Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: New Cosmological Model

  1. #1 New Cosmological Model 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13
    In www.rescalingsymmetry.com , a cosmological model is described. It's based on a very simple symmetry principle and gives a good match to both supernovae and WMAP5 data.

    John Hunter.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Welcome to the site!
    Of course if everything in the universe is magically increasing, then everything matches WMAP and supernovae. And what causes this to happen. The easter bunny?
    Your 'rescaling force' would have to overcome gravity on the big side of the scale and the strong force on the nuclear side. The strong force is more than a hundred thousand times stronger than gravity, so the atoms would get a little bigger and the universe would blow apart instantly.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13
    Dear Arch2008,

    In this model every physical quantitiy 'rescales' according to the number of length dimensions in it. The nuclear force has metres^1 so F=F(0)exp(1Ht), Plancks constant has metres^2, so h=h(0)exp(2Ht) etc...

    This rescaling of the nuclear force, Plancks constant etc.. allows the rescaling of the size of atoms. In this model it isn't a 'rescaling force' which causes rescaling, just a rescaling.

    Its a kind of symmetry principle, the change in the size of atoms can't be measured because all lengths rescale, including the speed of light.

    It causes measurable effects however, the redshift is caused by the energy of the photon being constant as it travels from a distant star to us. As Plancks constant h varies during transit, from E=hf the frequency changes.

    You said the model matches WMAP5, in fact the match is omega(matter) = 0.25 (predicted) against the WMAP5 measurement of 0.249

    http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...5yr_params.pdf


    on page 16

    John Hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Thanks John. I also said, "And what causes this to happen." A force that acts on everything in the universe constantly but hasn't been detected (like say gravity), is hard to explain. It won't be a successful cosmological model if you can't describe what causes the rescaling. Cosmology is a science. A "free lunch" constant rescaling of the universe model that does not address the force that causes this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. This is of course, The Science Forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13
    Dear Arch2008,

    Sorry for the delay,

    There is no 'explanation' for the rescaling in this model, that's true.

    However in standard cosmology there is no explanation of gravity.
    Gravity is accurately described by General Relativity, but still not explained any more than by Newton.

    In the rescaling model gravity is explained like this...

    Gravity is the result of conservation of energy in a universe with rescaling symmetry. Let us consider the total energy due to a mass (m) in the universe.
    It is mc^2 - GMm/R, where the second term is a shorthand to represent the sum of all the potential energies due to the mass, in a universe of mass M radius R (the Hubble radius)

    At a later time, in a rescaling universe, the total energy is ( mc^2 - GMm/R)exp(2Ht) , as energy has metres^2 for its length dimension.

    For energy to be conserved mc^2 - GMm/R = 0 ....so gravity, and the value of G, is the result of conservation of energy in a rescaling universe, and there is a natural solution of the flatness problem. G=Rc^2/M

    John Hunter.

    P.S It is a scientific theory as there are various predictions e.g. the value of omega(matter) = 1, (from General Relavity in the link on the original post) but will be measured to be 0.25, as measured by WMAP5.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Hi John! Gravity is the explanation of how mass bends space-time. If I said that gravity held atoms together, this could be disproved because we know that the Strong Force causes this. You propose a mysterious, imperceptible rescaling effect on everything in the universe without an explanation of what causes it. You ‘predict’ that this unknown cause gives the correct value for omega as observed by WMAP5. However, this rescaling gives the correct value for E=mc^2, or Newton’s laws of motion, because the rescaling is miraculously perfect in its effect on everything. You can attribute any effect to this, because you don’t even have a cause. This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13
    Dear Arch 2008,

    Cosmology needs a new philosophical foundation, it's in a mess.


    John Hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter
    Dear Arch 2008,

    Cosmology needs a new philosophical foundation, it's in a mess.


    John Hunter.
    Well, I've got a good start on one that goes a long way towards mitigating the tendency for us to over emphasize the significance of what we know, at the expense of realizing the scope of what we have yet to learn.

    We base a great deal of the Big Bang on the cosmological principle. And it is indeed an excellent model by which to hash out the local nature of the universe. But it is a poor philosophy for what lies beyond our current view because it is based on limited data. The cosmological principle fails in pursuit of an complete description of a universe that will always have more in store for us than our current descriptions can ever convey. To attempt to contrive a complete and sufficient view of the universe, rather than presuming our models to be local characterizations, is ill-advised in my view.

    Across 40 orders of spatial magnitude the material universe has proven to be uniformly hierarchical, yet in all our cosmologies we humans like to terminate that hierarchy at the limits of our data (flat earth, crystal sphere, island universe, steady state, etc). Currently we choose to presume the the mere 2 orders of magnitude of homogeneous galactic clustering we see at the limits of our view are sufficient to completely characterize a potentially infinite universe. We do this even though we can easily find in excess of 14 orders of magnitude of homogeneity (water molecule in 10 cubic km of ocean) nested within the 40 orders of hierarchy we have already fully examined. To invest all our efforts in a model based on such a selective application of the data is poor science in my estimate.

    The Big Bang is an idealized model of how the universe could work if the material hierarchy did somehow stop at the limits of our ability to examine it. Like the 19th century "Island Universe" model of the Milky Way, the Big Bang is a beautiful, comprehensive, ostensibly accurate model of how the universe would behave if the hierarchy did stop. But like every cosmology we ever devised, the limits we habitually place on the hierarchy have always proven to be false and the hierarchy has always persisted beyond them.

    The advantage to presuming an ongoing hierarchy is to better address the anomalous data in the current model. Influences from a greater context often show up as anomalous data in the current model (Al Sufi's nebula, Hubble's red shift). It is just as likely that the questions of dark matter, dark energy and curvature of the universe are related to the material and energetic effects of the surrounding hierarchical context rather than strictly local variable adjustments in the current model.

    Sure the Big Bang will be BIG, but it won't be "everything." There will always be more to the hierarchy than we can see from here, just as has always been the case. That's what the material and historical data both consistently indicate. If the cosmological principle is good science, then the hierarchical principle is better science.

    -Mike
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    The BBT does not refer to the local universe, but more so to the overall in reference to the super clusters.

    Also according to the big bang theory it did not occur at one point but varies points throughtout the universe at the same time. I do not agree with this mainly due to the short period of 13.7 GYrs to form the overall complexity particularly the super clusters of galaxies and the 100 billion galaxies in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs. This only allows 500 million years to form such monsters.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    The BBT does not refer to the local universe, but more so to the overall in reference to the super clusters.
    I know. I'm saying that the theory is wrong in precisely its inference that the "overall" and the super clusters are one and the same. I'm saying that the local universe and the ultimate extent of the galactic clustering is one and the same thing.

