By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
-- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
"The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
--Amy Acheson, amateur astronomer
The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the transient perception of truth.
For members of the general public with no training in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
It's amazing how simple the flaw is in the Big Bang theory. It all boils down to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the Doppler interpretation of redshift. Light frequencies from remote objects in space, when shifted toward the red, are claimed to signify the velocity of the object away from the observer -- and no other explanation is admitted.
The Doppler effect is not complicated. Everyone is familiar with the sudden drop in pitch of a train's whistle as it approaches and then moves past us. The same principle is used in a police radar gun, to measure the speed of an automobile. Once astronomers noted the varying degrees of redshift in remote space objects, most began to interpret this shift as a reliable indicator of velocity. This gave them a mathematical basis for calculating both the size and age of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang.
It is interesting to observe how a theory grows into "fact" over time, evidence be damned. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was published almost a quarter-century ago. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the issue of redshift Sagan wrote: "There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."
Sagan's acknowledgment here shows a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public. It's also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been settled.
Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars -- supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like -- would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."
At the time of Sagan's Cosmos, the Doppler interpretation of redshift was debatable. Since that time, discoveries in space have definitively refuted this interpretation, despite the absence of any public announcements to this effect.
The positions of remote galaxies have now been plotted, based on the common interpretation of redshift, and the result exposes the lie. When each galaxy is reduced to a dot on a "map," something "miraculous" occurs.
(This "map" may be viewed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/
tpod-archive-04/tpod-fingers-of-god.htm)
The "map" appears to present the "fingers of God" pointing to Earth, as if we are are the center of the universe. How could this be? No one on either side of the debate considers the earth to be the center of the universe, and everyone seems to agree that no matter where an observer is placed, the same effect will be produced. It is an ILLUSION, and the most obvious explanation is that using redshift to measure distance will artificially stretch groups of galaxies along radial lines away from the observer. In other words, large clusters of galaxies in relative proximity to each other have been artificially projected outward along radial lines spanning billions of light years. To eliminate the illusion, you only need to eliminate the Doppler interpretation.
But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed, Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do not stand billions of light years away from each other.
Under the weight of this direct evidence -- or should I say proof -- the Big Bang hypothesis as a whole collapses. Yet instead of giving up a failed theory, astronomers have turned to a "get out of jail free" card -- inventing invisible matter, with the option to place it wherever it will be mathematically useful to make their models work. This is the myth of "dark matter," which in recent years has enabled astronomers to hold on to a picture of the universe defied by observation at every turn. Since it is both invisible and undetectable, there is no limit to the usefulness of dark matter, wherever the predictions of their theories have failed. In fact, this device can be applied to all anomalous movements within the macrocosm, with no possibility of refutation. Dark matter is outside the reach of any practical scientific tests, and we are only asked to believe in it because of the failures of standard models.
We are all familiar with the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Another question might be, "If a fact is disproved, and no one admits it, is it still a fact?"
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman once said, "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea." But most scientists are not guilty of stupidity. Rather, they are guilty of ASSUMPTIONS. Theories were accepted as "facts" before all the evidence was in, and as a result, evidence contradicting the facts was either misinterpreted or ignored. It is time for assumptions to be set aside, so the truth might finally prevail.
The Fingers Of God Point To No Big Bang
-
illuminati
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:00 pm
The Fingers Of God Point To No Big Bang
"But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed, Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do not stand billions of light years away from each other. "
This sounds logical to me.
CVX wrote: By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
-- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
"The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
--Amy Acheson, amateur astronomer
The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the transient perception of truth.
For members of the general public with no training in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
It's amazing how simple the flaw is in the Big Bang theory. It all boils down to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the Doppler interpretation of redshift. Light frequencies from remote objects in space, when shifted toward the red, are claimed to signify the velocity of the object away from the observer -- and no other explanation is admitted.
The Doppler effect is not complicated. Everyone is familiar with the sudden drop in pitch of a train's whistle as it approaches and then moves past us. The same principle is used in a police radar gun, to measure the speed of an automobile. Once astronomers noted the varying degrees of redshift in remote space objects, most began to interpret this shift as a reliable indicator of velocity. This gave them a mathematical basis for calculating both the size and age of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang.
It is interesting to observe how a theory grows into "fact" over time, evidence be damned. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was published almost a quarter-century ago. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the issue of redshift Sagan wrote: "There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."
Sagan's acknowledgment here shows a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public. It's also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been settled.
Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars -- supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like -- would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."
At the time of Sagan's Cosmos, the Doppler interpretation of redshift was debatable. Since that time, discoveries in space have definitively refuted this interpretation, despite the absence of any public announcements to this effect.
The positions of remote galaxies have now been plotted, based on the common interpretation of redshift, and the result exposes the lie. When each galaxy is reduced to a dot on a "map," something "miraculous" occurs.
(This "map" may be viewed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/
tpod-archive-04/tpod-fingers-of-god.htm)
The "map" appears to present the "fingers of God" pointing to Earth, as if we are are the center of the universe. How could this be? No one on either side of the debate considers the earth to be the center of the universe, and everyone seems to agree that no matter where an observer is placed, the same effect will be produced. It is an ILLUSION, and the most obvious explanation is that using redshift to measure distance will artificially stretch groups of galaxies along radial lines away from the observer. In other words, large clusters of galaxies in relative proximity to each other have been artificially projected outward along radial lines spanning billions of light years. To eliminate the illusion, you only need to eliminate the Doppler interpretation.
