Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 147

Thread: BB Falacy

  1. #1 BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    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 BB’ers) 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 banger’s. 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.

    Another method of refuting the BBT is with the Virgo Clusters of galaxies.
    This cluster had its distance established with 8 differenr methods. See below:
    It is determined to be at a distance of 16.7 megaparsecs distant.
    Cepheids: 14.9+/-1.2
    Novae: 21.1+/-3.9
    PN L-function: 15.4+/-1.1
    Glob. cluster L function: 18.8+/-3.8
    Surface brightness fluctuations: 15.9+/-0.9
    Tully-Fisher relation: 15.8+/-1.5
    D-sigma relation: 16.8+/-2.4
    Type Ia SN: 19.4+/-5.0
    Its redshift measurements were determined to be .0035 for a group of galaxies and .004 for the giant elliptical galaxy M87.
    Assuming the central M87 at .004 as the center of this cluster, then its partial RS of .004 can be divided into one to give it a distance for a RS of one.
    So one/.004 = 250 x 16.7 mpc = 4175 mpc. Translate that into light years, we get 13.6 billion lys. This is just one hundred million years from the BBT origin.
    Using the .0035 RS, we get a figure of 15 billion lys distant.

    The HDFN has detected red shifts of 6+.
    So these must be the high energy radiators like the Quasars.
    The local VC galaxies must be the lower level radiators.

    There are other lesser problems also.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: BB Falacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    And yet, almost everyone of Arps pet theories on redshift has been discredited. No one is even remotely interested in his nonsense anymore, expect crackpots, of course.

    You're chasing a rainbow, Cosmo. Do you enjoy such pointless pursuits?


    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    And yet, almost everyone of Arps pet theories on redshift has been discredited. No one is even remotely interested in his nonsense anymore, expect crackpots, of course.

    You're chasing a rainbow, Cosmo. Do you enjoy such pointless pursuits?
    Like I said on other posts Q.

    Which is more credible

    The Laws of Conservation or the BBT?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Cosmo you are on track.

    Redshift data has many problems. Its only recently from the understanding of how supernovas work and the formation of jets from compact matter and black holes create an intrinsic red shift. That means they look like they are moving away but they are not.


    Most people like to float down main stream and agree with the BBT and thats OK, even a dead log will float down stream.


    The issues with the BBT have been discussed in recent confrences and I would say by the end of next year, the BBT will be dead in the water along with the collection of dead logs.

    So! do not be a dead log read up on the science, understand the complexity of the universe.

    Its just amazing how long the BBT remained as the standard model.


    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    The issues with the BBT have been discussed in recent confrences and I would say by the end of next year, the BBT will be dead in the water along with the collection of dead logs.
    And like so much flatulence, you'll not likely put your money where your sphincter is.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    I must get (Q) and (I) for Xmas
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: BB Falacy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    And yet, almost everyone of Arps pet theories on redshift has been discredited. No one is even remotely interested in his nonsense anymore, expect crackpots, of course.

    You're chasing a rainbow, Cosmo. Do you enjoy such pointless pursuits?
    You can "discredit" any idea if by "discredit" you mean cast doubt upon. His statistical arguments have been called into question, but only the magnitude of his claimed certainty was questioned, not his actual arguments.

    He claimed something like several million to one odds of his observations occurring by chance alone, but even the people doubting him maintained something like 20 to 1 odds, and they were making some very unsound assumptions in order to even limit the probability that far.

    I don't know that I agree with him, but he's certainly not been "discredited" as you say, unless you think that the successful introduction of any evidence whatsoever against a claim is "discrediting" it. (And it would be very hard to find any theory in all of science that nobody has ever managed to do that to)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax


    Halton Arp are big shoes to fit into.

    Arp's Catalog Of Peculiar Galaxies
    http://users.aol.com/arpgalaxy/index.html

    Halton C. Arp - The Official Website.
    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

    http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

    I could add a million links in support of Halton Arp and yet some people will put him down without knowing and understanding cosmology.

    The redshift data is still disputed, since the redshift suffers from intrinsic ectromagnetic and extreme graviational forces affecting the wavelenth and velocity from the compacted matter.

    Which scientists disproved Halton Arp?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114

    You are doing good Harry.

    Q is just an automatic 'yes' man for the power science.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    You are doing good Harry.

    Q is just an automatic 'yes' man for the power science.

    Cosmo
    I suspect he (Q that is) knows how to spell "fallacy" but is likely to be rather vague about the "basic particles" that go to make up quarks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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

    (Q) is one of those people who likes to have fun in cyber space.

    Never ever allow an emotion to take over you.
    ===========================================

    Why the big bang?

    Why was it called the standard theory?

    I have been speaking with many scientists at random. Their opinion is that the Big Bang is dead in the water and that many scientists are still floating down main stream because of the SYSTEM in funding projects supporting the BBT supported by politics and churches.

    Think about it for a second.
    All of at the same time 13.7Gyrs everywhere in the universe popped up matter from so called singularities and kept on expanding ever sinces.

    The problem we have is that we have monster clusters of clusters of galaxies, over 100 billion galaxies in deep field images 13.2Gyrs. If you know anything about the formation of stars, clusters of stars, galaxy formation, cluster of galaxies, Clusters of clusters of galaxies and all the other complexities within the known universe. Its a big ask to say that all those galaxies formed in just 500 million years.

    Some one asked why 500 million years.

    Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs + 500 M yrs = 13.7 Gyrs
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    I have been speaking with many scientists at random. Their opinion is that the Big Bang is dead in the water and that many scientists are still floating down main stream because of the SYSTEM in funding projects supporting the BBT supported by politics and churches.
    We can safely assume that's a fabrication on your part.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: BB Falacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    You can "discredit" any idea if by "discredit" you mean cast doubt upon. His statistical arguments have been called into question, but only the magnitude of his claimed certainty was questioned, not his actual arguments.
    Arp's pet theories on redshift have been refuted, one by one. His math is abysmal and has been shown as such, much to his chagrin. Yet, he continuously comes up with another pet theory no sooner than his previous one was refuted. He is wasting everyone's time and resources with his nonsense.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I could add a million links in support of Halton Arp and yet some people will put him down without knowing and understanding cosmology.
    Another fabrication, Harry?