    That is, if the universe is hierarchical (and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor), then the super clusters will eventually dissipate and give way to some other material disposition just like every other material behavior or structure we have ever fully examined. The expansion profile of the receding clusters that suggests the Big Bang will ultimately prove to be a finite material phenomenon just like every other material phenomenon we ever discovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    Also according to the big bang theory it did not occur at one point but varies points throughtout the universe at the same time.
    Actually, according to theory it occurred at all points throughout the universe at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I do not agree with this mainly due to the short period of 13.7 GYrs to form the overall complexity particularly the super clusters of galaxies and the 100 billion galaxies in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs. This only allows 500 million years to form such monsters.
    I concur. What I imagine to be the case is that (perhaps due to an association with gravity) time is relative to regional material density and not linear across the span of the Big Bang.
    -Mike
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzz

    Its a lovely day out here.

    Cuetek said

    Actually, according to theory it occurred at all points throughout the universe at the same time.
    Re the BBT

    I agree.

    Harry Costas wrote:
    I do not agree with this mainly due to the short period of 13.7 GYrs to form the overall complexity particularly the super clusters of galaxies and the 100 billion galaxies in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs. This only allows 500 million years to form such monsters.


    I concur. What I imagine to be the case is that (perhaps due to an association with gravity) time is relative to regional material density and not linear across the span of the Big Bang.
    Time is not matter, it is a measure of motion. The way we communicate via EMR, motion can be altered and this alters the time of the motion. Time itself cannot change contract or expand or have any form of dimension, such as multi-dimensions.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I do not agree with this mainly due to the short period of 13.7 GYrs to form the overall complexity particularly the super clusters of galaxies and the 100 billion galaxies in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs. This only allows 500 million years to form such monsters.

    Then Cue said:

    I concur. What I imagine to be the case is that (perhaps due to an association with gravity) time is relative to regional material density and not linear across the span of the Big Bang.

    The Harry C. said:
    Time is not matter, it is a measure of motion. The way we communicate via EMR, motion can be altered and this alters the time of the motion. Time itself cannot change contract or expand or have any form of dimension, such as multi-dimensions.
    To which I say, time is something that we don't know enough about to claim much in the way of what it does over the span of the Big Bang. You say that time cannot "change contract or expand," but it does all of these things to different observers in different frames of references. We once thought that time was the same for all objects. Now we know that it is different for all objects to some degree depending on their relative motion and, more significantly to this discussion, their relative acceleration.

    If I travel from the earth to the international space station I experience a tiny change in the rate of time, over time, during my transition from here to there due to the tiny change in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field.

    If the entire visible universe and the vast region of space surrounding it was all propagating through a strong background gravitational field there could be similar changes in time, over time. If the Big Bang is a finite affair like I propose, then there could well be far more matter left "behind" in and around the black hole that went Bang than there is in "front" of us. This transition through the resulting large g-fields may cause a change in time over time.

    Is this the reality we have experienced over the last 13 Gyrs? Probably not. But my speculation that time some 7 Gyrs ago could have been proceeding at a different rate than it is now, I think is theoretically possible.

    -Mike
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    We have a fairly clear view of what has occurred in the universe over the past ten billion years, through observations of what was. In this time frame, there is no indication of any event in massive proportion. If all evolution of everything started 3, 5 or twenty billion years earlier, observations should be picking up massive events at some point in that ten billion year observable history (is not evident).....IMO.

    All we truly know or could understand is based on what information our solar system provides. Star size, fuel consumptions, appearance or approximate longevity of our star and our own science in understanding what should be elsewhere. One thing has always bothered me in BBT and this understanding; We know of nothing material that has been in existence more than 3.5-4 billion years, by all dating systems that we use. We do know that energy moves at C and can assume that the energy received from distant places took -X- number of years, meaning our star was and everything in our solar system was some form of regeneration of matter that was much older. It seems to me, that this in itself is enough circumstantial evidence that what occurred in this solar system, in relation to it home, the MW and its little local cluster should have been around trillions of years. Short of a means to date hydrogen atoms, there could be no way of disproving an eternal universe other than inserting another formula...BBT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We know of nothing material that has been in existence more than 3.5-4 billion years, by all dating systems that we use. We do know that energy moves at C and can assume that the energy received from distant places took -X- number of years, meaning our star was and everything in our solar system was some form of regeneration of matter that was much older. It seems to me, that this in itself is enough circumstantial evidence that what occurred in this solar system, in relation to it home, the MW and its little local cluster should have been around trillions of years. Short of a means to date hydrogen atoms, there could be no way of disproving an eternal universe other than inserting another formula...BBT.
    Could you elaborate on this? I don't follow how your reference to C and energy propagation relates to the relative age of local matter (4 Gyr Sol stuff) and how it follows that the regional matter (MW) would likely be trillions of years old. Is it a process thing, like how long it would take for dust to form stars to go supernova and reform etc etc enough times to create the mix of heavy elements we have? Are you saying that you think the matter that was involved in the early BB was not just nucleosynthesized hydrogen, but something heavier? Or do you espouse a different cause to the red shift data and the CMB than do BB'ers?

    -Mike
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Cuetek said

    To which I say, time is something that we don't know enough about to claim much in the way of what it does over the span of the Big Bang. You say that time cannot "change contract or expand," but it does all of these things to different observers in different frames of references. We once thought that time was the same for all objects. Now we know that it is different for all objects to some degree depending on their relative motion and, more significantly to this discussion, their relative acceleration.
    People always confuse actual time and relative time.

    Actual time never changes.

    Relative time is a measure of motion relative to two points.


    This is intereating

    Time acceleration hypothesis
    http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Time_...ion_hypothesis

    Got to go,,be back later , I ways going to post Time links, but I ran out of TIME, have to take the kids time out.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    Most everyone seems to treat the BBT as a reality. This current thread is based on that assumption.

    I can provide mathematical proof that it cannot be real. See below:

    The Virgo Cluster of galaxies has been studied as a means for measuring space with about 8 different methods.
    It has been determined to be at a distance of 16.7 mega parsecs or 54 million light years distant. See below:

    http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/k1/virgo.htm

    So we can be reasonably sure of its distance. Its measurement of its redshift is about .0035 for a group of galaxies and .004 for the central elliptical giant M87.
    This is a partial redshift of 'one'.
    So if we divide 'one' by ,0035, we get 285. Multiply that with 54^6 lys and we get
    15 billion lys.
    So it would take that distance for the VC to be at a redshift of 'one'.
    Wow. That is an age that exceeds the BB age of 13.7 billion years.
    These galaxies are 'low' level radiations since they are near to us.
    But how about those HDFN observations that have been detected to have redshifts of 6+. That would mean that the universe is enormous in size that suggests a FS (SSU) universe rather than a BBT universe.

    However, those deep redshifts in the HDFN are probably based on the Arp Red Shift Anomaly of strong quasar radiators.
    So this data gives the ARSA credibility but also gives the BBT to be false with the
    VC of galaxies a mathematical RS of 15^9 lys.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    Most everyone seems to treat the BBT as a reality. This current thread is based on that assumption.

    I can provide mathematical proof that it cannot be real. See below:
    Have you sent this mathematical proof to any professional/academic astronomers? I would have thought that such a proof should make you a candidate for the Nobel Prize for astronomy.
    I know that if I believed I was able to show clearly the BBT was false I would be looking for recognition that I had made a major discovery in the field of astronomy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    There is much evidence and calculations to disprove the BBT.

    Its a wander how the theory even stands today.

    In the past, people could not question the theory in fear of not getting projects, jobs, the use of telescopes and so on. Could this be possible in the modern era.

    Why???

    This link is interesting to read.

    http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
    and

    Fingers of God
    http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm

    ===========================================

    Cosmo great points you made.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    There is much evidence and calculations to disprove the BBT.

    Its a wander how the theory even stands today.

    In the past, people could not question the theory in fear of not getting projects, jobs, the use of telescopes and so on. Could this be possible in the modern era.

    Why???

    This link is interesting to read.

    http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
    and

    Fingers of God
    http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm

    ===========================================

    Cosmo great points you made.
    I am not an astronomer but I have read quite a lot of non-technical stuff on the subject and it is clear to me that, firstly, the BBT is by far the best available fit, for the facts, given present knowledge and,secondly,the vast majority of professional astronomers accept this. This does not mean that the theory is the absolute truth and cannot be refined,or improved upon, as new information becomes available.
    I wasn't arguing about the truth/falsity of the BBT in my previous post. I was talking about something else! If I believed I could offer a mathematical proof that one of the most important theories of 20th century science (the BBT) was false then I would want to make sure that as many people as possible knew about this "proof". I would send the proof to astronomers and mathematicians so that it could be judged by others. I am sure there are a few members here who can understand advanced maths proofs!
    At the end of the day,Harry,the easiest thing in the world is say you have proof-you have to convince the "scientific elite"!You appear to believe that the scientific establishment is involved in some kind of conspiracy/cover-up to protect the BBT, at all costs, and yet many other theories/ideas are rejected as science makes new advances.
    G'day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    Most everyone seems to treat the BBT as a reality. This current thread is based on that assumption.

    I can provide mathematical proof that it cannot be real. See below:
    Have you sent this mathematical proof to any professional/academic astronomers? I would have thought that such a proof should make you a candidate for the Nobel Prize for astronomy.
    I know that if I believed I was able to show clearly the BBT was false I would be looking for recognition that I had made a major discovery in the field of astronomy.
    Thanks for the advice The article above would be a good one to send to the Nobel Commitee.

    I did visit their website and sent an e-mail to them criticizing the award given to George Smoot for their work on the Cobe data that Smoot used the words, 'finger of god'.

    I told them that the CMBR could not and was not a remnant of the BBT . I suggested that this CMBR was an equalized tenperature according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says all gases will transfoer their heat from the hot to the cold areas to eventually reach a 'State of Equalibrium, temperature wise.

    Needless to say, I did not receive a reply. So, I just let it pass.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    TheNobel Commitee.

    I did visit their website and sent an e-mail to them criticizing the award given to George Smoot for their work on the Cobe data that Smoot used the words, 'finger of god'.

    I told them that the CMBR could not and was not a remnant of the BBT . I suggested that this CMBR was an equalized tenperature according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says all gases will transfoer their heat from the hot to the cold areas to eventually reach a 'State of Equalibrium, temperature wise.

    Needless to say, I did not receive a reply. So, I just let it pass.
    I wonder why you did not get a reply?
    I suppose you could describe the Nobel Committee as part of the world scientific establishment. Can you explain the reasons why you believe bodies such as the Nobel Committee, other scientific institutions, and a large majority of astronomers, who do possess high-level technical/mathematical expertise, are engaged in supporting a theory (BBT) which you say is demonstrably false?
    In other words why are these people ignoring you and others who claim they can present proofs that the BBT is wrong? Almost all of them have given their lives to science and I simply do not believe they would have any interest in halting the advance of science, and supporting a false theory for reasons which are totally obscure.
    Maybe the Nobel Committee did not give your "proof" the status you seem to believe it merits.
    G'day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="Halliday"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Can you explain the reasons why you believe bodies such as the Nobel Committee, other scientific institutions, and a large majority of astronomers, who do possess high-level technical/mathematical expertise, are engaged in supporting a theory (BBT) which you say is demonstrably false?
    Self preservation. Read Kuhn. (I'm sure you have, but others may have not.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    [quote="Ophiolite"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Can you explain the reasons why you believe bodies such as the Nobel Committee, other scientific institutions, and a large majority of astronomers, who do possess high-level technical/mathematical expertise, are engaged in supporting a theory (BBT) which you say is demonstrably false?
    Self preservation. Read Kuhn. (I'm sure you have, but others may have not.)
    And Halliday; This is why many folks in my age bracket, distrust scientific observation and analysis (On BBT). Having lived though the times, where BBT was basically a science fiction theory and being promoted (indirectly) through theological teachings (instant creation). As it was developing and theorized, people not accepting were persecuted, ignored and literally flunked from science classes. Today any disagreement is met with explanations that make little sense and you will not get a job with NASA, any school of science or receive any accreditation if your ideas show signs of other than promoting BBT.

    Self preservation then yes, go along with the theory or choose a field other than science. For awhile 'Global Warming' was taking on a very similar scenario...maybe still is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz


    Jackson said

    And Halliday; This is why many folks in my age bracket, distrust scientific observation and analysis (On BBT). Having lived though the times, where BBT was basically a science fiction theory and being promoted (indirectly) through theological teachings (instant creation). As it was developing and theorized, people not accepting were persecuted, ignored and literally flunked from science classes. Today any disagreement is met with explanations that make little sense and you will not get a job with NASA, any school of science or receive any accreditation if your ideas show signs of other than promoting BBT.

    Self preservation then yes, go along with the theory or choose a field other than science. For awhile 'Global Warming' was taking on a very similar scenario...maybe still is.
    I agree with you 100%.
    How did science get out of hand and for what reason?
    Does history repeat itself.


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...e-redshift.htm
    Nov 09, 2004
    Having Faith in Edwin Hubble

    A common belief today is that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding and that the Big Bang theory is the unavoidable conclusion from that fact. But what did Hubble actually say?

    "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937
    )


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rp-galileo.htm
    Nov 01, 2004
    Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo

    Halton Arp is to the 21st century what Galileo was to the 17th. Both were respected scientists, popular leaders in their field. Both made observations which contradicted the accepted theories. Seventeenth century academics felt threatened by Galileo's observations and so, backed by ecclesiastical authority, they ordered him to stop looking. Twentieth century astronomers felt threatened by Arp's observations and so, backed by institutional authority, they ordered him to stop looking.

    Both refused. Both published works geared to the non-specialist when specialists would no longer take note. Galileo's paper, "A Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World" , favored a heliocentric model of the solar system and undermined the accepted geocentric model. Arp's books, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Seeing Red, and Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, favor a steady-state model of the universe and undermine the accepted big bang model.

    The Church responded by placing Galileo under house arrest: his peers would not even look through his telescope and the Church judged his books heretical. The modern astronomical community responded similarly to Arp. Observatory officials cancelled his telescope time and astronomical journals refused to publish his research.

    How did these men create such a furor?

    Galileo introduced a simple new concept that changed the universe as it was known then. Arp introduces a simple new concept that will change the universe as we know it now.

    Seventeenth Century educators taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Sun, the moon, the planets and the stars revolved around it. Galileo confronted his contemporaries with a universe centered around the sun. If you had lived in Galileo's time, would you have been willing to examine his work?

    Today's educators teach that the universe started from a big bang 15 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Galaxies and quasars are scattered according to their redshift. Arp confronts us with a universe of ejected galactic families. You live in Arp's time: are you willing to examine his work?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    [quote="Ophiolite"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Can you explain the reasons why you believe bodies such as the Nobel Committee, other scientific institutions, and a large majority of astronomers, who do possess high-level technical/mathematical expertise, are engaged in supporting a theory (BBT) which you say is demonstrably false?
    Self preservation. Read Kuhn. (I'm sure you have, but others may have not.)
    I don't know who you are referring to when you say "I'm sure you have........" but I have heard about Thomas Kuhn and I am familiar with some of his ideas. I would love to know more about the history/philosophy of science!
    I have also read critical reviews of the work of Kuhn and I particularly remember one such article by Steven Weinberg. I feel (perhaps wrongly) that the writings of individuals, of the status of Kuhn, can be hi-jacked by those with an anti-science agenda or stance.
    About the BBT-I would probably accept that any theory that attempts to explain how the universe began must at this point in time, given human knowledge,be considered to be "speculative". I just think it is by far the best, partial, explanation
    we have. I believe that,one day,humans will be able to answer the "how" and the "why" if there is a "why".
    This is a science forum but it is not necessary for members to have a deep technical knowledge (altho' it always helps) of any branch of science. The reason I posted, on this thread, was because one poster claims he has a "mathematical proof"(not simply a thought, an idea,a theory but a proof) that the BBT is wrong. I do not believe that any poster should get off with that kind of statement!
    Lastly I do not accept that sections of the world scientific establishment are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to protect the BBT, at all costs,but even if this were true it would not prove the theory was false.
    I'm going to stop. I'm repeating myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    TheNobel Commitee.

    I did visit their website and sent an e-mail to them criticizing the award given to George Smoot for their work on the Cobe data that Smoot used the words, 'finger of god'.

    I told them that the CMBR could not and was not a remnant of the BBT . I suggested that this CMBR was an equalized tenperature according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says all gases will transfoer their heat from the hot to the cold areas to eventually reach a 'State of Equalibrium, temperature wise.

    Needless to say, I did not receive a reply. So, I just let it pass.
    I wonder why you did not get a reply?
    I suppose you could describe the Nobel Committee as part of the world scientific establishment. Can you explain the reasons why you believe bodies such as the Nobel Committee, other scientific institutions, and a large majority of astronomers, who do possess high-level technical/mathematical expertise, are engaged in supporting a theory (BBT) which you say is demonstrably false?
    In other words why are these people ignoring you and others who claim they can present proofs that the BBT is wrong? Almost all of them have given their lives to science and I simply do not believe they would have any interest in halting the advance of science, and supporting a false theory for reasons which are totally obscure.
    Maybe the Nobel Committee did not give your "proof" the status you seem to believe it merits.
    G'day.
    With your advice, I did send another email to the committee yesterday.
    Although it is too early yet to expect some response, I am waiting.

    Are you familiar with Halton Arps work. His work also refutes the BBT with another possible cause of the Cosmological Redshift Anomaly .
    His best examples for an anomalous red shift are the galaxies NGC 7603 and AM 2254-2210.
    To me, these are absolute proof of what he promotes.
    He is a respectable professional scientist and yet, the BBT supporters claim his work is 'chance alignments'. Ha ha.

    He had to go to Germany to continue his profession.

    Can you imagine the embarassment the BBT supporters would have to endure if they had to recant their error.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    With your advice, I did send another email to the committee yesterday.
    Although it is too early yet to expect some response, I am waiting.

    Are you familiar with Halton Arps work. His work also refutes the BBT with another possible cause of the Cosmological Redshift Anomaly .
    His best examples for an anomalous red shift are the galaxies NGC 7603 and AM 2254-2210.
    To me, these are absolute proof of what he promotes.
    He is a respectable professional scientist and yet, the BBT supporters claim his work is 'chance alignments'. Ha ha.

    He had to go to Germany to continue his profession.

    Can you imagine the embarassment the BBT supporters would have to endure if they had to recant their error.
    I know Arp is an astronomer and that he does not accept the BBT. I am also aware other astronomers share his views, but I know that a large majority of astronomers believe in the BBT.
    I am sure that Arp is a clever, honest individual but I am equally sure there are lots of clever,honest scientists,on the other side, who do not share his views-and they do not share his views because they believe the evidence favours the BBT.
    Galileo is a fine example of a brilliant man (a maverick in his day) who was proved right. Unfortunately it does not always follow that standing firm against mainstream thought, in any field, means one is correct. There are far more examples of cranks and others,sometimes knowledgeable,sometimes not, who were wrong and went against the prevailing wisdom for a variety of reasons-and not all of them honest!
    Lastly I do believe in the BBT, but I have no problem with someone who is not convinced and who believes the "jury is still out" on the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of oz

    People will stand up and say that the BBT is supported by evidence.

    What scientific evidence supports the BBT?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of oz

    People will stand up and say that the BBT is supported by evidence.

    What scientific evidence supports the BBT?
    You can find lots of different sources, especially on the Internet, from books and other branches of the media, where reputable astronomers/scientists explain current thinking-and they can do that much better than me!
    One of your acolytes on the Forum (Cosmo) stated that either he had produced, or had possession of, a mathematical proof that proved the BBT was wrong. You gave your backing to this post,but to my way of thinking a mathematical proof is a piece of evidence that proves something beyond any doubt. The problem is that few astronomers appear to find this kind of "proof" even remotely convincing.
    You belong to a group that reject the current orthodoxy and this means the onus is,even more, on your school of thought to produce the necessary evidence.
    I don't believe the BBT is the last word on anything and I certainly would say (but only as a layperson) there is always room for doubt with most theories. When I look at your posts I see only assertions backed by little evidence. You are not simply pointing out that,in your opinion, facts used to support the BBT can be interpreted in other ways you are stating, flatly, that the facts prove the BBT is wrong.
    Lastly,to avoid any confusion, I would like to add that, for me, the BBT puts forward the idea the universe came into existence around 14 billion years ago and does not suggest the universe was created by some outside entity/intelligence.
    G'day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I am sure that Arp is a clever, honest individual but I am equally sure there are lots of clever,honest scientists,on the other side, who do not share his views-and they do not share his views because they believe the evidence favours the BBT.
    Galileo is a fine example of a brilliant man (a maverick in his day) who was proved right. Unfortunately it does not always follow that standing firm against mainstream thought, in any field, means one is correct. There are far more examples of cranks and others,sometimes knowledgeable,sometimes not, who were wrong and went against the prevailing wisdom for a variety of reasons-and not all of them honest!
    Well put, not just because it mirrors my own thoughts on the matter. I don't like BBT for several reasons.
    1) I find it philosophically unsatisfying.
    2) I was a great admirer of Hoyle who was, of course, a key proponent of a Steady State universe.
    3) The adjustments to the theory increasingly take on the appearance of the convoluted epicycles conjured up to defend a Ptolemaic Earth centred universe.

    However, none of these are sound scientific reasons for rejecting the theory. I may hope for its overthrow. I may welcome each new difficulty that arises for it. But I have to admit that, on a scientific basis, it is the best alternative at present. So I find Harry and Cosmo and the other Big Bang deniers rather too emotional over what should be an objective topic. I thought your remarks captured this aspect quite well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I know Arp is an astronomer and that he does not accept the BBT. I am also aware other astronomers share his views, but I know that a large majority of astronomers believe in the BBT.
    I am sure that Arp is a clever, honest individual but I am equally sure there are lots of clever,honest scientists,on the other side, who do not share his views-and they do not share his views because they believe the evidence favours the BBT.
    Galileo is a fine example of a brilliant man (a maverick in his day) who was proved right. Unfortunately it does not always follow that standing firm against mainstream thought, in any field, means one is correct. There are far more examples of cranks and others,sometimes knowledgeable,sometimes not, who were wrong and went against the prevailing wisdom for a variety of reasons-and not all of them honest!
    Lastly I do believe in the BBT, but I have no problem with someone who is not convinced and who believes the "jury is still out" on the matter.
    That 1st sentence above in the 2nd paragraph can describe the promoters of the BBT also.

    If you believe in the BBT, then why do you not answer Harry's question?

    I will post tomorrow an article on the evidence that refutes the BBT.

    In the meantime, I will ask you a question that 'Q' did not answer.

    Which is more fact?
    The Laws of Conservation of Matter, or the BBT?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Most of us do not have the depth of understanding of general relativity that is possessed by people with advanced physics degrees. We are not about to get such knowledge by reading posts on The Science Forum. For the most part we have to trust the judgement of those who really understand. (Hint. Cosmo isn't one of those folks.)

    One of the criteria we might use to judge a theory is whether it has made predictions that were borne out by later discoveries. Friedmann and Lemaitre predicted an expanding universe, based on solutions of Einstein's field equations, before Hubble made his observations of the red shift of distant galaxies. The Big Bang Theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, discovered in 1964. This is what convinced most of the cosmologist who had any lingering doubts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzzz

    Harold you said

    One of the criteria we might use to judge a theory is whether it has made predictions that were borne out by later discoveries. Friedmann and Lemaitre predicted an expanding universe, based on solutions of Einstein's field equations, before Hubble made his observations of the red shift of distant galaxies. The Big Bang Theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, discovered in 1964. This is what convinced most of the cosmologist who had any lingering doubts.
    So! what is the evidence?

    Sep 14, 2004
    Death Star
    The Galaxy that Killed the Big Bang*
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...040914star.htm


    ***
    For 80 years cosmology has been cascading down a riverbed carved through disciplines and institutions, careers, funding and journals. It began with an assumption now proven false by the image above, and it must begin again from its source in empiricism and flow in another direction. All that's counted as known -- the Big Bang, the expanding universe, the structure of the cosmos--must be left as a dry stream in history books.
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...50401sofar.htm
    Apr 01, 2005
    So Far and Yet So Near

    One more problem for the Big Bang: Recently-discovered galaxy clusters reveal too much complex structure to be as young as Big Bang speculations would require.

    The small inset in the photo above shows a recently discovered cluster of galaxies that poses a big problem for the Big Bang.

    According to conventional theory, which determines the distance of a galaxy by its redshift, the cluster is 9 billion light years away. That means the light we see today was emitted 9 billion years ago, or only 5 billion years after the Big Bang, in which all matter and energy supposedly was created. Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...e-redshift.htm
    Nov 09, 2004
    Having Faith in Edwin Hubble

    A common belief today is that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding and that the Big Bang theory is the unavoidable conclusion from that fact. But what did Hubble actually say?

    "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...03redshift.htm
    Sep 03, 2004
    The Search for Two Numbers

    Astronomy's obsessive search for the two numbers--the Hubble Constant and the age of the universe--is based upon an unwarranted assumption, i.e., redshift equals distance.

