Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Big Bang Erroneous?

  1. #1 Big Bang Erroneous? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    WHY THE BIG BANG IS ERRONEOUS

    The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered. They (BB’ers) claim it is a chance alignment but I will cite three examples that absolutely confirm Arp's hypothesis

    The first and most important example is:
    NGC 7603. Refer to Sky & Telescope's April, 1983 issue on page 307.
    These S&T images are positive photos and are better views than Arps images that are negatives in his book .

    The next most important is AM 2054-2210.

    The third example is AM 0328-222. Notice in this last example that the smaller galaxy appears to have passed through the larger galaxy and taken a good portion of its stars with it.
    The first two examples which includes both the larger and smaller galaxies, are 100% conclusive as being at the same distance. The smaller galaxies (quasars) are revolving around the
    larger galaxies in a transverse motion to our line of sight.
    I consider the above evidence to be sufficient enough to refute the expansion of space since it is presented as the cause of the redshift.

    What then is the cause of the observed redshifts? It is the light waves themselves that are expanding. The clue? The radiating temperatures of the quasars that are much higher than and the companion galaxies indicate that the energy levels within the photon pulses are the cause of the light expansion!

    The next reason that is also very important is that we are portrayed as being in the center of
    the Universe and they say that we would be in the center regardless of where we would be in this Universe The reason for this is the equal expansion of the redshift in all directions from one point of view that would obviously make us appear to be in the center.
    They use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis. This is a false analogy. Three dimensional cubic space can not be compared to two dimensional space. You will notice that all three dimensional bodies have a single point source of gravity. This is the center of those three dimensional bodies. Since our current Universe is a three dimensional structure, the only possible center to this Universe can only be the point source of the initial expansion.
    However, the ‘expansion of the light waves (EoLW) would create the same illusion that the BB’ers use for the EoS, so this would eliminate the idea that the universe is expanding and can actually be a flat universe with no expansion or contraction. A Steady State Universe?

    The third reason which is also important is that the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter' are violated by the big bang concept that the Universe started from an undefined quantity of mass or energy that is inadequately defined. It would appear that the big bang started from zero time (nothing) or an infinitely dense point source of mass that has no physical dimension?

    The fourth reason is that the CMBR is the ‘clincher’ evidence for the proof of the BBU. It is shown that it is a ‘perfect’ BB radiation remnant with a redshift of 1000.
    The recombination of the particles is the zero point source of this redshift in the beginning.
    Firstly, it cannot be a perfect BBR because there would have to be some ‘plasma’ radiation mixed in with this matter radiation to negate a perfect BBR. The particles could not ‘suddenly‘ and completely transform from a plasma to a matter form of radiation.
    Secondly, the redshift of 1000 is ludicrous because if we divide the age of this universe that is 14 billion years old by 1000, we get a redshift of ‘one’ for every 14 ‘million’ years of age.
    If we take this age and use it as a distance indicator as ‘light years’ (LY) and apply iy to the Virgo Galaxy Cluster, we would get a redshift of 3+ by dividing 54 million LYs by 14 million.
    However, we know that the redshift of this cluster is a fractional redshift of .0035 (several galaxies) or .004 (M87), the central giant elliptical in this cluster.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Here we go again.


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    It must be amazing to be smarter than the collective scientific community both past and present. It also must be amazing to be SO much smarter that you can disprove the Big Bang without any math whatsoever. You should sell yourself to the government or something.
    Don't you seriously realize that...chances overwhelmingly are...you are perhaps a bit deluded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike PMS
    ...Refer to Sky & Telescope's April, 1983 issue on page 307.
    Gorby, every time you reference some literature, it is quite old (at least in the sense of the progression of science...). Do you have a recent subscription of Sky and Telescope?

    I think you are redshifted....

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    7
    Excerpts are from the Urantia Book...


    11:2.7 It appears to us that the First Source and Center has concentrated all absolute potential for cosmic reality in Paradise as a part of his technique of self-liberation from infinity limitations, as a means of making possible subinfinite, even time-space, creation. But it does not follow that Paradise is time-space limited just because the universe of universes discloses these qualities. Paradise exists without time and has no location in space.