    Which scientists disproved Halton Arp?
    Here's a few to start.


    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0310533
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309551
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309274
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308443
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308177
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308041
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0307418
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305382
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305298
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305093
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    For a carbon life form we are doing ok but we all forget we are all star dust.
    New york New york ...
    Esta e la nostra rasa cosmica ...
    What we reprezent make us blind to what we are , and we are the universe.
    Angels take care , my son i love you and will love you forever.
    We are so close to find the fiber of this universe ... will that make us happy ?
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz


    Hello (Q)

    If you want to prove a point use scientific evidence.

    I know of and have read the links you posted.

    Do you unsertand what the links say?

    Lets take one link

    AGN Physics from QSO Clustering
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p.../0310533v1.pdf


    Discussion and future directions
    QSO clustering measurements are starting to place interesting constraints on
    models of QSO formation. In particular it appears that lifetimes must be short,
    ∼ 106 − 107 years. It is worth noting that the clustering measurements are in
    fact being used as a surrogate for host galaxy mass. In high redshift QSOs it is
    very difficult to make good estimates of galaxy mass, simply because the QSO
    luminosity dwarfs the host galaxy. If the observed relation between galaxy mass
    (or more exactly galaxy velocity dispersion) and black hole mass (MBH) at low
    6 Croom et al.
    redshift (e.g. Magorrian et al. 1998) is the same at high redshift then clustering
    can also be used to determine the mean MBH for a population. However, it is
    likely that the local galaxy-MBH relation does evolve with redshift. Clustering
    gives one potential method to determine if this is the case. The SDSS spectra
    are of sufficient quality that they should yield reasonable estimates of MBH, thus
    allowing us to measure clustering as a function of MBH.
    New surveys are also required to break the still apparent luminosity-redshift
    degeneracy in QSO samples. We have very little knowledge of QSOs more than
    ∼ 1 mag fainter than M∗, particularly at high redshift. A new survey based on
    SDSS imaging and 2dF spectroscopy is currently underway to address this issue
    and others, reaching a limiting magnitude of g′ ≃ 22 for ∼ 10000 QSOs. This is
    being carried out in tandem with a search for luminous red galaxies at z < 0.7,
    which will allow the investigation of QSO environments in 3D to much higher
    redshifts than currently possible. This, in combination with the high quality
    spectral information available from the SDSS should allow major progress in
    our understanding of QSO formation and evolution in the near future.

    (Q) do you understand what it says?

    Have you read the other links?

    Do you know what they allowed for and under what conditions.?

    I can give you also 1000's of links supporting redshift. But! If they do not have sound science than it's just paper for No'2.

    (Q) indicate what part of the paper that you rely on to prove your point.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I could add a million links in support of Halton Arp and yet some people will put him down without knowing and understanding cosmology.
    Another fabrication, Harry?

    Which scientists disproved Halton Arp?
    Here's a few to start.


    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0310533
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309551
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309274
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308443
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308177
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308041
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0307418
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305382
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305298
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305093
    A read several of your links last time, and they agreed that Arp's observations had a low probability of occurring by chance. They merely suggested that he'd over-estimated the low-ness of the probability.

    Any statistical data with smaller than 5% chance of error is generally considered fit to publish, and 5% is the highest probability of error assigned even by Arp's detractors. His supporters place the odds much lower.

    I don't even agree with Arp. I just don't like your attitude about some things, Q, so I feel the need to actually bother with this.

    However, I'm not going to read 10 different papers through, plug all of their figures into a spread sheet, and then come back just so you can throw 20 more at me. That's merely an attempt to keep people from calling a bluff. Raise the ante until nobody is willing to bid that high, and you can pretend you had the cards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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

    The redshift debate is still on.

    The understanding of compact matter and the intrinsic properties are still not understood. It means that data presented as evidence can be disputed until a form of resoltion is made.

    The error is too common. Why should everything be expanding from earth?

    Man has considered Earth as the centre ever since time. Prime example is the dark ages.

    I think Arp was correct , but! evidence is yet to come. Not only evidence, its also mainstream thinking is flowing in the wrong direction. So if you are a dead log there's only one way to go and thats with the flow.

    I can see whats going to happen in about 3 years time. People are going to be up in arms about been fooled in thinking along the BBT.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    The redshift debate is still on.

    The understanding of compact matter and the intrinsic properties are still not understood. It means that data presented as evidence can be disputed until a form of resoltion is made.

    The error is too common. Why should everything be expanding from earth?

    Man has considered Earth as the centre ever since time. Prime example is the dark ages.

    I think Arp was correct , but! evidence is yet to come. Not only evidence, its also mainstream thinking is flowing in the wrong direction. So if you are a dead log there's only one way to go and thats with the flow.

    I can see whats going to happen in about 3 years time. People are going to be up in arms about been fooled in thinking along the BBT.
    One of the reasons I accept the BBT, and go with the flow, is because I am not a scientist/astronomer and the vast majority of these experts say the BBT is by far the best fit, for the available facts, altho' they do not claim the BBT is the last word on anything.
    You claim you are a scientist. Could we have a few more details? If I was a scientist, posting on this forum, I certainly would not be shy about telling other members about my work and qualifications.
    Lastly what exactly do you mean when you ask "why should everything be expanding from Earth?" and who says this is the case?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Halliway

    Please my privacy is my privacy.

    I do not rely on who I am to convince you of information.

    If I cannot back the information, than I cannot back the information.

