Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53
Like Tree19Likes
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Hydrogen Cloud Separation Supports A Static Universe?

  1. #1 Hydrogen Cloud Separation Supports A Static Universe? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    I am exploring alternative/s to the Big Bang. I came across this, need any opinions on this scientific paper:

    Abstract:

    Despite the idea of an expanding universe having been around for nearly one hundred years there is still no conclusive, direct evidence for expansion. This paper examines the Lyman Alpha forest in order to determine the average temperature and the average separation of Hydrogen clouds over the aging of the universe. A review of the literature shows that the clouds did once become further and further apart (showing expansion?) but are now evenly spaced (an indication of a static universe?). Doppler parameters give an indication of the temperature and/or the degree of disturbance of the clouds and the evidence is that the temperature or degree of disturbance is increasing rather than decreasing as required by an expanding universe. Whilst these results do not support any cosmology individually, they do support one where the universe expanded in the past but that expansion has now been arrested and the universe is now static. A separate mechanism for redshift would be required to explain why, in this scenario, the Hydrogen Clouds are evenly spaced in the local universe - but have differing redshifts. High z hydrogen cloud separation can be used to give an independent estimate on the lower limit of the age of the universe in an expanding model and it is found that the age must be far greater than the presently accepted value of 13.8 billion years - if the H1 clouds are to achieve their present separations without some mechanism other than inflation being involved.
    http://lyndonashmore.com/Hydrogen_cl...n_preprint.pdf

    The same author Lyndon Ashmore has also written a book titled Big Bang Blasted:

    Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support. What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.
    He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory! Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.
    He seems to conclude the universe is not expanding and that redshift is just photons travelling through space? and argues for a static universe. He also has other articles on his website:

    Debunking the CMB Curve. Why do Big Bang people draw the Blackbody curve the wrong way around?

    This is not my area of science, is this guys theories any good? Is there any flaws in what he says? If not then I may buy his book. Is it a valid alternative to the big bang?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Where have his peer reviewed articles been published? How many citations have they had? Have his arguments been refuted by others? That is usually a good way of judging the quality of the science. Anyone who only publishes their ideas on website and books is less likely to be credible. (Garish website design is often another clue.)


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Where have his peer reviewed articles been published? How many citations have they had? Have his arguments been refuted by others? That is usually a good way of judging the quality of the science. Anyone who only publishes their ideas on website and books is less likely to be credible. (Garish website design is often another clue.)
    I have not seen his arguments refutated by others, it looks like a widely published book Big Bang Blasted but I cannot find any criticism. Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe, so we should not expect to see any peer-reviews.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Where have his peer reviewed articles been published? How many citations have they had? Have his arguments been refuted by others? That is usually a good way of judging the quality of the science. Anyone who only publishes their ideas on website and books is less likely to be credible. (Garish website design is often another clue.)
    I have not seen his arguments refutated by others, it looks like a widely published book Big Bang Blasted but I cannot find any criticism. Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe, so we should not expect to see any peer-reviews.
    So this is another case of 'Prove me wrong'.

    His only point on that web page is that he doesn't like the way the way the black body spectrum is graphed. Yet he never mentions this graph

    wmap3year.jpg

    the one where the error bars are so tight that you can't distinguish them from the data point.


    His web site for his book, "Big Bang Blasted" has been suspended. Reviews of his book call him a charlatan and a crank.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe, so we should not expect to see any peer-reviews.
    Nonsense. If someone writes a scientific paper on a static universe, it could be published. I am not a cosmologist, or even a scientist, but I have read peer-reviewed articles challenging the standard big bang cosmology.

    So, not nonsense. Complete and utter bollocks.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe, so we should not expect to see any peer-reviews.
    Nonsense. If someone writes a scientific paper on a static universe, it could be published. I am not a cosmologist, or even a scientist, but I have read peer-reviewed articles challenging the standard big bang cosmology.

    So, not nonsense. Complete and utter bollocks.
    I have not seen any recent peer-reviewed publications for a static universe. The last peer-reviewed ones appearing in a mainstream journal were the ones from the 1990's by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar of the revised steady state model.


    The static universe model of Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. I am interested in knowing how he came to this conclusion.

