Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post Reply
User avatar
CVX
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:00 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by CVX »

By David Talbott

Thunderbolts.info

12-28-4



You'd never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can't be fixed.



A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century's most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.



The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation-including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!



In the rise and fall of the Big Bang hypothesis no name looms with greater distinction than that of Halton Arp, the leading authority on peculiar galaxies. Over decades, Arp amassed meticulous observations challenging the standard use of redshift to prove an expanding universe. But astronomers ignored or dismissed Arp's work, insisting that his conclusions were either erroneous or impossible. Arp lost his teaching position. Then he lost his telescope time and had to move to Germany to carry on his work at the Max Planck Institute.



For established science the greatest embarrassment could come from public realization that, for decades, astronomers suppressed the warning signs. The critical challenge was raised years ago, as early as the 1960's, when Arp began publishing his findings. To his credit, Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan acknowledged the problem when he was writing Cosmos (published in 1980). But in the following years the politically influential looked the other way, and the word quietly went out to science editors at major newspaper and news magazines that Arp had been fully answered and no more time was needed on the question.



Here is an interesting historical fact. For many years it has been known that the map of the universe acquires a bizarre appearance when you let redshift determine distances. Suddenly galactic clusters stretch out in radial lines absurdly pointing at the earth. The effect is called "the fingers of God," and the earth-directed "fingers" span billions of light-years.



While big bang theorists have cobbled together "explanations" for small-scale examples of the effect, the picture as a whole can only be illusory. The galaxies are not, in fact, stretched out on radial lines from the earth in the way suggested by the "map", but the invalid Doppler interpretation of redshift does create that ludicrous picture. Rationalizations of this effect have been a disservice to science. Theorists should have stopped to notice the obvious.



The failure of the Big Bang hypothesis could be the tipping point in the collapse of modern cosmology, with reverberations affecting all of the theoretical sciences. No domain of scientific inquiry stands in isolation. It is now known that intense electric discharge (such as coronal mass ejections from the Sun) can generate a redshift having no connection to relative velocities. But cosmologists developed their ideas about redshift and the Big Bang under the assumption of an electrically inert universe. Their theoretical starting point invariably shaped their thinking about the birth of galaxies. And these ideas, in turn, conditioned scientific reasoning as to how a galaxy's constituent stars came into existence. Concepts of star formation further constrained scientific reasoning about planetary origins and the evolution of life. From the core of intertwined assumptions, the chains of logic reached out to inspire-but also to shackle-human exploration.



In this environment, cosmologists and astronomers were free to present the expanding universe and the orthodox age and size of the universe as facts. Alongside these "facts" have come a host of mathematical fictions: from dark matter and dark energy to the ever popular "black hole". Though much of today's exercises in esoteric mathematics came after publication of Sagan's Cosmos, America's favorite astronomer in the 1980's had registered a timely warning: "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of the distant quasars--supernova chain reactions, super-massive black holes and the like--would be unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant".



Over the past quarter century the pure mathematicians, with little or no interest in experimental science and only a passing regard for direct observation, have indulged in a carnival of speculation. But it is mind altering to realize that almost nothing revealed by our more powerful telescopes was anticipated by these theorists. We now observe a superabundance of fine filaments across vast reaches of space. In the electrically neutral cosmos claimed by gravity-based cosmology, these filaments find no credible cause. But in plasma experiments with electric discharge, they are predictable.



Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma physics, showed that cosmologists are mistaken when they imagine that magnetic fields can be "frozen in" to a plasma. Electric currents are required to sustain cosmic magnetic fields. And now, everywhere we look we see magnetic fields at work: electricity is flowing across immense distances in space. At both the stellar and galactic scales, these currents interact with the magnetic fields they induce to create complex structure-strings of galaxies, galactic and stellar jets, and beautiful bipolar stellar nebulas-all with features never envisioned by gravitational theorists, yet corresponding in stunning detail to plasma discharge formations in the laboratory.



Will the year 2005 see a new beginning for cosmology? When you consider the sheer momentum of earlier theory, together with the potential costs in terms of reputations, public funding, and threatened jobs, it would be foolish to expect the "tipping point" to mean a wholesale abandonment of the Big Bang in one year. Discredited theories rarely meet either an instantaneous or a quiet death. But we can confidently predict a year of rapidly growing controversy, on an issue whose final outcome is indeed certain.
Lionrampant
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:54 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Lionrampant »

the acceptance of Big Bang has been in decline.