    You said

    One of the reasons I accept the BBT, and go with the flow, is because I am not a scientist/astronomer and the vast majority of these experts say the BBT is by far the best fit, for the available facts, altho' they do not claim the BBT is the last word on anything.
    I understand and you can go with the flow or choose to go upstream, but! that will require you to read and maybe in two years you may start to understand.

    Within the next 14 months there are several confrences on cosmology and I know of the papers that will be submitted that will explain the workings of the universe. For now they do not favor the BBT.

    At the end of the day, think what you like,,,,,,,,,,,its OK.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    (Q)

    Those URLs you and Harry posted above are blocked by my my Microsoft security because they are triple x (xxx) sites.

    I also do not have pdf availability.

    So I cannot comment.

    These are xxx sites with a gov site? What is this?
    Sounds conterfeit to me. Looks like you have been had.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    (Q)

    Those URLs you and Harry posted above are blocked by my my Microsoft security because they are triple x (xxx) sites.

    I also do not have pdf availability.

    So I cannot comment.

    These are xxx sites with a gov site? What is this?
    Sounds conterfeit to me. Looks like you have been had.

    Cosmo
    This is the global preprint server of scientific articles, mostly to be published in peer reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with dubious weblinks. If you are unsure, you can replace xxx.lanl.gov with arxiv.org. It's the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    The links that I posted are from two sources arXiv and ADS and varies sites such as hubble and chandra etc.

    I usually only link the abstract.

    But! (Q) linked the pdf very many pages.

    Do not open them, unless you intend to read them.

    If you go to arXiv and copy the code for the paper, you will pick up the abstract and thats only one page.

    Cosmo any link that you want to see the abstract let me know and I will copy and paste.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Sounds conterfeit to me. Looks like you have been had.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    A read several of your links last time, and they agreed that Arp's observations had a low probability of occurring by chance. They merely suggested that he'd over-estimated the low-ness of the probability.
    No, they refuted his assertions.


    I don't even agree with Arp. I just don't like your attitude about some things, Q, so I feel the need to actually bother with this.
    Good for you. Could I possibly care less?

    However, I'm not going to read 10 different papers through, plug all of their figures into a spread sheet, and then come back just so you can throw 20 more at me. That's merely an attempt to keep people from calling a bluff. Raise the ante until nobody is willing to bid that high, and you can pretend you had the cards.
    Okee-dokee. You just keep right on posting nonsense, then. Good luck with that.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    (Q)

    There are 3 sources of Arps RSA that I consider to be 100% true.

    They are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222.

    Did you check those out?

    If you separate the the 1st 2 examples, there is no way you can explain a 'curved' arm of stars attached to either of the other objects. A galaxy with one curved arm of galaxies that would have an arm cut off at say the elbow?
    Same for the quasar if it was separated with that curved arm.
    In the 3rd example, that quasar seems to have taken a bite/chunk of the large galaxies stars. Coincidence? Ha ha. No way.

    Before you comment, check out these 3 examples in the archives of the Sky and Tel. magazine , April 1983, page 307.

    Cosmo





    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Your asking (Q) to read.

    He does not care less.


    Cosmo what are the links for

    There are 3 sources of Arps RSA that I consider to be 100% true.

    They are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Harry

    http://www.quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

    That one above is the only one I could find that has a photo..

    http://server1.wikisky.org/starview?...C+53&locale=IT

    The one above is a text site.
    The two mentioned above in my article are AM southern galaxies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Great fine

    Thank you.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    Your asking (Q) to read.

    He does not care less.
    If you're going to continue to sell Arp's nonsense, then I see no reason to pursue this thread.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    A read several of your links last time, and they agreed that Arp's observations had a low probability of occurring by chance. They merely suggested that he'd over-estimated the low-ness of the probability.
    No, they refuted his assertions.

    When you say "refute", I wonder if you mean the same thing as what I've come to understand that word to mean. Did they demonstrate that it was impossible (or very nearly) for him to be right, or merely cast some doubt on his theory?

    The articles I read only refuted his statistical arguments, which isn't the same thing as refuting his actual theory. (And I'm not even sure they did that. Their statistical assumptions were just as bad as his, only in the opposite direction)

    That is, of course, if "refute" means prove wrong. You can cast doubt on almost any theory, even the most thoroughly proven ones, but casting doubt on something isn't refuting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax

    What ever you do read up on Arp's works.

    Great man, his findings are ahead of his time.

    The large tel scope, James Webb will become operational in a few years. From this, I hope evidence will either support the BBT or boot it out to never never land.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Kojax

    What ever you do read up on Arp's works.

    Great man, his findings are ahead of his time.

    The large tel scope, James Webb will become operational in a few years. From this, I hope evidence will either support the BBT or boot it out to never never land.
    Even though I am looking forward to seeing the James Webb scope set to abserve, the current HDFN, HDFS and HUDF, have done a good job of falsifying the BBT already.
    These fields have shown redshifts of 7+.

    Since I have proven that the local Virgo Cluster would be at a distance of 15 billion light years away to have a RS of one, than that is further proof that Arp is right.
    Those high RS's of 6-7 in the Hubble deep fields have got to be high energy quasars to be seen at those distances that I estimated to be about 25 billon lys deep..
    This is almost twice the age of the BBT.

    (Q), any comment?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Como

    I agree with you.

    Every nail, closes the lid on the BBT.

    It will be sad to see it go, the theory has been around for close to 100 yrs.


    Where does it say that the Virgo cluster is 15 Gyrs?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Como

    I agree with you.

    Every nail, closes the lid on the BBT.

    It will be sad to see it go, the theory has been around for close to 100 yrs.


    Where does it say that the Virgo cluster is 15 Gyrs?
    That last paragraph in my article says so.