    I also managed to find a similar author to Lyndon:

    ~@Com~|~~BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE~~

    He is also the author of some anti-big bang books, such as The Cult of the Big Bang and Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality. Would love to see some of this stuff break into the mainstream. This site seems to collect many problems with the Big Bang:

    Why the Big Bang is Wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe, so we should not expect to see any peer-reviews.
    Nonsense. If someone writes a scientific paper on a static universe, it could be published. I am not a cosmologist, or even a scientist, but I have read peer-reviewed articles challenging the standard big bang cosmology.

    So, not nonsense. Complete and utter bollocks.
    Same. In fact, I've got several saved to my desktop as pdf's.
    Anyone can go Google Scholar and see more published papers challenging standing ideas than you can shake a stick at. A challenge is just that. What's needed to make a theory into an accepted model is rigorous evidence and observation, which many challenges lack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    I have not seen any recent peer-reviewed publications for a static universe.
    Why do you think that is? Do you think that the reason could be...a lack of evidence?

    The last peer-reviewed ones appearing in a mainstream journal were the ones from the 1990's by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar of the revised steady state model.
    And have you read the withering critiques of those papers? Evidence from subsequent observations has put several nails in the coffin.


    The static universe model of Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. I am interested in knowing how he came to this conclusion.
    Yes; this is the tired old "tired light" theory. Google it. You'll see that its predictions are fundamentally at odds with observation.

    I also managed to find a similar author to Lyndon:...
    Please stop posting link after link to dodgy pubs (see footnote, below). It's a waste of everyone's time. There's no end to them, so if all you're looking for is confirmation of some belief you have, keep it to yourself. But if you want to learn real science, perhaps you should start by ditching these piles-o'-steaming-crap(tm) and reading, say, the material by Prof. Ned Wright at UCLA (google for his Cosmology FAQ and related pages).

    Footnote: As just one example, let's take a look at the very first sentence of Kierein's magnum opus:

    "The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect."

    The cosmological red shift is not due to the Doppler effect, so he clearly does not even understand the mainstream theory he's arguing against. That level of ignorance tells me all I need to know.
    Last edited by tk421; January 17th, 2013 at 07:42 PM.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    And have you read the withering critiques of those papers? Evidence from subsequent observations has put several nails in the coffin.
    There was only one critique of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), and it was replied to by Hoyle and Narlikar. The QSSC was mostly ignored by other astronomers. There is no observations against that theory, and it in some cases actually explains the data better than the Big Bang. It is one of the better examples of non-Standard cosmology and has not been shot down and cannot be accused of pseudoscience like some of these other theories.

    Why do you think that is? Do you think that the reason could be...a lack of evidence?
    Look up the word "dogma".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    The QSSC was mostly ignored by other astronomers.
    I remember it being debated pretty hotly when I was young.

    There is no observations against that theory, and it in some cases actually explains the data better than the Big Bang.
    Really? Would you like to provide some examples? On second thoughts, don't bother. It doesn't matter if it can explain some observations (by inventing undetectable processes, aka "magic"). If it can't explain all observations then it is not as good as alternatives.

    Look up the word "dogma".
    Look up the word "psychoceramics".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Here is what Helge Kragh writes in his paper on the Steady state theories:

    After 1965, any alternative cosmological theory had to account for the cosmic microwave background and its nearly Planckian spectrum. The failure of doing so was a major reason, if not the only reason, why the original steady-state theory was abandoned. Hoyle’s answer, which he developed together with Narlikar and Chandra Wickramasinghe in the mid-1970s, was to suggest the existence in interstellar space of thermalizing grains that might convert starlight into long wavelengths of a blackbody-like spectral shape. From this point of view the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson was not of cosmological origin at all, but merely local starlight dressed into the shape of heat radiation. Initially Hoyle and Wickramasinghe suggested dust grains in the form of graphite needles, but it was eventually realized that slender iron needles or “whiskers,” or a combination of the two, might do a better job. At any rate, the dust grain hypothesis was believed to be more natural than the one based on a big bang.



    What about the cosmic microwave background? The QSSC explanation does not differ much from earlier steady-state explanations, in so far that it appeals to thermalization by means of carbon and metallic whiskers that are synthesized in supernovae. It was of course a problem that there is no direct astronomical evidence for such whiskers, but Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar emphasized that they had been studied for long in the laboratory and that their optical properties were well known.