    Alan Sandage, talking about Hubble/Humason's 1931 paper that first suggested there is a connection between redshift and distance of galaxies, said:

    "Judged by its subsequent influence, the paper by Hubble and Humason (1931) was one of the great, prescient early papers in observational cosmology. It outlined the central research trends that continued well beyond the middle third of the twentieth century. From 1929 until the discovery of the of the Alpher-Herman microwave background in 1965 this was the field of "practical cosmology" which was once described as "simply the search for two numbers" in contrast to the wondrous new theoretical cosmology of today that combines high-energy particle physics with theories of the very hot early universe."

    The highway to modern cosmology began in the mid-1920's, also as a result of Hubble's work. Other astronomers were still arguing the 150-year-old debate, "Is the Milky Way the only galaxy?" (Most said "yes"--the universe isn't big enough for more than one galaxy.) But Hubble was taking photos of the nearby galaxies M31 and M33, cataloging their stars and trying to determine how far away they are. The three papers he published in 1925, 1926, and 1929 proved to astronomers for the first time that there is a universe beyond the Milky Way. If this was the beginning of the highway of cosmology, then Hubble's redshift/distance article was the first major fork in the road. Everyone took the same turn, the turn that led to the big bang and to tired light. This was the hypothesis that determined the course of 20th century cosmology.


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...tempsspace.htm

    Feb 17, 2005
    Temperatures in Space

    The Chandra news release announcing this new image of the center of the Milky Way said that the X-ray spectrum of the gases "is consistent with a hot gas cloud that contains two components--10- million-degree Celsius gas and 100-million-degree gas."

    This result was unexpected and difficult to explain. The press release describes the problem in greater detail: "Shock waves from supernova explosions are the most likely explanation for heating the 10-million-degree gas, but how the 100-million-degree gas is heated is not known. Ordinary supernova shock waves won't work, and heating by very high-energy particles produces the wrong spectrum of X-rays. Also, the observed Galactic magnetic field appears to rule out confinement and heating by magnetic turbulence."

    Plasma cosmologists expected temperature discrepancies, because they've seen the same thing in plasma experiments. In the opening paragraph of his 1981 monograph, Cosmic Plasma, Hanns Alfvn discusses some of the oddities of plasma behavior that showed up in the lab but not in the simplified theories of physicists and astronomers: "The plasma exhibited striations, double layers, and an assortment of oscillations and instabilities. The electron temperature was often found to be one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gas temperature, with the ion temperature intermediate."

    Feb 15, 2005
    Temperature of Space
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...5spacetemp.htm

    The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot onif you allow a big enough spot. One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.

    They also ignored a long history of other predictions from other theories that required much tinier spots. In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.

    The first astronomer to collect observations from which the temperature of space could be calculated was Andrew McKellar. In 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. But World War II occupied everyone's attention and his paper was ignored.

    George Gamow, credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K, overlooking McKellar's prior measurement and another measurement of 3K by Tigran Shmaonov in 1955. Meanwhile, in 1954, Finlay-Freundlich predicted 1.9K to 6K on the basis of "tired light" assumptions.

    The discovery of the excess temperature of 3.5 +/- 1K by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 can be claimed as proof of the Big Bang only by applying a cognitive spot that obliterates over half a century of history.

    I give credit to thunderbolts for going the extra distance, the 100 m bolt.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I know Arp is an astronomer and that he does not accept the BBT. I am also aware other astronomers share his views, but I know that a large majority of astronomers believe in the BBT.
    I am sure that Arp is a clever, honest individual but I am equally sure there are lots of clever,honest scientists,on the other side, who do not share his views-and they do not share his views because they believe the evidence favours the BBT.
    Galileo is a fine example of a brilliant man (a maverick in his day) who was proved right. Unfortunately it does not always follow that standing firm against mainstream thought, in any field, means one is correct. There are far more examples of cranks and others,sometimes knowledgeable,sometimes not, who were wrong and went against the prevailing wisdom for a variety of reasons-and not all of them honest!
    Lastly I do believe in the BBT, but I have no problem with someone who is not convinced and who believes the "jury is still out" on the matter.
    That 1st sentence above in the 2nd paragraph can describe the promoters of the BBT also.

    If you believe in the BBT, then why do you not answer Harry's question?

    I will post tomorrow an article on the evidence that refutes the BBT.

    In the meantime, I will ask you a question that 'Q' did not answer.

    Which is more fact?
    The Laws of Conservation of Matter, or the BBT?

    Cosmo
    See this evidence below:

    WHY THE BIG BANG IS FALLACIOUS

    The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered. The establishment astronomers 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. The next most important is AM 2054-2210. The third example is AM 0328-222. Notice in the last example that the smaller galaxy appears to have passed through the larger galaxy and took 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 are revolving around the larger galaxies in a transverse motion to our line of sight. The third example is about 99% conclusive.

    I consider the above evidence to be sufficient enough to refute the expansion of space.
    What then is the cause of the observed redshifts? The electromagnetic fields within the photon pulses cause the light wave to expand IMHO! The quasar redshifts are due to the higher energy levels
    that cause larger RSs per unit distance.

    The next reason which 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 our point of view which obviously makes us appear to be in the center.
    They (the BBers) use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis. However, 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. Uniform expansion can not be uniform in each direction in this kind of Universe. Looking in a transverse direction, that complies with the balloon analogy, you would have uniform curved expansion but when you look along the radial lines of expansion relative to the center, the expansion would vary from extreme at the point source of the expansion to a condensing Universe in the opposite direction because of gravitational attraction and reducing temperature. Therefore, looking along the transverse plane, expansion would be uniform and curved. but along the radial direction, the expansion would vary and without curvature. This then should refute the uniform expansion hypothesis of the big bangers. The uniform expansion of the redshift that made us appear to be in the center should have been immediately 'suspect' because this is a virtual impossibility, since the past observations have proven that we are not in the center of our solar system, our galaxy and or the placement of the 'Local Cluster' on the edge of the Virgo Supercluster.

    The third reason which is also important is that the 'Laws of Conservation' 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 nothing when the clock is reversed that terminates at zero, or an infinitely dense point source of mass that has no physical dimension. To me, this means nothing.

    Now if I redefine the conservation laws in my own words, they would say, "Matter can not be created or destroyed but can only be transformed". This would tell me that matter always existed!
    If matter always existed, than the big bang could not have happened. We have a continually regenerative (galaxies and stars) and infinitely old Universe.