    I derived those from using the RSs of the galaxy group that was .0035.
    M87s RS of 004 has a 'local space velocity' of about 200 kms/s recessional by my calculations done a considerable time ago.
    The RS in the BB concept is given in space expansion velocities of 1200 kms/s for M87.
    But I studied that cluster and found out that it has a small local space recessional velocity also.

    Since 'Q' questioned the Arp RSs, then according to his logic, the Quasars are not credible, so then if that is true, the HUDF with detected RSs of 7+, would be the VCrs RS of 15^9 lys x 7 = 105^9 distant in the HUDF scenario.
    Wow! Credible?

    Hey (Q), whats your opinion? Did you go on vacation to the Bahamsa?
    Beware, the hurricane season is in full swing.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    (Q) having logic.

    Is this for real, am i in dreamworld.

    I have not read one thing from (Q) that has an (I) before it.

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

    Cosmo

    I'm still trying to get my head around the information.

    I'll come back

    Got to go.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Hey (Q), whats your opinion?
    Get an education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Hey (Q), whats your opinion?
    Get an education.
    You mean I should go to college to have the BBT indoctrinated into my head so I can get that piece of paper (Diploma license) to teach their science that I consider to be religion?

    No way!

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)

    Get an education.
    No way!
    Then, you're done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Rather than thinking about the BBT.

    Look at the workings of the universe.

    Star formation and galaxy evolution.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)

    Get an education.
    No way!
    Then, you're done.
    You mean that I have to be endorsed by the popes educational system?

    This is not the sixteenth century. Because this is an internet communication systen, the popes cannot burn me at the stake or confine me in my house with no priveleges.

    I suggest you 'transport' yourself to the current time period.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    WHY THE BIG BANG IS FALLACIOUS

    "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.
    Cosmo
    Even I have been opposing the nonsense called big bang. If the big bang created universe then who kept the ingredients ready that exploded? It only means bangs could have occurred but it has nothing to do with universe being born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    You mean that I have to be endorsed by the popes educational system?
    Aren't you already?

    This is not the sixteenth century.
    Yet, you hold medieval beliefs. Curious...

    Because this is an internet communication systen, the popes cannot burn me at the stake or confine me in my house with no priveleges.
    But, your mommy can.

    I suggest you 'transport' yourself to the current time period.

    Cosmo
    Would that be your current time period or the twenty-first century?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    Joseph said
    Even I have been opposing the nonsense called big bang. If the big bang created universe then who kept the ingredients ready that exploded? It only means bangs could have occurred but it has nothing to do with universe being born.
    So simple and yet to the point.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    WHY THE BIG BANG IS FALLACIOUS

    "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.
    Cosmo
    Even I have been opposing the nonsense called big bang. If the big bang created universe then who kept the ingredients ready that exploded? It only means bangs could have occurred but it has nothing to do with universe being born.
    Most people think of the BBT as an explosion, but the supporters of this theory say that the BB was 'not' an explosion.

    It is just an expansion of space. No explosion!

    And this with the 'enormous ' temperatures at the beginning? Is this logical?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 Re: BB Falacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Most people think of the BBT as an explosion, but the supporters of this theory say that the BB was 'not' an explosion.

    It is just an expansion of space. No explosion!

    And this with the 'enormous ' temperatures at the beginning? Is this logical?
    Of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Most people think of the BBT as an explosion, but the supporters of this theory say that the BB was 'not' an explosion.

    It is just an expansion of space. No explosion!

    And this with the 'enormous ' temperatures at the beginning? Is this logical?
    Of course.
    I will add to that - it is not just logical, it is perfectly possible within the laws of physics - ie, it is not just a logical possibility, but a physical one.

    What it is not, however, is this: it is not a simple, words-of-one-syllable, intuitive to the meanest intelligence, explanation.

    Physics has to be good at what it does, but nobody said it had to be easy to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    oh thunderation damn it is he still going on about this?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: BB Falacy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Most people think of the BBT as an explosion, but the supporters of this theory say that the BB was 'not' an explosion.

    It is just an expansion of space. No explosion!

    And this with the 'enormous ' temperatures at the beginning? Is this logical?
    Of course.
    I will add to that - it is not just logical, it is perfectly possible within the laws of physics - ie, it is not just a logical possibility, but a physical one.
    Only if we accept space as having the ability to expand.



    What it is not, however, is this: it is not a simple, words-of-one-syllable, intuitive to the meanest intelligence, explanation.

    Physics has to be good at what it does, but nobody said it had to be easy to understand.
    I agree that it doesn't have to be simple, not by any means, but at the same time, incomprehensibility is also used by the Catholics as an excuse for any perceived logical contradictions in their doctrines about God.

    If there doesn't exist anyone on the face of the Earth who fully understands a theory, because it has been complicated beyond the point of human ability to approach it, then the decision of whether you believe it or not rests entirely with your biases.

    If you're biased in favor of belief (IE. you hold it true until proven false), then you will believe it.

    If you're biased against belief (IE. you hold it false until proven true), then you won't believe it.

    I think that a true scientist is always skeptical (IE. always biased against belief), and that there should never be any exceptions to the rule of skepticism, even when we might find some of our curiousity satisfied by suspending our incredulity a little.


    The BB would be a wonderful theory if it had a sufficient amount of (non-conjectural) evidence to carry it, but unfortunately it only has a few pivotal observations behind it, and a lot of un-provable logical extensions added.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: BB Falacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Only if we accept space as having the ability to expand.
    So, are you saying that the distance between objects cannot increase?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Nice.

    We both know that the BB is not predicting normal expansion of distance between objects due to the objects' relative velocities. (Indeed, the BB expansion is not even claimed to result from a velocity at all.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Space between objects can increase, particularly where matter is ejected from black holes millions of light years from the origin.

    Than in time you have the clustering effect of that matter. As we see via observations of Star and galaxy clusters.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Nice.