    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.3449.pdf


    The steady state (QSSC) has never had to invent magical undectectable processes such as dark energy or dark matter etc like the Big Bang and it can explain all the same data as the Big Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    At any rate, the dust grain hypothesis was believed to be more natural than the one based on a big bang.
    Believed by whom? Oh yes, Hoyle et al.

    It was of course a problem that there is no direct astronomical evidence for such whiskers
    ...
    The steady state (QSSC) has never had to invent magical undectectable processes
    Wow. More terms for you to look up: double standards; hypocrisy; intellectual dishonesty...

    it can explain all the same data as the Big Bang.
    Can it? Really? I don't believe it can explain either red shifts or CMB. Or gravitational lensing by dark matter. Or many other observations.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The steady state (QSSC) has never had to invent magical undectectable processes such as dark energy or dark matter
    No, it just replaces them with equally undetectable carbon and iron whiskers

    and it can explain all the same data as the Big Bang.
    No it can't, which is why SS models in general were abandoned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Most mainstream journals won't touch a paper endorsing a static universe
    They rejected my theories on a chocolate pudding-based planetary core as well.

    Jerks.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Here is what Helge Kragh writes in his paper on the Steady state theories:


    Helge Kragh is a good, careful writer. I have not searched that reference to see if he goes on to deliver the coup de grace that you omit.

    The steady state (QSSC) has never had to invent magical undectectable processes such as dark energy or dark matter etc like the Big Bang and it can explain all the same data as the Big Bang.
    Instead, QSSC invents magical undetected (not undetectable) thermalizing materials like carbon and iron whiskers. I see you prefer that sort of magic.

    I notice that you avoid mentioning deuterium, so you are either ignorant of the serious problem that the abundance of deuterium poses for all steady-state models, or you are so blinded by dogma that you are willing to be intellectually dishonest and avoid its mention.

    In any case, the ability of BBT to account quantitatively for the observed hydrogen-to-deuterium ratio is unmatched by any existing SST. [We can talk about He-4 later...]
    Last edited by tk421; January 18th, 2013 at 02:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    @nsbm ranger: I disbelieve Big Bang Theory on philosophical and personal grounds. I am on the lookout for researchers identifying solid evidence to support doubt on scientific grounds. The material you have introduced in this thread fails to do so......completely. Better luck next time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    @nsbm ranger: I disbelieve Big Bang Theory on philosophical and personal grounds. I am on the lookout for researchers identifying solid evidence to support doubt on scientific grounds. The material you have introduced in this thread fails to do so......completely. Better luck next time.
    Hi John, there is a list on this website of alternative cosmology theories. Alternative cosmology - RationalWiki tell me if you think any have any merit. And yes I do realise they are not published in mainstream journals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Hoyle et al replied to his criticism in a series of papers. I do agree it does have problems, especially the idea of continuous creation of matter and the idea about the c-field. But it is more believable than the big bang. On the alternative cosmology link, what do you think about any of those models? is there any alternative/s to the big bang that you agree with?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Hoyle et al replied to his criticism in a series of papers.
    He may have replied, be he did not provide effective answers. One word: Deuterium

    I do agree it does have problems...
    Deuterium.

    Perhaps you have discerned a pattern.

    This is perhaps the third or fourth time I have raised this issue. Perhaps it is no surprise that you have steadfastly and rudely ignored me, for deuterium -- BBT's ability to explain the amount we observe, and the failure of all SST theories to do so -- poses a thorny problem for SST-lovers everywhere. [And that's in addition to the characteristics of the CMB, etc.]
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    This is perhaps the third or fourth time I have raised this issue. Perhaps it is no surprise that you have steadfastly and rudely ignored me, for deuterium --
    Funny how they always do that, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Hoyle et al replied to his criticism in a series of papers.
    No, they did not.

    They replied to Ned Wrights earlier criticisms in a series of papers, and then Ned produced the above article, rebutting their replies. The above article has not been refuted.

    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    I do agree it does have problems, especially the idea of continuous creation of matter and the idea about the c-field. But it is more believable than the big bang.
    Why is it more believable? Personal bias, or objective consideration?