I think you people are running ahead of yourselves. Scientific facts point to a "Big bang", this cannot be disputed as we can still observe the effects of the big bang. We still today hear it's echo andsee it's echo in badly tuned TV sets. As to the cause of the Big Bang, this is what can and is disputed. the big bang itself cannot be claimed to have not happened..........
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by anastrophe »

Lionrampant wrote: I think you people are running ahead of yourselves. Scientific facts point to a "Big bang", this cannot be disputed
the scientific, empirical method makes no demand that any given hypothesis "cannot be disputed". The Big Bang theory is, and always has been,a theory, not an established scientific fact.







as we can still observe the effects of the big bang. We still today hear it's echo andsee it's echo in badly tuned TV sets. As to the cause of the Big Bang, this is what can and is disputed. the big bang itself cannot be claimed to have not happened..........
it most certainly can be claimed not to have happened. such a claim shares equal validity with the claim that it did happen, which likewise has not been proven.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Lionrampant
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:54 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Lionrampant »

the scientific, empirical method makes no demand that any given hypothesis "cannot be disputed". The Big Bang theory is, and always has been,a theory, not an established scientific fact.


I think your post is BS. If I drop a stone it will fall to the ground, it's not magic or God that will allow the stone to fall. It is the general theory of relativity that allows me to understand why the stone falls, tested and predictable in a complete understanding. When I talk about a "big bang", I literally mean "a loud explosion in space". As much as I know the stone falls to the ground so I know the Big Bang occured despite many saying it never prior to it's discovery which leads me to the final point.

How can one discover something that does not exist? Your point is non-sensicle and equal to stating that gravity does not exist as it is only a theory.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Mike CT comment

A good article Dave T.

To Lion

The BB does not have any real evidence for its support.

It is based on the Doppler redshift observations that had to be transformed into a space expansion redshift.

This was done to remove the implied central location from our point of view.

So with the SERS, the idea is that every point in the universe would present the same view. In other words, the BB has no center.

The Michelson-Morley experiment refutes the SERS idea because it proved that there is no ether in space to transmit the light waves and therefore, cause their expansion.

The other major piece of evidence used to support the BB is the CMBR. I refute this because this supposed remnant from the BB cannot be a perfect 'black body radiation'.

This radiation was supposed to have been left over from the formation of matter from the plasma phase.

If this was true, then it could not be a perfect BBR because there would have been some plasma radiation mixed in with the matter radiation.

The CMBR , to me, is a thermal equalibrium temperature of all the space radiations and particle radiations occupying space in a SSU.

The temperature differential is only 7/100,000 of a Kelvin. This obviously is a very equalized temperature that could not happen in an expanding space.
Lionrampant
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:54 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Lionrampant »

The Big Bang (BB) is a literal large explosion in space.



What banged, how it banged and why it banged is still an open question!

Einstien himself predicted a large explosion existed since such energy to release such mass as with what we see in our visible universe? Are you trying to say this prediction was wrong and the world has not heard the echo of the big bang even today!
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Galbally »

[QUOTE=CVX]By David Talbott

Thunderbolts.info

12-28-4



You'd never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can't be fixed.



A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century's most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.



For established science the greatest embarrassment could come from public realization that, for decades, astronomers suppressed the warning signs. The critical challenge was raised years ago, as early as the 1960's, when Arp began publishing his findings. To his credit, Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan acknowledged the problem when he was writing Cosmos (published in 1980). But in the following years the politically influential looked the other way, and the word quietly went out to science editors at major newspaper and news magazines that Arp had been fully answered and no more time was needed on the question.



Reply

I have to admit that I am unaware of Arp or his work, I would appreciate some links where I could look into it, but I certainly have heard nothing that has seriously contradicted the idea of the BB event for the past 4 decades. Speaking as a scienist I have to ask if it is untrue, why would it be attempted to cover it up? Such a revelation would be greeted with skepticism in the scientific community but it would certainly inspire curiosity. Don't forget that the BB itself was not thought possible until the close matching of theory and experiment impled that this was not the case. Science is not in the business of "covering up" universal truths but finding them.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
Alfred
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:32 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Alfred »

Mike CT wrote:

The Michelson-Morley experiment refutes the SERS idea because it proved that there is no ether in space to transmit the light waves and therefore, cause their expansion.


no there is not ether but as the object moves away the frequency of the light hitting our detection instruments decreases. this decrease causes a shifting of colour to the red end of the spectrum hence the term Redshift. this is what we use to tell that an object is moving away.

one point for me which makes the Big Bang valid is thermodynamics.

nature functioning more simply under extreme energy conditions, low Entropy, and moving to a complx state of higher entropy while retaining all the energy content makes sense.
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Alfred quote

no there is not ether but as the object moves away the frequency of the light hitting our detection instruments decreases. this decrease causes a shifting of colour to the red end of the spectrum hence the term Redshift. this is what we use to tell that an object is moving away.

reply

You are interpreting the Cosmological Redshift as a Doppler redshift.