    We both know that the BB is not predicting normal expansion of distance between objects due to the objects' relative velocities. (Indeed, the BB expansion is not even claimed to result from a velocity at all.)
    Nice going Kojax

    These BB'ers are not capable of answering simple questions like:

    What is 'driving' the expansion if it was NOT an explosion?

    And the one I asked (Q) before?

    Which has more realism, the Laws of Conservation or the BBT?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    What is 'driving' the expansion if it was NOT an explosion?
    Simply because one explanation is wrong doesn't necessarily mean an explanation has been found.

    Which has more realism, the Laws of Conservation or the BBT?
    So, you're looking for a meaningless answer to a meaningless question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Space between objects can increase, particularly where matter is ejected from black holes millions of light years from the origin.
    So, in your opinion, galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is not increasing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    (Q) maybe its time for you to look up there.

    Galaxies are not moving away from each other.

    Its not an opinion its an observation that galaxies collide and merge.

    There is a clustering effect that leads to some galaxies moving away from each other due to a gravity sink.

    Galaxies colliding
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...iding+galaxies

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/smg/


    http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/cl0958/


    Galactic collisions come fast and frequent
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10439465/

    There’s room in the universe for thousands of galaxies but that doesn’t stop them from running into each other. New observations support the idea that galaxies are in constant interaction with each other and that the biggest ones get bigger by engulfing smaller ones.

    Multiple Galaxy Collisions Surprise Hubble Astronomers
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...leases/1999/45

    http://hubblesite.org/cgi-bin/search...laxy+collision

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/...axy+collisions
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    Galaxies are not moving away from each other.

    Its not an opinion its an observation that galaxies collide and merge.
    I would agree that within a cluster of galaxies, some may collide and merge. But, those galaxies are moving away from the galaxies around them, just as galaxies are moving away from us, lest the few within our cluster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    I see that you are using more words.

    If you think the galaxies are moving apart than back it up with what ever.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    What is 'driving' the expansion if it was NOT an explosion?
    Simply because one explanation is wrong doesn't necessarily mean an explanation has been found.

    Which has more realism, the Laws of Conservation or the BBT?
    So, you're looking for a meaningless answer to a meaningless question?
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    (Q), you are a comedian.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    Why do people like to discuss somthing that you cannot see.

    Such as Expansion of space/time and than refer it to actual observations.

    The recyling process in most cases will eject and expand its surroundings and in time suck it back into black holes, but never to include the total universe. Think about it the known observable universe is said to be about 100 billion light years across, OK some say we can only observe 13.2 Gyrs that makes it 26.4 Gyrs. Regardless imagin trying to get all the galaxies and stars to start recycling at the same time, no way in hell, even if God had a hand in it.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph
    Even I have been opposing the nonsense called big bang. If the big bang created universe then who kept the ingredients ready that exploded? It only means bangs could have occurred but it has nothing to do with universe being born.
    I really don't understand what you mean especially where you state, "It only means bangs could have occurred but--".
    Harry seems impressed anyhow!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Double post

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Only if we accept space as having the ability to expand.
    So, are you saying that the distance between objects cannot increase?
    (Q)
    You know that question is nothing but a trap.

    Of course objects can move away from each other in compliance with simple math relationships like between gravity and momentum.

    But in a cluster, galaxies are bound together by the gravitational field.
    Even the BB'ers admit that the objects within star systems and galaxies and clusters are bound together.
    The opinion is that the space BETWEEN these structures is expanding but NOT within them.

    An added opinion: Space is nothing but a vacuum. So how can a vacuum expand?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: BB Falacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    An added opinion: Space is nothing but a vacuum. So how can a vacuum expand?
    Simple, the distance between objects increases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Halliway

    Please my privacy is my privacy.

    I do not rely on who I am to convince you of information.

    If I cannot back the information, than I cannot back the information.
    I believe that giving a little more information about your qualifications and scientific work would only create more respect for your posts when they are being compared with posts from individuals ,like myself, with a very limited scientific background.
    I do not see how this could affect your privacy!
    If you do not rely on who you are to add more authority to your posts then why mention you are a scientist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Hallaway

    Thats the limit to my privacy, at the moment.

    Hello (Q)

    you said

    Simple, the distance between objects increases.
    If this is correct than support it.

    How simple can it be?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Space between objects can increase, particularly where matter is ejected from black holes millions of light years from the origin.
    So, in your opinion, galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is not increasing?
    I'm sure some of them are moving apart, but I'm not convinced that the Hubble Redshift is the result of their actual motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    An added opinion: Space is nothing but a vacuum. So how can a vacuum expand?
    Simple, the distance between objects increases.
    We're not just talking about distances *between* objects anyway. A beam of light is all one object, and yet those are supposed to be expanding with the expansion of space as well. I guess you could divide the beam into parts if you want, but those parts are all connected.

    Basically astronomers are looking for something that could lead to the expansion of the beam of light specifically (because that is the only part of the phenomenon that has actually been observed).

    For some reason, they prefer that the cause not be a kind of expansion that's local to the beam of light itself, either. They want it to be an expansion that carries all objects in space with it (even though they haven't directly observed any of the other objects to be taking part in the expansion)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    An added opinion: Space is nothing but a vacuum. So how can a vacuum expand?
    Simple, the distance between objects increases.
    Well, the official 'standard' world wide for distance is in France. It is a platinum bar that is ONE meter long.

    That standard is NOT expanding.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Space between objects can increase, particularly where matter is ejected from black holes millions of light years from the origin.
    So, in your opinion, galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is not increasing?
    I'm sure some of them are moving apart, but I'm not convinced that the Hubble Redshift is the result of their actual motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    An added opinion: Space is nothing but a vacuum. So how can a vacuum expand?
    Simple, the distance between objects increases.
    We're not just talking about distances *between* objects anyway. A beam of light is all one object, and yet those are supposed to be expanding with the expansion of space as well. I guess you could divide the beam into parts if you want, but those parts are all connected.