    The CMBR is promoted as the clincher evidence in support of the BB as a perfect black Body Radiation (BBR) with a redshift (RS) of 1000.
    This is easily refuted because if you divide the age of the BB by 1000, it would have a redshift of one for every 14 million years.
    If you transform the age as a unit of measure for distance with light years, than the Virgo Cluster should have a RS of 3+ at the current distance of 54 million lys.
    Yet we know that the RS for the Virgo Cluster is a portion of 'one' with its RS of .0035-.004.

    Also, the beginning of the CMBR was when the progression of matter formation from a plasma to matter radiation could not have transformed suddenly from plasma to matter . It would have some plasma mixed in with the matter radiation to prevent a perfect BBR curve to happen.

    There are other lesser problems also.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Most of us do not have the depth of understanding of general relativity that is possessed by people with advanced physics degrees. We are not about to get such knowledge by reading posts on The Science Forum. For the most part we have to trust the judgement of those who really understand. (Hint. Cosmo isn't one of those folks.)

    One of the criteria we might use to judge a theory is whether it has made predictions that were borne out by later discoveries. Friedmann and Lemaitre predicted an expanding universe, based on solutions of Einstein's field equations, before Hubble made his observations of the red shift of distant galaxies. The Big Bang Theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, discovered in 1964. This is what convinced most of the cosmologist who had any lingering doubts.
    Those tiny corrections of Einsteins math do not convince me.

    His mass/energy formula in not complete and is just a general form that cannot solve any problems with accuracy.
    In that formula, he left out a very inportant component that needs to be included in his formula and that is the FREQUENCY of 'c'.
    The energy levels of 'c' would VARY with the frequency because the high 'f's have higher energies.
    So when 'c' is used in an energy formula, you must use the 'f' in it.
    The velocity and time elements do apply to all frequencies but the energy levels are variable.
    So if he can make such a mistake with a sinple formula, then his complex math can be more fallaceous.

    Freidmans formula does not predict the expansion of space.
    All it does is show the 3 forms of space as 'open', 'closed' or flat' depending on the density of content.

    I think Lemaitrae was aware of Sliphers observations and as a result, predicted the EpS that began with a giant primval atom.
    There were other scientist that predicted the same type of axpansion but Lemaitrae got the most credit because he was a scholar priest with a PhD.

    Cosmo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Harry:

    Thanks for those websites that add much more evidence that supports Arps anomalous Redshifts.
    I do not see how anyone can refute his work and proofs of these observations.

    I posted previously on this thread of refuting the BBT with the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo


    You maybe interested in reading these links


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rp-galileo.htm
    Nov 01, 2004
    Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo

    Halton Arp is to the 21st century what Galileo was to the 17th. Both were respected scientists, popular leaders in their field. Both made observations which contradicted the accepted theories. Seventeenth century academics felt threatened by Galileo's observations and so, backed by ecclesiastical authority, they ordered him to stop looking. Twentieth century astronomers felt threatened by Arp's observations and so, backed by institutional authority, they ordered him to stop looking.

    Both refused. Both published works geared to the non-specialist when specialists would no longer take note. Galileo's paper, "A Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World" , favored a heliocentric model of the solar system and undermined the accepted geocentric model. Arp's books, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Seeing Red, and Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, favor a steady-state model of the universe and undermine the accepted big bang model.

    The Church responded by placing Galileo under house arrest: his peers would not even look through his telescope and the Church judged his books heretical. The modern astronomical community responded similarly to Arp. Observatory officials cancelled his telescope time and astronomical journals refused to publish his research.

    How did these men create such a furor?

    Galileo introduced a simple new concept that changed the universe as it was known then. Arp introduces a simple new concept that will change the universe as we know it now.

    Seventeenth Century educators taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Sun, the moon, the planets and the stars revolved around it. Galileo confronted his contemporaries with a universe centered around the sun. If you had lived in Galileo's time, would you have been willing to examine his work?

    Today's educators teach that the universe started from a big bang 15 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Galaxies and quasars are scattered according to their redshift. Arp confronts us with a universe of ejected galactic families. You live in Arp's time: are you willing to examine his work?

    See more about Arp's universe here:
    http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

    Aug 23, 2006
    The Science of the Big Bang
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...angscience.htm


    Astronomer Halton Arp has called it science by news release, and some of the most disturbing examples come from statements confirming the validity of the Big Bang.

    Many critics of modern theories in the sciences have noticed that science editors (newspaper, magazine, and television) appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from theory. When discussing the trademarks of popular cosmology, such as the Big Bang, the science media incessantly report that new discoveries confirm themeven when such reports are far from the truth.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo


    You maybe interested in reading these links


    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rp-galileo.htm
    Nov 01, 2004
    Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo.
    I don't know a lot about David Talbott (just shows what a rotten education I've had) but I know he refers to himself as a "comparative mythologist".
    I am aware,however, of stuff he has written about the planet Saturn and I would describe it as drivel. His evidence seems to come from "the language of myth".
    G'day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Hello Halliday:

    What is your point?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Hello Halliday:

    What is your point?
    Talbott and a chap called Wallace Thornhill (Australian ?) are credited with being the "Executive Editors" of this "Thunderbolts" site that seems to impress you so much!
    As I said I don't know much about Talbott but considering the stuff he has written about Saturn I would be extremely wary of anything else he wrote, his views, beliefs, opinions generally, and any other scientific "writers" he approved of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Hello Halliday

    I never attack the man, only the information.

    So! tell me, what information do you find wrong?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Hello Halliday

    I never attack the man, only the information.

    So! tell me, what information do you find wrong?
    First of all you say you never "attack the man". I'm not attacking Talbott either!
    He is probably a very pleasant character with a number of talents, but I have heard about, and read, stuff he has written, about Saturn, and I think it is garbage!
    Take an extreme example-if I met someone who really believed the Earth was flat I would be very wary of any other opinions he/she might have. Perhaps you have the ability to avoid jumping to any conclusions, about such an individual, but, somehow, I doubt it.
    I have said, in a number of posts, that I am not a scientist/technical expert. You say you are a scientist but all you have done, in recent posts, is to provide links to websites. I could give you many Internet,book.magazine and other media references where the writers accept the BBT as by far the best fit for the known facts-and most of these people can explain their reasoning,equally well, in technical and non-technical language. I am also sure you would be familiar with many of these sources of information. If these individuals are unable to convince you, or even create a little doubt in your mind, I have no chance!
    Finally you say you attack "only the information". You are going to be extremely busy because you have a vast amount of info' to attack. You don't need to bother about me Harry-I'm just a fellow, with a general interest in some aspects of science, who sometimes posts on this science forum. The group you should be trying to convince are the professional/academic astronomers but you dismiss the vast majority of this group because they accept the BBT. Apparently most of them accept the BBT because they are, in some ways, stupid and cannot challenge conventional thinking, or because the are afraid of losing their jobs and/or research grants, so they carry on and hide the fact that one of the central tenets of modern astronomy is false. If this is your analysis I don't accept it for a second.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz


    Hello Halliday

    I do not care if you think along the lines of the BBT or what ever.

