith in science and what these scientists say they know or say they don’t know. Whether or not they admit their ignorance, we’ve got to stop having faith in science. We’ve got to have faith in the creator of the universe. Because it’s hard to study directly, says this article in The Economist, the true nature of dark energy remains poorly understood.

The leading hypothesis is that energy is intrinsic to the vacuum of empty space. According to quantum theory, a vacuum is not really empty. It fizzes with countless pairs of particles and antiparticles that emerge from nothing only to annihilate each other. These interactions produce a vacuum energy that over the scale of the cosmos could push space apart. This idea is not without its problems. When physicists try to calculate what this vacuum energy density would amount to, they get a value between 60 and 120 orders of magnitude larger than what observational evidence currently supports.

That’s worse than a PCR test distortion. This is a fiasco known as the vacuum catastrophe. The general consensus is that resolving the catastrophe will require fundamental new insights, says Dr. Hutterer. So he comments on this and says, wait, what? Particles and antiparticles are emerging from nothing only to annihilate each other? The biblical story of creation seems pedestrian by comparison. Well, see, here’s the problem is that it’s not just that you have to have an intelligence. You have to have a logos that is at the center of the creation of the universe.

It all goes back to intelligence. DNA really underscored this. DNA is a code. It has to have an intelligence that writes that code. They won’t talk about astronomical miscalculations. It is an astronomical miscalculation to the fatal deceit, which is a fundamental lie of evolution, is that given an infinite amount of time, anything can happen. And that’s not true. That’s absolutely not true. A rock is not going to come to life, no matter how many billions of years, as Carl Sagan was saying, that you wait around and watch it. It just isn’t going to happen.

And it isn’t going to organize itself into the Parthenon either. Some things, it’s just ridiculous. It is this kind of hand waving magic wand to say, well, yeah, I know, but given enough time, it could happen. No, it wouldn’t. It would never happen. It has to be an organizing intelligence. Crick and Watson understood that. They rejected the specific revelation of the Bible, but the general revelation of creation spoke to them. So they rejected God. It’s got to be space aliens. Anyway, back to this. The other pillar is dark matter, an invisible form of matter that makes up 27% of the universe.

Regular matter, which constitutes stars and galaxies, accounts for only 5%. So that’s the 5% they think they know something about, but they don’t know anything about the stars and galaxies really. They’re constantly changing what they say about them. What have these people really done? I’m so confused. What do we get by having these people sit around and postulate these worthless theories? Well, we don’t get anything, but they get paid. No more physicists. The world has advanced past the need for physicists. Yeah. As I imagine, you’ve already figured out dark energy, dark matter are placeholders, says the writer of this.

He says, it’s a way of saying we don’t know, because we can’t measure what’s happening in those spaces. So 95% of the universe is made up of we don’t know. Yeah. We have dark energy. We have dark matter. We have scientists who are in the dark. Yeah. The blind leading the blind and we both fall in the black hole, right? If the DESI team’s results are right, it would mean a complete reevaluation of what dark energy could be. The moment dark energy changes in time, it’s no longer vacuum energy, says Jane, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Alternative proposals already exist, centering on a dark energy field called quintessence, which pervades all space and can change with time. No, let’s create a new concept here. However, Dr. Jane says the DESI results, as they stand now, indicate something more complex than the simplest quintessence models. And Roger Brownstone says quintessence, quintessence, he said, that’s another one of these placeholders for something that they can’t see, they can’t measure and that they think might exist. He said the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines quintessence as, quote, the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is a substance composing the celestial bodies, unquote.

He said to me, that sounds a lot like spirit. So we’re supposed to act like spirituality is not science, but when physicists borrow a term from Aristolian theory that’s laden with spiritual significance, they’re doing science. He said, I think there’s a lot more overlap between these fields and many people care to admit. I’ve heard it said, I don’t remember who said that, they said, when the scientists get to the top of the mountain, they’re going to find the theologians sitting there waiting for them. Here we are, they’re going back to quintessence, they’re going back to something Aristotle talked about.

Going back to the economists, what’s more over the past decade, different teams have measured differing values for the Hubble constant, the rate at which the universe is currently expanded, named after the satellite. Satellite was named after him. This would imply that cosmologists do not really understand the universe’s historical expansion, or by extension, how dark energy has behaved in that time. Recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope seem to suggest these values can be reconciled, implying nothing unexpected in dark energy’s behavior. But the results have yet to have been published in a scientific journal, though not all sides in the debate are convinced.

Some even go further to argue that Einstein’s general theory of relativity, on which this model is based, may have reached its limits. We know that sooner or later it will fail. It happened to Newton and it will happen to Einstein, says a cosmologist at another member of the DESI team. Then the comments from Rodry says, so Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity, which is about to be replaced by some new theory based on recent data. But we’re supposed to accept Edward Jenner’s theories about vaccination from 1796 as the unchanging laws of how human immune system works, really? This is what I’ve said for the longest time.

I said you look at subatomic models, you look at astrological models, and you look at the models about the immune system and viruses and things like that. It’s not just the vaccines, it’s the whole thing about viruses even. And I said, when it’s something that they cannot see, that they cannot measure, the PCR test is not a measure of this stuff. It’s not an honest measure of this. I said, when it’s something that can’t be seen and measured accurately, can’t be reproduced accurately, so we’re not talking about science anymore. And I said, I know when you look at quantum physics and when you look at astronomy and all the rest of this stuff, it’s constantly changing.

And you’re always supposed to believe that they’ve got it nailed with viruses and vaccines. I don’t believe any of that stuff anymore. It’s like the moon landing. It’s ridiculous. Now, by the way, I had an excellent letter from a listener about the moon landing thing. I’ll read that to you when we come back from break. But before we go, one last word here from the writer at Brownstone. Again, kudos to the physicists for their humility and their honesty in admitting what they don’t know, but this makes the arrogance of immunology all the more glaring by comparison.

Immunology is stuck in an 18th century paradigm that is almost certainly wrong. But we don’t know all the other, all the ways in which it is wrong, because they almost never bothered to do proper research in the first place. And then he finishes up by saying, the physicists make money by telling people they don’t know. The immunologist and the epidemiologist make money by telling people they know everything. That’s the way this whole thing works. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. To our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Dangerous to our democracy. Dangerous to our democracy.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Break free from the usual script with a David Knight show. A fresh perspective. Bringing you genuine insights and current events. But if the show is going to stay on the air, we’ll need your continued support. Sharing the show, subscribing, and even just hitting the like button all help. And if you found our show helpful, please consider donating and becoming a part of a community that values the truth. Because independent, listener-funded news, untouched by corporate globalist agendas, is extremely important to our liberties. [tr:trw].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.