    Basically astronomers are looking for something that could lead to the expansion of the beam of light specifically (because that is the only part of the phenomenon that has actually been observed).

    For some reason, they prefer that the cause not be a kind of expansion that's local to the beam of light itself, either. They want it to be an expansion that carries all objects in space with it (even though they haven't directly observed any of the other objects to be taking part in the expansion)
    They are ignoring the Arp RS Anomaly because it falsifies the EpS as the cosmological RS.

    But if you review the last paragraphs in my article above, that deals with the Virgo Cluster and its redshift distance relation, you will see that it ridicules the BBT as false.

    The only source of the CRS is the intrinsic expansion within the photons themselves.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

    Many people will stick with the BBT because in the mind there is no other theory to stick to.

    How do you educate people when most are heading in the same direction directed by churches, politics and schools.

    It takes time.

    So forget it let them think what they want.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    So forget it let them think what they want.
    And let the kooks think what they want, as long as they don't bother the adults who are working on science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    You tell them (Q) without the (I).
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Many people will stick with the BBT because in the mind there is no other theory to stick to.
    Fine. Would you or Cosmo care to explain why your unobserved theories are better explanations for the red shift?

    Cosmo, you will say that the big bang violates the law that states that matter cannot be created, but current quantum mechanics allows for just such a thing to happen under certain conditions.

    What about you Harry?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    I'm sure some of them are moving apart, but I'm not convinced that the Hubble Redshift is the result of their actual motion.
    Yes, we all know you and the others are not convinced, as we also know it would take getting an education on your part before you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    We're not just talking about distances *between* objects anyway. A beam of light is all one object
    No, it is not. See how much an education would benefit you? Get one soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    Many people will stick with the BBT because in the mind there is no other theory to stick to.
    Complete BS, there are plenty of theories to ponder, none of which stand up to the evidence.

    How do you educate people when most are heading in the same direction directed by churches, politics and schools.
    So, are we to understand that the idiots here are educating us?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    As normal you read words out of context.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Many people will stick with the BBT because in the mind there is no other theory to stick to.
    Fine. Would you or Cosmo care to explain why your unobserved theories are better explanations for the red shift?
    The only way to avoid the mistakes of the past (Catholic style burnings at the stake, promotion of idiots to positions of high scientific authority, or a general plummet backward toward the dark ages) is to simply not arrive at any conclusion at all when sufficient evidence does not exist to arrive at one.

    The common masses are idiots who just want *some* answer, *any* answer. They'll ape whatever you say, and slowly momentum builds until it's virtually impossible to change the theory later, if evidence should emerge that suggests a better world/universe view.

    It's better to give them nothing than to jump to a conclusion merely because some overwhelming emotional force tells you to need to know. (Or rather, you need to feel like you know. It's only a placebo effect if you don't have real evidence.)


    Cosmo, you will say that the big bang violates the law that states that matter cannot be created, but current quantum mechanics allows for just such a thing to happen under certain conditions.

    What about you Harry?
    I'm pretty sure it only allows for a violation of the conservation laws to happen if the duration of the violation is limited to a space of time (rather than permanent), and then an equal and opposite violation must occur at a later time to balance it out.

    IE. in the long run, the laws are still never violated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    The only way to avoid the mistakes of the past (Catholic style burnings at the stake, promotion of idiots to positions of high scientific authority, or a general plummet backward toward the dark ages) is to simply not arrive at any conclusion at all when sufficient evidence does not exist to arrive at one.
    No one has arrived at any conclusions. The BBT is a theory, that's what the "T" stands for. It is one of several "theories" put forth based on the observations and it is the only one that continues to stand bases on those observations.

    The common masses are idiots who just want *some* answer, *any* answer. They'll ape whatever you say, and slowly momentum builds until it's virtually impossible to change the theory later, if evidence should emerge that suggests a better world/universe view.
    Then, why do you follow the idiots?

    It's better to give them nothing than to jump to a conclusion merely because some overwhelming emotional force tells you to need to know. (Or rather, you need to feel like you know. It's only a placebo effect if you don't have real evidence.)
    So, you actually think the BBT is based on an "overwhelming emotional force?" Clearly then, you've come to a conclusion, one that IS based on emotion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cosmo care to explain why your unobserved theories are better explanations for the red shift?

    Cosmo, you will say that the big bang violates the law that states that matter cannot be created, but current quantum mechanics allows for just such a thing to happen under certain conditions.
    The Arp RS Anomalies are more credible than the EoS that is a vacuum.
    So you believe that a vacuum can expand?

    The only Quantum theory I accept is the tranformation of 'continuous waves' of light TO actual 'Quanta' that are single pulses.

    The old style continuous waves are the HAs 'standing waves' that are not transmitting any intelligence but simply 'uniform' SW's.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Formatted error - deleted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    We're not just talking about distances *between* objects anyway. A beam of light is all one object
    That last remark was quoted by Kojax, not me.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

    Its so funny how the Big Bang people will say something without evidence or back up. They just say it and expect it to be taken.

    EG.

    (Q) said

    No one has arrived at any conclusions. The BBT is a theory, that's what the "T" stands for. It is one of several "theories" put forth based on the observations and it is the only one that continues to stand bases on those observations.
    What observations? Where is the evidence?
    Ad Hoc ideas are not evidence.
    Saying it is not evidence.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    What observations? Where is the evidence?
    Ad Hoc ideas are not evidence.
    Saying it is not evidence.
    Harry, are you saying you've never been presented the observations for BBT? Ever? Not once have you taken the time to understand the theory? No effort on your part, whatsoever, Harry?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    I know the BBT back to front.

    Let us see if you can provide any evidence towards it.