    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    On the alternative cosmology link, what do you think about any of those models? is there any alternative/s to the big bang that you agree with?
    I haven't found any alternative so far that explains half of our observations as well as the Big-Bang model explains them. Until a better theory comes along, that explains everything the Big-Bang explains either in a simpler fashion, or makes more predictions we can test, I will stick with the model that works best.
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Can you please explain why Deuterium is evidence against any infinite universe model.

    Because deuterium is destroyed in the interiors of stars faster than it is produced, and because other natural processes are thought to produce only an insignificant amount of deuterium, it is presently thought that nearly all deuterium found in nature was produced in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and that the basic or primordial ratio of hydrogen-1 (protium) to deuterium (about 26 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogen atoms) has its origin from that time.
    Deuterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is just an assumption that the Deuterium came from the Big Bang, it has not been proven. You are correct, perhaps some proponets of Static Universe models have not looked into this issue. But I am sure if I look I can find an explanation for you and how it is compatible in an Infinite and or/static universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    It is just an assumption that the Deuterium came from the Big Bang
    Do you know what the word "assumption" means? Do you know why this is not an assumption?

    it has not been proven.
    This is science. Nothing is ever proven. don't you get that yet. Saying "it is just a theory" or "it hasn't been proved" just makes you look silly.

    But I am sure if I look I can find an explanation for you and how it is compatible in an Infinite and or/static universe.
    It is produced in unicorn farts, apparently.

    Oh, you meant a scientific explanation. Sorry. Good luck with that.

    Brief summary of the problem here: Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The theory of BBN gives a detailed mathematical description of the production of the light "elements" deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7. Specifically, the theory yields precise quantitative predictions for the mixture of these elements, that is, the primordial abundances.
    [my bold]
    Neverfly likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    the unicorn theory is more believable then everything including this Deuterium randomly popping out of a big bang 13.75 billion years ago from a single atom. big bang is supernatural, we do not see it happening today, it also defies the laws of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    the unicorn theory is more believable then everything including this Deuterium randomly popping out of a big bang 13.75 billion years ago from a single atom. big bang is supernatural, we do not see it happening today, it also defies the laws of physics.
    Have you been drinking? Or have you decided to give up even the pretence of being interested in science?
    Neverfly likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Can you please explain why Deuterium is evidence against any infinite universe model.
    It's not so much evidence against an SST model as it is for BBT. BBT provides a quantitative prediction -- experimentally verified -- of light-element nucleosynthesis. Deuterium, in particular, is "challenging" for SST. See, e.g., Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So, given two theories, one which predicts the amount of deuterium we actually observe, and another, which cannot, which do you think scientists prefer? [There are other considerations, too, but let's just focus on one thing at a time. We can get to the question of SSTs' inability to explain even qualitatively the abundance of deuterium; the amount of He-4, etc. later.]

    Please mark your answer carefully on the Scantron(tm) sheet using a Number 2 Ticonderoga pencil. You may begin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    the unicorn theory is more believable then everything including this Deuterium randomly popping out of a big bang 13.75 billion years ago from a single atom. big bang is supernatural, we do not see it happening today, it also defies the laws of physics.
    Point noted... again, you are clueless about BBT. None of what you just posted had any accuracy. Well, the time line was close...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I like his description of the big bang theory "winning ugly": it may seem like a kludge to add parameters to the "pure" theory to account for observation, it is still better than a theory which cannot be adjusted to fit reality.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Here are some more problems with the Big Bang:

    1. There is no explanation of where the energy comes from to power the particles found in the quantum world - like the electrons. Recent explanations have led to the supposition of some mysterious dark energy and yet no explanation is given for where this energy might come from either. It also wrongly uses an assumed 'negative pressure of the vacuum' (NPV) to cancel the energy density of space.
    2. With such a huge explosion ( where all the matter in the Universe is created in an instant ?) the universe would be expanding billions of times too fast. Creation has to switch-off after a minute fraction of a second otherwise an absurd rate of expansion is predicted. This is a well known problem and has been called 'The problem of the Cosmological Constant'.
    3. Astronomers are now measuring some stars as being older than the oldest estimates for the age of the Universe under the big bang theory. If stars are older than the big bang, then the stated 13.7 billion year age of the universe must be wrong.
    4. The big bang theory requires that gravitational potential energy of the Universe must be negative. This is postulated as the means for cancelling the energy of matter (not space whose energy is cancelled by a negative pressure). NGPE is said to allow matter to arise from nothing. Unfortunately this requires the datum for potential energy be set at an infinite distance from the position of any object. This is absurd since the theory is based on Newton's mechanics which considers the mass of any object to be non-varying. So it would still exist at infinite distance and therefore cannot be cancelled this way.
    Untitled Document