Why do you think the BB'ers transformed the CR to a 'space expansion redshift' as the cause?

Because they knew that it portrays us to be in the center of the universe.

This is a virtual 'impossibility'. That is why it was changed.

This change then portrays the BB as having 'no center'.

However, this change is invalid because it violates the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Mike CT
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Galbally quote

I have to admit that I am unaware of Arp or his work, I would appreciate some links where I could look into it, but I certainly have heard nothing that has seriously contradicted the idea of the BB event for the past 4 decades. Speaking as a scienist I have to ask if it is untrue, why would it be attempted to cover it up? Such a revelation would be greeted with skepticism in the scientific community but it would certainly inspire curiosity. Don't forget that the BB itself was not thought possible until the close matching of theory and experiment impled that this was not the case. Science is not in the business of "covering up" universal truths but finding them.

reply

Halton Arp is a great scientific observer.

He has discovered a discordant redshift that refutes the credibility of the BB and its cause of the redshift.

Because of his research, he was banned from using the Hale 200 inch telescope at Palomar Observatories. As a result he had to go to Germany where he now works at the Max Planck Institute.

His observations are true but I disagree with his version of the quasar origins.

Two excellent examples that support his 'discordant redshifts' are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210.

Use your 'search engine' to get data on the galaxies given above and on his work.

He has a website in Germany that you can access with your SE.

Mike CT
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Galbally »

You are interpreting the Cosmological Redshift as a Doppler redshift.

Why do you think the BB'ers transformed the CR to a 'space expansion redshift' as the cause?

Because they knew that it portrays us to be in the center of the universe.

This is a virtual 'impossibility'. That is why it was changed.

This change then portrays the BB as having 'no center'.

However, this change is invalid because it violates the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Hi mike, I noticed you havn't answered any of my questions on cosmology and I was wondering what your motivation is for making these statements. Do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Universe? Is this a religious thing? Personally I don't believe that, not because it might not be right but that the evidence, in fact all the evidence to date, suggests otherwise. As to your points above about the BB, the event did not occur at any point in the current universe, it was the universe, in a sense we are "inside" the envelope of the BB, that is why everything seems to be moving away from us because space itself is expanding. Also and more importantly, how does a dopper effect acting upon observers of EM radiation contradict the MM experiment?, I can see no reason why it would. It is a also a bit disingenuous to cite the MM results, while discrediting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, you can't have it both ways.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Galbally quote

I have to admit that I am unaware of Arp or his work, I would appreciate some links where I could look into it, but I certainly have heard nothing that has seriously contradicted the idea of the BB event for the past 4 decades. Speaking as a scienist I have to ask if it is untrue, why would it be attempted to cover it up? Such a revelation would be greeted with skepticism in the scientific community but it would certainly inspire curiosity. Don't forget that the BB itself was not thought possible until the close matching of theory and experiment impled that this was not the case. Science is not in the business of "covering up" universal truths but finding them.

reply

Halton Arp is a great scientific observer.

He has discovered a discordant redshift that refutes the credibility of the BB and its cause of the redshift.

Because of his research, he was banned from using the Hale 200 inch telescope at Palomar Observatories. As a result he had to go to Germany where he now works at the Max Planck Institute.

His observations are true but I disagree with his version of the quasar origins.

Two excellent examples that support his 'discordant redshifts' are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210.

Use your 'search engine' to get data on the galaxies given above and on his work.

He has a website in Germany that you can access with your SE.

Mike CT
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Galbally quote

Hi mike, I noticed you havn't answered any of my questions on cosmology and I was wondering what your motivation is for making these statements. Do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Universe? Is this a religious thing? Personally I don't believe that, not because it might not be right but that the evidence, in fact all the evidence to date, suggests otherwise. As to your points above about the BB, the event did not occur at any point in the current universe, it was the universe, in a sense we are "inside" the envelope of the BB, that is why everything seems to be moving away from us because space itself is expanding. Also and more importantly, how does a dopper effect acting upon observers of EM radiation contradict the MM experiment?, I can see no reason why it would. It is a also a bit disingenuous to cite the MM results, while discrediting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, you can't have it both ways.