    Please do not try to avoid by making statements.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If all the ammunition you've got left is just to take people's arguments and distort them, you might as well just concede the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    The only way to avoid the mistakes of the past (Catholic style burnings at the stake, promotion of idiots to positions of high scientific authority, or a general plummet backward toward the dark ages) is to simply not arrive at any conclusion at all when sufficient evidence does not exist to arrive at one.
    No one has arrived at any conclusions. The BBT is a theory, that's what the "T" stands for. It is one of several "theories" put forth based on the observations and it is the only one that continues to stand bases on those observations.
    Well, there is no part of science that isn't called a "theory". BBT is at the point where they're pretty much writing it into textbooks. I'd call that arriving at a conclusion.


    The common masses are idiots who just want *some* answer, *any* answer. They'll ape whatever you say, and slowly momentum builds until it's virtually impossible to change the theory later, if evidence should emerge that suggests a better world/universe view.
    Then, why do you follow the idiots?
    I'm following them? I didn't notice that I was following anybody but myself. Maybe you mean to say that I'm an idiot?

    The need of people to arrive at a conclusion is what drove governments for hundreds of years to enact justice systems that used the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence. It was more satisfying to the public to feel like they knew who had committed every crime.

    We're having the same problem with science. People want to feel like they know everything, so we grab the most credible suspect and convict them rather than endure the uncertainty of not knowing.

    It's better to give them nothing than to jump to a conclusion merely because some overwhelming emotional force tells you to need to know. (Or rather, you need to feel like you know. It's only a placebo effect if you don't have real evidence.)
    So, you actually think the BBT is based on an "overwhelming emotional force?" Clearly then, you've come to a conclusion, one that IS based on emotion.
    You know full well that the "emotional force" I was referring to was the need to feel like we know. It's certainly not the basis for the BBT itself, though it is probably why we hold the theory to be so credible.

    Q, is your goal here to seek truth or to distort it? You can make my arguments sound like whatever you want by spinning or misrepresenting them, but it's hardly a scientific thing to do. I point out the things I point out because I'm genuinely interested in moving forward, not just for the singularly petty purpose of winning an argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    These links are interesting:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1084
    Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

    Authors: Yu. Baryshev (1), I. Taganov (2), P. Teerikorpi (3) ((1)Astron. Inst. St.-Petersburg Univ., (2)Russ. Geograph. Soc., (3)Tuorla Obs. Turku Univ.)
    (Submitted on 5 Sep 2008)

    Abstract: We present a summary of the International conference "Problems of practical cosmology", held at Russian Geographical Society, 23-27 June 2008, St.-Petersburg, Russia, where original reports were offered for discussion of new developments in modern cosmological physics, including the large scale structure of the Universe, the evolution of galaxies, cosmological effects in the local stellar systems, gravity physics for cosmology, cosmological models, and crucial observational tests of rival world models. The term "Practical Cosmology" was introduced by Allan Sandage in 1995 when he formulated "23 astronomical problems for the next three decades" at the conference on "Key Problems in Astronomy and Astrophysics" held at Canary Islands. Now when the first decade has passed, we can summarise the present situation in cosmological physics emphasizing interesting hot problems that have arisen during the last decade. Full texts of all reports are available at the website of the conference.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1849
    How to verify the redshift mechanism of low-energy quantum gravity

    Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
    (Submitted on 10 Sep 2008)

    Abstract: In the model of low-energy quantum gravity by the author, the redshift mechanism is quantum and local, and it is not connected with any expansion of the Universe. A few possibilities to verify its predictions are considered here: the specialized ground-based laser experiment; a deceleration of massive bodies and the Pioneer anomaly; a non-universal character of the Hubble diagram for soft and hard radiations; galaxy/quasar number counts.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    I am only going to quote a small part of this truly outstanding post!
    How is it possible that all these highly intelligent scientists/astronomers, who accept the BBT, did not notice how easy it was to dismiss the evidence provided by the CMBR?
    Even worse these experts appear to be less than impressed by certain mathematical "proofs" put forward by a few individuals who are bravely swimming against the prevailing current. Many professional astronomers are not even aware these "proofs" exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    I am only going to quote a small part of this truly outstanding post!
    How is it possible that all these highly intelligent scientists/astronomers, who accept the BBT, did not notice how easy it was to dismiss the evidence provided by the CMBR?
    Even worse these experts appear to be less than impressed by certain mathematical "proofs" put forward by a few individuals who are bravely swimming against the prevailing current. Many professional astronomers are not even aware these "proofs" exist.
    There are other reasons for refuting the CMBR as a BBT remnant.

    My first was that the CMBR could not be a perfect BB Curve because during the
    transition from plasma to matter (gas), there would be a mix of plasma radiation with the gas (matter) rediation to prevent a perfect BBC.
    Matter radiations are BB pulses from 'closed' orbital transitions rather than plasma radiations that are open orbital 'sign' wave pulsations.

    2 - The 1000 redshift that I refuted that did not comply with the Virgo Cluster RS 's.

    3 - the most credible of all as mentioned above in my article that prooves mathematically using 2 proven values that the discrepency of the RS's do not support the BBT because these redshifts corroborate the Arp RS Anomaly.
    See above.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day (Q)

    I know the BBT back to front.

    Let us see if you can provide any evidence towards it.

    Please do not try to avoid by making statements.
    Then, you already have the observations. It must be a problem with your understanding of it, perhaps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, there is no part of science that isn't called a "theory". BBT is at the point where they're pretty much writing it into textbooks. I'd call that arriving at a conclusion.
    No, it isn't a conclusion. Theories are written into textbooks, so what?


    We're having the same problem with science. People want to feel like they know everything, so we grab the most credible suspect and convict them rather than endure the uncertainty of not knowing.
    Rubbish.


    You know full well that the "emotional force" I was referring to was the need to feel like we know. It's certainly not the basis for the BBT itself, though it is probably why we hold the theory to be so credible.
    Rubbish.