    • Matter creation by the BB violates the 1st law of thermodynamics:
      "Matter cannot be created or destroyed"
    • Recession of galaxies by acceleration violates Newton's Laws of Motion: "f = m a" (there is no force)
    • There are no energy sources to power the 'expanding' universe:
      "Expansion is an illusion" (from misinterpretation of Red-Shift)
    • Laws of physics based Shwarzschild Radius is defied by the BB:
      "Velocity cannot exceed the speed of light"
    • The BB provides no explanation for the huge amount of angular momentum throughout the Universe: Conservation of Momentum
    • Observation of faded white dwarfs in M4 proves the universe is older than the BB: "24+ billion years vs. 13.7 billion years"
    Page 02: Why A New Theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    If you'd bothered to check the rest of the site from where you obtained that "document" you'd also have noticed that one of the books they sell purports (from the title) to tell us How Science Proves God. Gonna give us extracts of that too?
    Further searches highlight that the author also claims to have "firm proof of the existence of life after death".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    How about you learn to think before posting with such confidence. When are you going to learn that usnupported assertions based on ignorance and incredulity do not make a scientific argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    There is no explanation of where the energy comes from to power the particles found in the quantum world - like the electrons.
    No energy is needed to "power" electrons. They don't dissipate or use energy.

    Recent explanations have led to the supposition of some mysterious dark energy
    That has nothing to do with "powering" electrons. I mean, really? Are this ignorant?

    and yet no explanation is given for where this energy might come from either.
    Because we don't know. (Oh noes!) Which is fine; that is what science is all about.

    With such a huge explosion ( where all the matter in the Universe is created in an instant ?) the universe would be expanding billions of times too fast.
    a) We don't know anything about "creation"

    b) It wasn't an explosion.

    c) Unquantified claims like "huge" and "billions of times too fast" are meaningless. How do you calculate how "huge" the "explosion" was? How do you know it is "too fast"? What is "fast enough"?

    Creation has to switch-off after a minute fraction of a second otherwise an absurd rate of expansion is predicted.
    a) Our theories don't say anything about creation.

    b) How do you know it has to "switch-off after a minute fraction of a second"?

    c) What exactly (quantitatively) is a "minute fraction of a second" and how is it calculated?

    d) What is "an absurd rate of expansion" and how is it predicted? What rate of expansion would not be "absurd"?

    This is a well known problem and has been called 'The problem of the Cosmological Constant'.
    No it hasn't. Ignorant dolt.

    Astronomers are now measuring some stars as being older than the oldest estimates for the age of the Universe under the big bang theory.
    No they aren't. (And, of course, we can ignore this claim as not supporting evidence is provided that needs to be refuted.)

    The big bang theory requires that gravitational potential energy of the Universe must be negative.
    No it doesn't.

    Matter creation by the BB violates the 1st law of thermodynamics
    a) We don't have a theory which says anything about creation

    b) No it doesn't (for various reasons you are too dumb to understand probably not interested in learning about).

    Recession of galaxies by acceleration violates Newton's Laws of Motion
    Of course it doesn't. Maybe you missed the memo but Newton's theories were replaced (modified/extended) by a guy called Einstein a while ago. Not only does GR explain the motion of the galaxies, it predicted it.

    There are no energy sources to power the 'expanding' universe
    No energy is needed. (Except for the apparent acceleration; for which we have the placeholder of "drak energy" until we undertsand what is going on.)

    "Expansion is an illusion" (from misinterpretation of Red-Shift)
    Prove it (yet another unsubstantiated claim).

    Laws of physics based Shwarzschild Radius is defied by the BB: "Velocity cannot exceed the speed of light"
    I have no idea what the reference Schwarzschild radius is for. And no velocities are exceeding the speed of light. And that restriction comes from relativity - the same theory that explains and predicts the expansion. How dumb can you get.