Hi Galbally

I am glad to have someone else interested in this cosmology version of my SSU.

For your information, I am a self educated amateur astronomer and cosmologist.

I have studied these subjects for nore than 20 years and am thoroughly aware of the current concept of the BB, its enclosed space, its uniform expansion and etc.

Geocentricism was a vatican concept that was refuted in the 16 century. The BB got its start with the Lematrae idea of an expanding universe. He is a catholic priest so you again have a religious taint even though he was educated in the US

and has a PhD.

IMHO, the BB violates two very important experiments that are amonst the most important in physics.

The first is the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy and the M-M experiment that proved there is 'no ether' to carry the light waves in space.

So space cannot be expanding the LW's.

Since the BB started out with zero space and time, that violates the CL's. The expansion of space as a carrier of the light waves to expand them is refuted by the M-M experiment. That causes me to refute the BB entirely.

GR deals with the 'curvature of space' as effecting the motion of the objects in their orbits. This curvature contradicts the 'flat space' concept, so I cannot accept the GR.

I do not refute the QM's that originated with the Planck quanta theory. But off shoots of this theory are not entirely realistic.

I still believe in the Bohr model of the HA.

If you want specific answers to questions, I will answer them.

Have a nice day.

Mike CT
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Jives »

Here is the latest from the National Geographic, they still refer to the Big Bang as though it is a given, but alude to some new information on the creation of Galaxies.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm ... raphic.com
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Alfred
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:32 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Alfred »

Mike CT wrote:

IMHO, the BB violates two very important experiments that are amonst the most important in physics.

The first is the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy and the M-M experiment that proved there is 'no ether' to carry the light waves in space.

So space cannot be expanding the LW's.

Since the BB started out with zero space and time, that violates the CL's. The expansion of space as a carrier of the light waves to expand them is refuted by the M-M experiment. That causes me to refute the BB entirely.

GR deals with the 'curvature of space' as effecting the motion of the objects in their orbits. This curvature contradicts the 'flat space' concept, so I cannot accept the GR.

I do not refute the QM's that originated with the Planck quanta theory. But off shoots of this theory are not entirely realistic.

I still believe in the Bohr model of the HA.

If you want specific answers to questions, I will answer them.

Have a nice day.

Mike CT


what if the BB did not violate conservation?

we assume that because spacetime did not exist that the matter and energy within did not exist, but what if it did.

the BB theory is ultimately a theory of what happened after the BB and how the universe came to be.

Where was it ever said by a BB cosmologist that light needs ether to carry it?

light is transmitted in a wave through the vacuum, not ether.
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Galbally »

Hi mike let me say that I am intersted in your views and do not discout anything you say out of hand, dissenting voices are vital in scientific enquiry, no matter how eccentric they seem. I am not a cosmologist, I am a chemist, though my true interest lies in physics (unfortunatly my mathematics is not really up to the job. As you yourself know nothing is sacred in science and there are definatly problems with the standard model, but I find the evidence for the BB model to be compelling (that does not mean that it is true of course, just unlikely that it isn't). I will have a read of some of your other posts and ask you some specific questions when I have more time to think.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
Mike CT
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:21 am

Prediction - Big Bang A Big Loser in 2005

Post by Mike CT »

Galbally quote

i mike let me say that I am intersted in your views and do not discout anything you say out of hand, dissenting voices are vital in scientific enquiry, no matter how eccentric they seem. I am not a cosmologist, I am a chemist, though my true interest lies in physics (unfortunatly my mathematics is not really up to the job. As you yourself know nothing is sacred in science and there are definatly problems with the standard model, but I find the evidence for the BB model to be compelling (that does not mean that it is true of course, just unlikely that it isn't). I will have a read of some of your other posts and ask you some specific questions when I have more time to think.

reply

I welcome criticism. It helps me to remove any doubts about what I say.

I do not rely on mathematics too much either.

My own standards first rely on experimental research and the Law of Probaoility.

Then I use 'visualization' to get a picture of what the data tells me.

For instance, the planetary model of the Bohr HA is valid to me but displaced by the Schroedinger orbitals. For more complex elements, it may be credible but it does not replace the Bohr model in my opinion.

From it I have been able to see how the Planck photon is created.

It also explains to me why the HA does not collapse in spite of the failure of Newtonian mathematics that the establishment scientists clain it would collapse.

My visualization explained to me why it does not collapse. I do not need QM to save it as the current theory says.

Mike CT
Post Reply

Return to “Space and Astronomy”