But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed, Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do not stand billions of light years away from each other.
Under the weight of this direct evidence -- or should I say proof -- the Big Bang hypothesis as a whole collapses. Yet instead of giving up a failed theory, astronomers have turned to a "get out of jail free" card -- inventing invisible matter, with the option to place it wherever it will be mathematically useful to make their models work. This is the myth of "dark matter," which in recent years has enabled astronomers to hold on to a picture of the universe defied by observation at every turn. Since it is both invisible and undetectable, there is no limit to the usefulness of dark matter, wherever the predictions of their theories have failed. In fact, this device can be applied to all anomalous movements within the macrocosm, with no possibility of refutation. Dark matter is outside the reach of any practical scientific tests, and we are only asked to believe in it because of the failures of standard models.
We are all familiar with the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Another question might be, "If a fact is disproved, and no one admits it, is it still a fact?"
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman once said, "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea." But most scientists are not guilty of stupidity. Rather, they are guilty of ASSUMPTIONS. Theories were accepted as "facts" before all the evidence was in, and as a result, evidence contradicting the facts was either misinterpreted or ignored. It is time for assumptions to be set aside, so the truth might finally prevail.
This sounds logical to me.
CVX wrote: By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
-- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
"The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
--Amy Acheson, amateur astronomer
The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the transient perception of truth.
For members of the general public with no training in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
It's amazing how simple the flaw is in the Big Bang theory. It all boils down to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the Doppler interpretation of redshift. Light frequencies from remote objects in space, when shifted toward the red, are claimed to signify the velocity of the object away from the observer -- and no other explanation is admitted.
The Doppler effect is not complicated. Everyone is familiar with the sudden drop in pitch of a train's whistle as it approaches and then moves past us. The same principle is used in a police radar gun, to measure the speed of an automobile. Once astronomers noted the varying degrees of redshift in remote space objects, most began to interpret this shift as a reliable indicator of velocity. This gave them a mathematical basis for calculating both the size and age of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang.
It is interesting to observe how a theory grows into "fact" over time, evidence be damned. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was published almost a quarter-century ago. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the issue of redshift Sagan wrote: "There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."
Sagan's acknowledgment here shows a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public. It's also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been settled.
Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars -- supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like -- would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."
At the time of Sagan's Cosmos, the Doppler interpretation of redshift was debatable. Since that time, discoveries in space have definitively refuted this interpretation, despite the absence of any public announcements to this effect.
The positions of remote galaxies have now been plotted, based on the common interpretation of redshift, and the result exposes the lie. When each galaxy is reduced to a dot on a "map," something "miraculous" occurs.
(This "map" may be viewed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/
tpod-archive-04/tpod-fingers-of-god.htm)
The "map" appears to present the "fingers of God" pointing to Earth, as if we are are the center of the universe. How could this be? No one on either side of the debate considers the earth to be the center of the universe, and everyone seems to agree that no matter where an observer is placed, the same effect will be produced. It is an ILLUSION, and the most obvious explanation is that using redshift to measure distance will artificially stretch groups of galaxies along radial lines away from the observer. In other words, large clusters of galaxies in relative proximity to each other have been artificially projected outward along radial lines spanning billions of light years. To eliminate the illusion, you only need to eliminate the Doppler interpretation.
But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed, Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do not stand billions of light years away from each other.
Under the weight of this direct evidence -- or should I say proof -- the Big Bang hypothesis as a whole collapses. Yet instead of giving up a failed theory, astronomers have turned to a "get out of jail free" card -- inventing invisible matter, with the option to place it wherever it will be mathematically useful to make their models work. This is the myth of "dark matter," which in recent years has enabled astronomers to hold on to a picture of the universe defied by observation at every turn. Since it is both invisible and undetectable, there is no limit to the usefulness of dark matter, wherever the predictions of their theories have failed. In fact, this device can be applied to all anomalous movements within the macrocosm, with no possibility of refutation. Dark matter is outside the reach of any practical scientific tests, and we are only asked to believe in it because of the failures of standard models.
We are all familiar with the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Another question might be, "If a fact is disproved, and no one admits it, is it still a fact?"
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman once said, "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea." But most scientists are not guilty of stupidity. Rather, they are guilty of ASSUMPTIONS. Theories were accepted as "facts" before all the evidence was in, and as a result, evidence contradicting the facts was either misinterpreted or ignored. It is time for assumptions to be set aside, so the truth might finally prevail.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
The Fingers Of God Point To No Big Bang
CVX wrote: ..........."In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
..............."The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
...................
Thanks for a very informative post.
There was no time when there was nothing. There was also no bang, big or small. The universe has no beginning and no end. What we see keeps changing with time. We also change. But unverse remains.
..............."The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
...................
Thanks for a very informative post.
There was no time when there was nothing. There was also no bang, big or small. The universe has no beginning and no end. What we see keeps changing with time. We also change. But unverse remains.