    I'm not emotional over any theory.

    I just want to see any theory that has become standard to be supported by science.

    I can also give you 10,000 links supporting the BBT.

    There are many who disagree with the BBT. The evidence against the BBT is mounting.

    http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm

    An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
    http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/an_...community.html


    Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

    In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

    But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

    Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

    Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

    Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

    Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

    Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

    Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

    Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

    Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
    Signed:

    (Institutions for identification only)

    Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
    Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) / Earthtech.org
    www.earthtech.org
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273
    http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf
    John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
    James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
    Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
    Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
    Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
    Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
    Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
    Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
    Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
    Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
    Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
    Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
    Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
    Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
    Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
    Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
    Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
    Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
    Jacques Moret-Bailly, Universit Dijon (retired) (France)
    Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
    Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maring (Brazil)
    Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
    R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
    Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
    Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
    Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
    Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
    David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
    Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
    Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
    Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
    Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
    * * *

    Click on the link
    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
    to see an update of additional signers to the above statement.
    People have fallen emotionally with the BBT for what ever reason.

    People need to read up the history of how it became a standard model.
    Thats if they want to understand.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz


    Hello Halliday

    I do not care if you think along the lines of the BBT or what ever.

    I'm not emotional over any theory.

    I just want to see any theory that has become standard to be supported by science.

    I can also give you 10,000 links supporting the BBT.

    There are many who disagree with the BBT. The evidence against the BBT is mounting.
    A couple more points here. I think it was Ophiolite who said,earlier on in this thread, that he thought the BBT was the best theory around but that he found it "philosophically" unsatisfying.
    I don't know if I would use that word but I find it much more to my taste that the present universe, where we reside, came into existence around 14 billion years ago rather than accept any theory where time, space and presumably matter have always existed.
    You say that "the evidence against the BBT is mounting" but there have always been those who disagreed with the BBT and there have always been some facts/evidence that can be used to support the BBT and also be interpreted, in other ways, to support other theories. I would not agree that relevant, scientific evidence is growing.
    Even if that statement, of yours, is correct that is a long way from reaching a position of backing for, and supporting, a poster who states he is in possession of a mathematical proof the BBT is wrong!
    Finally you state you are not "emotional over any theory". I think there is a certain amount of emotion contained in any argument/debate. You appear to have "invested" a lot of thought over the truth/falsity of the BBT. After all, you hardly post on any other topic!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Haliday
    Even if that statement, of yours, is correct that is a long way from reaching a position of backing for, and supporting, a poster who states he is in possession of a mathematical proof the BBT is wrong!
    Halliday, did you read my other post that followed?
    It contains four 'major' faults with the BBT.

    The BBT has just 'one' source for its existence and that is the interpretations of the Doppler implied red shifts.
    There is no other real evidence.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Did you know that BBT people are sold out on the BBT and that evidence is not important for or aaginst.

    I remember when I was a BBT person. Nothing could change my mind, I was so brain washed that the BBT was it, totally sold out.

    Than a Prof at Uni said, keep reading and never think that you know, never ever and always keep questioning.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    Did you know that BBT people are sold out on the BBT and that evidence is not important for or aaginst.

    I remember when I was a BBT person. Nothing could change my mind, I was so brain washed that the BBT was it, totally sold out.

    Than a Prof at Uni said, keep reading and never think that you know, never ever and always keep questioning.
    Harry.

    Like I said before, know your 'basic' physics and believe in its well tested Laws and experiments.

    The only real particles are the electron and the proton. These two particles are the source of all the structures in the universe. They are both real and never change as matter particles. They both have mass and size.
    Combined as a gas, they have fused to create all the structures in the universe as governed by the Laws of the Forces. Both the coulomb, magnetic and gravitational.

    So I accept the Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Momentum and Charge.
    Those are the Laws of the Universe. Any departure are violators of these laws.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Your right.

    But! maybe take it one more step, by looking at quarks and the formation of Neutrons and Protons and how electrons can change one from another.

    Have you looked at s-process and p-process and r-process.

    Than seeing how compact matter plays a big part in star formation and jets and the formation of the elements.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    Your right.

    But! maybe take it one more step, by looking at quarks and the formation of Neutrons and Protons and how electrons can change one from another.

    Have you looked at s-process and p-process and r-process.

    Than seeing how compact matter plays a big part in star formation and jets and the formation of the elements.
    I ignore the nuclear research because it is 'backward' science. That is not natural science. Fusion is Natural science because it happens in Nature.

    See Below:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Theor...ing-13884t.php

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Maybe your right.

    But! to "ignor" or to "know" becomes a trap in that it stops us from research.

    Years ago I thought I knew quite alot. Than after, I was directed to stop knowing and start reading. Than I found through reading of many papers how little I know.


    I read about 30 papers per month and maybe 150 abstracts to give me some idea of the scope of information.

    It will take me a few more years before I have an understanding of the universe. I may express ideas and opinions on this forum, but! I feel that I'm short in many topics.


    One of the many topics is Quarks

    http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    It will take me a few more years before I have an understanding of the universe. I may express ideas and opinions on this forum, but! I feel that I'm short in many topics.


    One of the many topics is Quarks.
    That really is a generous admission from you!
    Reading the last part of this thread must be like eavesdropping on a conversation, that took place, between Einstein and Niels Bohr.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Halliday

    You said

    That really is a generous admission from you!
    Reading the last part of this thread must be like eavesdropping on a conversation, that took place, between Einstein and Niels Bohr.
    I would be the first to admit that I know very little. The more I read the more I find that its complexty is far beyond one persons ability.

    As you read many papers, you find there is unexplained issues, keys to explaining starformation and what triggers supernova. How galaxies evolve and how they are directly related to the size and activity of the central Nucleon, that some call a black hole.

    We speak of Black holes as though they exist without question. We know vey lttle of what makes them and how they work. We do not even have proof that they have an event horizon. The basic issue is that nothing can escape a black hole, this issue is questioned and to resolve this will open doors to explaining the cyclic process.

    and so on.
    Smile and live another day
    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
  •