    Q, is your goal here to seek truth or to distort it? You can make my arguments sound like whatever you want by spinning or misrepresenting them, but it's hardly a scientific thing to do. I point out the things I point out because I'm genuinely interested in moving forward, not just for the singularly petty purpose of winning an argument.
    You're arguments are not scientific by any stretch of the imagination, nor do you point out anything of relevance. It's mostly rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    These links are interesting:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1084
    Practical cosmology and cosmological physics
    Complete rubbish. Kooks promoting kooks.


    How to verify the redshift mechanism of low-energy quantum gravity

    Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
    (Submitted on 10 Sep 2008)
    Ivanov, another kook. Photons colliding with gravitons? Hilarious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    (Q) you have a problem.

    Since (I) is missing there is no hope for the problem to be resolved.

    Your comments speak for themselves.

    I do not even know why you even bother to post.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, there is no part of science that isn't called a "theory". BBT is at the point where they're pretty much writing it into textbooks. I'd call that arriving at a conclusion.
    No, it isn't a conclusion. Theories are written into textbooks, so what?
    Doing so has the effect of solidifying it in the minds of the people who aren't scientists themselves (but who fund science), making it difficult for scientists to reverse themselves later without losing so much perceived credibility as to cause their funding to get revoked.

    That's why it bothers me.



    We're having the same problem with science. People want to feel like they know everything, so we grab the most credible suspect and convict them rather than endure the uncertainty of not knowing.
    Rubbish.
    Calling it "rubbish" is all well and good, but it's hard to find any alternative reason that the BBT has become so prevalent.



    You know full well that the "emotional force" I was referring to was the need to feel like we know. It's certainly not the basis for the BBT itself, though it is probably why we hold the theory to be so credible.
    Rubbish.

    Q, is your goal here to seek truth or to distort it? You can make my arguments sound like whatever you want by spinning or misrepresenting them, but it's hardly a scientific thing to do. I point out the things I point out because I'm genuinely interested in moving forward, not just for the singularly petty purpose of winning an argument.
    You're arguments are not scientific by any stretch of the imagination, nor do you point out anything of relevance. It's mostly rubbish.
    It depends on how you define scientific inquiry. If you define it on the basis of whether some group somewhere agrees on it, then we're not talking about absolute concepts.

    Science is defined by skepticism accompanied by a willingness to overcome that skepticism when confronted by a sufficient amount of empirical evidence.

    Even more narrowly, Science could be defined as the narrowing of one's search for truth so that it only includes those facts which can be derived directly from empirical evidence, or by logical extension there-of.

    The BBT meets the first part of that second definition, because it does start with empirical observation, but no self respecting logician could reasonably convince themselves that the "logical extension" part has been strictly observed.

    All my arguments are directed against the logical process that lead from the empirical observations to the final result. (I'm not questioning the observations) I've taken enough course work in formal logic at this point in my college career that I can safely say I'm within my depth. If it bothers you that I dare to question the logical skills of people who are not specialists in that specific area (rather specialists in the broader area of science), then fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax

    Why even bother with a person on another planet?

    The amount of rubbish that he makes is a joke.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95 Re: BB Falacy 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    Are you deliberately spreading wrong information, or are you just misinformed? For high redshifts, the values do not simply add up linearly in time. You need to consider the Robertson-Walker metric and go on from there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96 Re: BB Falacy 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My first was that the CMBR could not be a perfect BB Curve because during the
    transition from plasma to matter (gas), there would be a mix of plasma radiation with the gas (matter) rediation to prevent a perfect BBC.
    The properties of a BB do NOT depend on the radiative process. As long as the opacity is high enough, every physical body - especially a plasma - can be described in terms of a BB. Normal stars are a very good example for this. And their spectra are very close to perfect BB spectra. So, why should the plasma causing the CMBR be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    2 - The 1000 redshift that I refuted that did not comply with the Virgo Cluster RS 's.
    Bad argument. The measured redshift is much too small to say anything about the cosmological model. It consists of a cosmological as well as a normal doppler redshift of peculiar motions.

    Here is a nice webpage for redshift/time calculations:
    http://terpsichore.stsci.edu/~summer...smo_calcs.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    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.
    Are you deliberately spreading wrong information, or are you just misinformed? For high redshifts, the values do not simply add up linearly in time. You need to consider the Robertson-Walker metric and go on from there.
    Did you ever hear of Occams Razor?

    Well, I stick by that principle and agree with it. So why create a lot of fringe problems that just complicate the solution?

    Robertson and Walker did not incorporate their version into the BBT. This was done by others.

    Einsteins problems for a solutuion to the universe had a problem. It was a static universe and it would have collapsed.
    Well, you see the various stuctures out there in space and they are not collapsing.
    Even the BB'ers admit that the space within the structures are not collapsing.

    The BBT says that the expansion is uniform per unit distance. Einsteins RS formula has created the variations to this RS expansion. I refute Einsteins version and accept Arps Anomalous RS's as more realistic.

    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY. So why waste your time studying it?

    My post on the Flat Space (SSU) explains everything there is to know about the Universe. No complicated solutions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY. So why waste your time studying it?

    My post on the Flat Space (SSU) explains everything there is to know about the Universe. No complicated solutions.
    That is some claim ("everything there is to know------") and modest as well!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    You said

    Einsteins problems for a solutuion to the universe had a problem. It was a static universe and it would have collapsed.
    Well, you see the various stuctures out there in space and they are not collapsing.
    The various structures out there do collapse and expand via a Jet mechansim. This is general info and well understood.

    Just google for the info.

    If you want tons of information on it just ask.


    This does not mean that I agree with the BBT.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cosmo, Occam's Razor is a guideline, a rule of thumb. It is not an unshifting law of the natural world.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •