For 150 years, idiots have been looking for the mythological planet Vulcan. No, it's not the one from Star Trek, although they did take the name from this myth. 150 years ago, astronomers began looking for a hypothetical planet with an orbit between Mercury and the sun. They theorized its existence because Mercury's orbit was not behaving as the models were predicting. They predicted an elliptical orbit, and they saw one, but they also observed this ellipse slowly rotating (the foci were not stationary as the models predicted). They concluded there must be another planet, a fairly large one, that was pulling Mercury's orbit around.

In 1915, when Einstein's General Relativity was published, the matter was resolved. Mercury's orbit was rotating because it was supposed to based upon the curvature of spacetime. This required a whole new physics, though, that integrated time as a fourth dimension of the fabric of the universe. When the new physical model was used, there was no longer any need for Vulcan.

These days, so-called scientists are spending a fortune looking for a modern day "Vulcan" in the forms of dark matter and dark energy ("dark" because they cannot detect them). Spiral galaxies aren't winding themselves up as General Relativity would predict, so they invented "dark matter" to compensate. The universe is expanding and they don't know why, so they invented "dark energy" to explain it. To date, neither of these modern myths has been detected.

Earlier this decade, Moshe Carmeli published his new physics, a five-dimensional model of spacetimevelocity, that incorporated the expansion of the universe into the fabric of the universe. Then, in 2007, John Hartnett published his extension that included a bounded universe assumption (bounded vs. unbounded is always an assumption, the latter consistently made by secularists). Hartnett and Carmeli have amply demonstrated there is no need for the mythological "dark matter" and "dark energy" any more than there was a need for Vulcan. Galaxies aren't winding themselves up because the fabric of spacetimevelocity is holding them in place. The universe is expanding because that's an inherent trait. No "dark" anything is necessary.

Nevertheless, astronomers and cosmologists refuse to accept Carmeli's and Hartnett's work, especially the latter, because their model is based upon galactocentrism (our galaxy, the Milky Way, is near the center of the universe). Nevertheless, Hartnett's treatment of Carmeli's 5D spacetimevelocity better fits observed phenomena than does the Big Bang. In fact, numerous problems with the Big Bang simply fall away, explained quite simply, in Hartnett's and Carmeli's Cosmological General Relativity. Still, secularists refuse to embrace the new physics, because it challenges their preferred assumptions (i.e., their religion). For example, they assume our galaxy is nothing special and so cannot be at the center, despite mounting evidence. If we're special, then special creation gains credence, yet their dogmatic, almost rabid attachment to Naturalism is all-pervasive, and so they cannot allow for special creation. Recent observations about the speed of galactic rotation have also assumed all kinds of wrong things about the mass of our galaxy, because they insist upon using outdated physical models.

I don't anticipate Naturalists will give up their doomed Big Bang model anytime soon. After all, 150 years later, and over 90 years after General Relativity eliminated the need for Vulcan, there are still a few fools looking for this nonexistent planet--and there is not even a religious worldview at stake! Their dedication to what can only be called a false faith might be admirable were it not totally stupid. Likewise, Big Bangers' dedication to their false faith will die a very hard death, and only begrudgingly so--perhaps some 100 years from now. In the meantime, real scientists, those admitting their prejudices and able to see the facts for themselves, will embrace Cosmological Relativity as the reigning, most accurate model to date.

Using Cosmological Relativity and assuming a bounded universe, Hartnett demonstrates how the entire universe can indeed be a mere 6,000 years old as measured by clocks on Earth. No trickery. The expansion of a bounded universe would produce marked time dilation effects, making clocks "out there" run much faster than clocks here on Earth and allowing for billions of years "out there" while only a short time passed here (less than a single day, in fact). When we look out into the stars beyond about 6,000 lightyears (just our little corner of our galaxy), we're actually seeing creation week itself. Remember, when you observe at such great distances, you're seeing things as they were 6,000 years ago, because that's how old the light is when we see it on Earth. We're directly observing Day Four of creation, when the heavens were stretched out by God Himself. According to Hartnett's theory, the universe stopped expanding on Day Four, else we'd see massive blueshifts. Since we see the universe still expanding, if we look far enough out, we're actually observing creation itself as it happened on Day Four! How awesome!