    The BB provides no explanation for the huge amount of angular momentum throughout the Universe
    I can't comment on that because I have no idea what it means. (Which is fine, because you don't know what it means either.)

    Observation of faded white dwarfs in M4 proves the universe is older than the BB
    No it doesn't. (And, of course, we can ignore this claim as not supporting evidence is provided that needs to be refuted.)

    Phew. Glad we cleared that up.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Sorry strange not interested in your personal opinion, that is not what science is about, you are giving abusive opinions not backed up with any evidence. The Big bang is flawed The Big Bang Theory - A Flawed Concept and yes that website was written by a physics with a phd. Who should I trust a qualified physicist or you? I will go with the physicist. Cheers.

    If you read this page you would see many other flaws in the Big Bang Why the Big Bang is Wrong also written by a physicist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Sorry strange not interested in your personal opinion, that is not what science is about, you are giving abusive opinions not backed up with any evidence.
    Not my personal opinions, just a summary of current scientific understanding. I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence as you.

    And what about the questions? Are you going to attempt to answer them (or find an answer in your sources)? Or are you just going to hand-wave them away as too awkward?

    If you want more detailed evidence to support any of the refutations of these points you can find them in any reputable textbook or scientific paper about the subject.

    You could start here: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

    Who should I trust a qualified physicist or you?
    You should trust neither. After all, that would be an appeal to authority (yet another fallacy to add to the pot). You should trust the evidence.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    There is no explanation of where the energy comes from to power the particles found in the quantum world - like the electrons. Recent explanations have led to the supposition of some mysterious dark energy and yet no explanation is given for where this energy might come from either.
    Dark Energy refers to the accelerating expansion of space and is not an issue with Electrons. In addition, according to the Lambda CDM model, The energy density of the universe has remained constant. Where the energy comes from is a question that reaches to a point 'prior' to the Big Bang and it is agreed that we do not know the answer to that.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    It also wrongly uses an assumed 'negative pressure of the vacuum' (NPV) to cancel the energy density of space.
    This statement is so general and inaccurate that one would need to type out a full lecture in order to effectively show why. A short, short summation would be that the BBT does not rely on this. The concept of vacuum energy can have heavy implications on BBT. As yet, such is yet to be observed or verified. In Q.M., negative vacuum energy is one consequence of mathematically renormalizing space if we can only observe energy relatively.

    The Lambda CDM model has a positive cosmological constant.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    With such a huge explosion ( where all the matter in the Universe is created in an instant ?)
    Inaccurate statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    the universe would be expanding billions of times too fast.
    This claim makes no sense and lacks any support for its assertion.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Creation has to switch-off after a minute fraction of a second otherwise an absurd rate of expansion is predicted. This is a well known problem and has been called 'The problem of the Cosmological Constant'.
    None of this statement actually relates to other parts of the same statement. There is no known natural way to derive the cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. There is a problem, yes- do you have something better to offer?
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Astronomers are now measuring some stars as being older than the oldest estimates for the age of the Universe under the big bang theory. If stars are older than the big bang, then the stated 13.7 billion year age of the universe must be wrong.
    This claim lacks any references, citations or support.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    The big bang theory requires that gravitational potential energy of the Universe must be negative. This is postulated as the means for cancelling the energy of matter (not space whose energy is cancelled by a negative pressure). NGPE is said to allow matter to arise from nothing. Unfortunately this requires the datum for potential energy be set at an infinite distance from the position of any object. This is absurd since the theory is based on Newton's mechanics which considers the mass of any object to be non-varying. So it would still exist at infinite distance and therefore cannot be cancelled this way.
    This statement is full of inaccuracies. Rather, it is only the difference in GPE that matters. By making U infinite, it keeps GPE values finite and that they are negative in value means nothing as, again, it's the difference that matters.
    Again, one could write a lecture on this one, in order to convey the full implications. Suffice to say, the wording of the criticism was poor.
    If you wanted to point out problems with the Big Bang, you could have found much better examples. No one is claiming the theory is perfect. That is not what scientists do.
    What it is, is the most accurate model we currently have. Replacing it with a better model is more than acceptable- it is encouraged.
    Nitpicking erroneous problems however, suggests that the author is more interested in complaining than in presenting a valid and solid theory to be accepted as a working model.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Matter creation by the BB violates the 1st law of thermodynamics:
    "Matter cannot be created or destroyed"
    This has been addressed many times. That you ignore any rebuttals and just keep a broken record with your needle stuck in the groove belies any scientific endeavors you may claim to have.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Recession of galaxies by acceleration violates Newton's Laws of Motion: "f = m a" (there is no force)
    Same as above, but I will repeat that Newtons Laws of Motion is not applicable here. This is pure ignorance on your part. Newtons laws of Motion are a good and mostly accurate mathematical model, but as a model, it is not complete for these applications. This is where Relativity etc. comes in.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    There are no energy sources to power the 'expanding' universe:
    "Expansion is an illusion" (from misinterpretation of Red-Shift)
    Making the claim without offering a more accurate model means nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Laws of physics based Shwarzschild Radius is defied by the BB:
    "Velocity cannot exceed the speed of light"
    The speed limit of light applies to matter within the Universe and EM radiation. It does NOT apply to Space Itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    The BB provides no explanation for the huge amount of angular momentum throughout the Universe: Conservation of Momentum
    This claim is undefined. Are you claiming that the Universe has angular momentum? If so, where is the support for this claim?
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Observation of faded white dwarfs in M4 proves the universe is older than the BB: "24+ billion years vs. 13.7 billion years"
    Again, a claim with no support. Post relevant references and materials.

    ETA: while I was typing, there was talking... adding this in-
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Sorry strange not interested in your personal opinion, that is not what science is about, you are giving abusive opinions not backed up with any evidence.
    You're projecting- This is exactly what you are doing.
    Repeatedly.
    With no sign that you're going to start learning something instead of copy pasting other guys that you think support your agenda.
    Strange and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    The Big bang is flawed The Big Bang Theory - A Flawed Concept and yes that website was written by a physics with a phd.
    From that page (see I do read the dross you post):
    The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because it assumes that the distance between two points in a given (curved) metric is the shortest possible distance, which however is only the case for the Euclidean metric (as the shortest distance between two points is by definition a straight line).
    How someone with an MSc and a PhD can write such ignorant nonsense is beyond me. Either he is really dumb or deliberately dishonest. I don't know or care which. But it is a sure sign that everything else he writes should be treated with utmost suspicion.
    Markus Hanke, tk421 and Neverfly like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I suspect deliberately dishonest from the careful wording seen on there.
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    No need. Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. True Believer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    Universal Intercourse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    No need. Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. True Believer?
    there was no big bang, matter has always existed. the big bang has no explanation to what came before the big bang and users such as yourself are embarrassed that you do not have an answer, and the big bang can't say why the big bang happened without religious answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    Universal Intercourse.
    sorry but that is not an answer, more details needed please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    No need. Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. True Believer?
    there was no big bang, matter has always existed. the big bang has no explanation to what came before the big bang and users such as yourself are embarrassed that you do not have an answer, and the big bang can't say why the big bang happened without religious answers.
    "Always existed" is just as problematic as "how was it formed?"
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    Universal Intercourse.
    sorry but that is not an answer, more details needed please
    I wouldn't demean myself. Go rent the video.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    there was no big bang, matter has always existed.
    You're fond of making unsupported assertions, aren't you? "Often wrong, never in doubt" is the motto of the TrueBeliever(tm).

    the big bang has no explanation to what came before the big bang and users such as yourself are embarrassed that you do not have an answer
    No embarrassment at all. You see, real scientists and other seekers of knowledge are not frightened of not knowing something, and have the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know, yet."

    TrueBelievers, on the other hand, are scared of not knowing, so they invent fairy tales that fill the frightening void. They are so deluded that they even convince themselves that the fairy tale is somehow superior to knowledge that is based on evidence.

    , and the big bang can't say why the big bang happened without religious answers.
    If by "religious" you broadly mean "something which must be taken on faith for lack of actual evidence," then yes, I agree. There may be no "why" other than "stuff happens." The universe may not have been created solely for the amusement of you, personally, nsbm. Sorry to burst your narcissistic bubble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    nsbm is a crank with an agenda.

    The only reason to engage him is for the value of a laugh.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    nsbm is a crank with an agenda.

    The only reason to engage him is for the value of a laugh.
    Well, there might be one other reason: These threads are read by (perhaps) many people who discover them through search engines, and so engaging cranks for a brief period is an educational opportunity. NSBM's "arguments" are quite common, so it's at least a bit worthwhile pointing out how empty they are.

    As for a laugh, I alternate between that and weeping. Evolution apparently does not proceed at quite the same velocity for all.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    would you like to explain what came before the big bang neverfly. and why did the big bang happen.
    We don't know (yet). So what? That is like criticising the theory of evolution because we don't know how life started (but I expect you do that as well). It is irrelevant. The big bang theory is about the development of the universe since an early hot dense state. It doesn't say anything about "creation". (I have a vague suspicion someone might have mentioned that to you already?)

    Maybe it is a cyclic process.

    Maybe there was nothing and it all appeared by magic.

    Maybe it emerged from a black hole in another universe.

    Maybe ... even ... maybe the big bang model is wrong. <gasp>

    Maybe it was sitting there like a cosmic egg forever until it was ready to hatch into the universe.

    But we won't be able to decide between any of the possibilities until we have some evidence. We are not going to make an arbitrary decision just because we like it.

    [Note: "we" is an impersonal pronoun referring to the scientific community and intelligent laymen in general (i.e. pretty much everyone but you)]
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Maybe it is a cyclic process.
    I have a feeling the cyclic process here is that we have dealt with nsbm ranger before in an earlier incarnation, an incarnation that also claimed the big bang has religious motivations.
    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  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    there was no big bang, matter has always existed. the big bang has no explanation to what came before the big bang and users such as yourself are embarrassed that you do not have an answer, and the big bang can't say why the big bang happened without religious answers.
    Please bear in mind that standard cosmology is a model about the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, not its origin. This is often forgotten in discussions like this one.
    Furthermore, asking "what came before the BB" is utterly meaningless - it is like asking what is north of the north pole.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I have a feeling the cyclic process here is that we have dealt with nsbm ranger before in an earlier incarnation, an incarnation that also claimed the big bang has religious motivations.


    And yet religious fundies claim it is part of some sort of atheist conspiracy. <shrug>

    I have noticed his irrational style reminds of a former member who (mainly) campaigned against evolution. And who apparently had similar politics to nsbm. What are the chances of that ...
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    and the big bang can't say why the big bang happened without religious answers.
    Why do you persist in peddling this crap when you ALREADY been given one possible answer?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    [Please bear in mind that standard cosmology is a model about the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, not its origin. This is often forgotten in discussions like this one.
    Furthermore, asking "what came before the BB" is utterly meaningless - it is like asking what is north of the north pole.
    I agree with your point about "evolution" rather than "origin."
    I find it almost impossible to accept that asking what came before the BB is "meaningless."
    In a recent BBC programme, on this topic, Roger Penrose declared that he no longer believed that to be true and a number of other prominent scientists, such as Neil Turok, Lee Smolin and Andre Linde, appeared to agree with him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I find it almost impossible to accept that asking what came before the BB is "meaningless."
    In a recent BBC programme, on this topic, Roger Penrose declared that he no longer believed that to be true and a number of other prominent scientists, such as Neil Turok, Lee Smolin and Andre Linde, appeared to agree with him.
    It all hinges on the word "before". The usage of this word implies that one can extrapolate time beyond the t=0 point; I object to this for reasons of geometry. On a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold such as the one used to model the universe, the point t=0 would behave like a pole in time; this means that asking what was before the BB is similar to asking what is north of the north pole. It is simply meaningless, unless of course the universe as we see it is embedded in some higher dimensional structure, which of course no one can rule out. In fact, such a notion opens up some interesting possibilities - funny, I was planning to open a thread on just that topic, but am not quite ready yet.

    I would prefer to speak of the cause of the BB, rather than what was before, and even that is problematic.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Speed of Separation
    By TimeSpaceLightForce in forum Physics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 29th, 2012, 04:18 AM
  2. Taxpayer Welfare Supports Boat People.
    By westwind in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 6th, 2012, 12:21 AM
  3. 'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong.
    By Attiyah Zahdeh in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 31st, 2011, 03:03 PM
  4. Electron separation
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 06:07 AM
  5. A static universe.
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 13th, 2008, 10:01 AM
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
  •