    11:2.8 Roughly: space seemingly originates just below nether Paradise; time just above upper Paradise. Time, as you understand it, is not a feature of Paradise existence, though the citizens of the central Isle are fully conscious of nontime sequence of events. Motion is not inherent on Paradise; it is volitional. But the concept of distance, even absolute distance, has very much meaning as it may be applied to relative locations on Paradise. Paradise is nonspatial; hence its areas are absolute and therefore serviceable in many ways beyond the concept of mortal mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    wtf is the Urantia book ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    It must be amazing to be smarter than the collective scientific community both past and present. It also must be amazing to be SO much smarter that you can disprove the Big Bang without any math whatsoever. You should sell yourself to the government or something.
    Don't you seriously realize that...chances overwhelmingly are...you are perhaps a bit deluded?
    He might be deluded, but it's not like the scientific community is so smart it's never been wrong about anything. The BB is such an obtuse explanation for the observed phenomena, I'm flabergasted at the thought that any scientist assigns more than passing credibility to it.

    Sure, it explains the observations. So what? Believing in God explained what ancient mankind was seeing too. Just because something explains what you want explained is no reason to blindly follow it.

    There are a number of things that could explain a redshift that constantly increases with distance. The smart thing would be to hedge our bet by entertaining a number of them simultaneously in the hopes that we will find solid evidence to support at least one of them, instead of putting all eggs in one basket and spending all the research money on something that isn't even 50% likely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Sure, it explains the observations. So what?
    It does more than explain the observations. It PREDICTED the background radiation and its properties, remember?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Kojax

    Thanks, you are right.

    Neutrino

    Do you accept what I wrote above about the CMBR?
    How do you explain this discrepancy?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    X=
    X= is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Kojax

    Thanks, you are right.

    Neutrino

    Do you accept what I wrote above about the CMBR?
    How do you explain this discrepancy?

    NS
    Well the thing about refuting long standing theories that are widly agreed upon is that its up to YOU to explain and create a theory of why this particular observation would discredit a given theory, and come up with an alternative theory that would make some other predictions that are either capable of being tested through experiment and/or observation . . .

    So whats your theory?

    Having read Steven Weinberg's "The first three minutes" this text gives MANY oservations and experiments that have validated Cosmic inflation . . . so please make sure to have an equally well laid out set of observations and/ or experiments to make the case that cosmic inflation is somehow erroneous . . . Please do im interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    That is true. It's not really polite to try and shoot down an idea without offering another one, or a few other ones.

    I'm not extremely impressed with the CMBR prediction. It's impressive that it was made before CMBR had been observed, but all it seems to have predicted is that the CMBR would be evenly distributed (or nearly), and have blackbody radiation level wavelenths. Impressive predictions, but .... not worth banking the whole direction of science upon.

    Talking about the BB with many scientists is like discussing religion with a thiest. All the evidence is subjective, and they're only very interested in the interpretations that favour it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by X=
    Well the thing about refuting long standing theories that are widly agreed upon is that its up to YOU to explain and create a theory of why this particular observation would discredit a given theory, and come up with an alternative theory that would make some other predictions that are either capable of being tested through experiment and/or observation . . .

    So whats your theory?

    Having read Steven Weinberg's "The first three minutes" this text gives MANY oservations and experiments that have validated Cosmic inflation . . . so please make sure to have an equally well laid out set of observations and/ or experiments to make the case that cosmic inflation is somehow erroneous . . . Please do im interested.
    I already gave an alternative reason for refuting the origin of the CMBR.
    Apparently you did not read it on some other articles I wrote.

    So, I said that the CMBR is a 'Thermolized Equilibrium Temperature' that complies with the Second Law of Thermodynamics that states that
    'in a closed system, heat will flow from hot to cold until a uniform temperature is reached'.

    I cannot think of a more uniform temperature than what the 'background radiation' is with a variation of only 7/100,000's degrees Kelvin.

    I also cited the fact that an Australian astronomer detected an interstellar space particle that had a temperature of 2.3 Kelvin.
    This was in 1940 an did not get much notice from other scientists at that time.

    This information was available to the Gamow et al scientists but may have been inadvertantly overlooked.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •