Big Bang Blasted

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CraigD,

 

Thank you very much for this information and encouragement. Thanks also Tormod, for this forum and the way that you run it. It seems that 10 posts (rapidly approaching, like M31!) is going to open a lot of doors for me. I sincerely hope that I can contribute in a positive way and have some fun doing it. At the moment I feel I have to some extent dragged this thread away from its stated path, so let me fix that. It's back to work everyone!

regards

Hilton

 

ps Why is my number of posts stuck on 6?

[Pluto]

Hello Hilton

 

Kick your computer.

[modest]

Wasn’t the debate between steady-state and expanding-universe theories over decades ago? The evidence for expansion is so air-tight it’s now called standard cosmology. I would not presume to know everything, but I know we got to standard cosmology through a brilliant example of the scientific method.

First, there was General Relativity. The equations describe a universe that is dynamic (expanding or contracting) - a good hypothesis. Importantly, the theory makes predictions, and just as important: these predictions were made before they were observed.

 

Prediction: The more distant a light source, the more stretched its waveform.

Observation: Yep, Hubble ran into that.

Prediction: The more distant (younger) galaxies have less and less heavy elements. But, the ratio of helium with mass should remain the same.

Observation: True, this plots with beautiful accuracy

Prediction: Radiation from a younger and hotter universe should still be around. It wouldn’t just vanish.

Observation: Early detectors were not sensitive enough, but cosmic background radiation was eventually found in the microwave spectrum, just like predicted.

Prediction: The background radiation should have a spectrum of radiant heat from a black body – NOT that of stars or quasars or anything a steady-state universe would radiate.

Observation: Detected and plotted with such accuracy it’s staggering.

 

There are other experiments like the supernova standard candle and other observations that pan out. They tell us not only that our universe is expanding, but how fast and how we move in relation to the expansion along with the nature and state of the early universe. But, this post is quite long enough so I won’t get into all that. I just wanted to make the point that cosmologists understand expansion because of their use of the scientific method and an abundance of data. We should give these scientists their due for all the hard work describing our universe.

[LaurieAG]

We should give these scientists their due for all the hard work describing our universe.

 

Just like any other scientists, they should be afforded the opportunity to continue researching, and if their work passes the test of time, and only then, they should be rewarded.

[modest]

Just like any other scientists, they should be afforded the opportunity to continue researching, and if their work passes the test of time, and only then, they should be rewarded.

 

No, you don’t want to reward a scientist whose work hasn’t passed the test of time. That’s like giving a cookie to a stray dog. Sure - the dog’s happy for a while. But, it will be back and looking for more cookies. Next thing you know - each and every scientific breakthrough and it thinks it deserves a cookie.

 

Oops, they already gave out a reward:

 

George F. Smoot of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and John C. Mather of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland were awarded science’s highest honor (The Nobel Prize in Physics) for depicting the universe as it was 380,000 years after its birth in the Big Bang. Their feat, precisely measuring the faint light that revealed the seeds of today’s galaxies and superclusters, affirmed the big-bang theory to even the most stubborn skeptics.

 

Well, the Big Bang Theory has been around for more than 80 years. So, let’s just say it has stood the test of time, that way we don't have to take all the Nobel Prizes back and send these scientists to the pound.

[coldcreation]

Their feat' date=' precisely measuring the faint light that revealed the seeds of today’s galaxies and superclusters, affirmed the big-bang theory to even the most stubborn skeptics.[/quote']

 

The anistropy observed in the CMB are not at all indicative of the big bang. So the relic seed (of galaxies and supercluster formation) concept is not automatically acceptable.

 

That the big-bang theory is confirmed even to the most stubborn skeptics is simply wishfull thinking.

 

The question begs then, were those particular Nobel awards merited?

 

The answer to that is obvious: it is as merited as the Nobels awarded to Penzias and Wilson, i.e., not at all.

 

Cheers

 

CC

[DryLab]

Well, the Big Bang Theory has been around for more than 80 years. So, let’s just say it has stood the test of time, that way we don't have to take all the Nobel Prizes back and send these scientists to the pound.

As religions go, the Big Bang Theory is not that old:) And it is a religion, complete with all the trappings.

 

The big killer of the Big Bang is the recently discovered fact that there is an Electromagnetic Saturation Constant which prevents the singularity from which the Big Bang came. This BTW also means that Black Holes can't exist. Robert Kemp is one of the culprits.

[modest]

As religions go, the Big Bang Theory is not that old:) And it is a religion, complete with all the trappings.

 

I can just picture Moses on Mt. Sinai using experimentation and the scientific method to develop the 10 commandments

[Mike C]

Hi everybody

 

I just got back on Hypography after being HACKED by Gates and his live hacker that have kept me off since my last post here on 6/25/07.

My W98 SE OS was destroyed and I had to get another substitute computer with the more glorified XP OS.

 

So I have been off now for about 74 days.

 

Seems Mr Gates does not like the billionaires to be criticized.

 

But to get back to the subject matter, the BBU has no real evidence for its acceptance since it is based on the Slipher, Hubble and Humason observations that implied an 'expanding universe' that Georges Lemaitrae has interpreted from these observations.

 

BUT and a very big but, the evidence was refuted as Doppler and replaced by the Lemaitrae idea of an 'expanding space'. So where is the 'real' science for this expansion since Doppler was refuted?

So far, NONE exists

 

Mike C (formerly known as New Science).

 

P.S. I avoided the political thread but have now decided to post an article I wrote on the 'Evils of Capitalism'.

 

.

[DryLab]

can just picture Moses on Mt. Sinai using experimentation ....

Hubble used experimentation and the scientific method. The Big Bang was not Hubble's idea. He knew that the raw prediction of 3.5 billion years or so was not enough time for even the earth to have evolved. You have to go outside of science and invent an expansion period in which the laws of nature are whatever it takes to make the theory work:)

 

Given that freedom; we can make any theory work.

[modest]

The facts are:

1 – there IS cosmic microwave background radiation

2 – those emissions DID radiated from black body plasma (i.e. the universe was hot) some time ago

3 – the universe is cooler now

 

1 + 2 + 3 = an expanding universe

 

Before fact 1 came out in the 60’s, maybe half of physicists supported steady-state. After fact 1 there were few steady-state physicists. When fact 2 came out in the 90’s it shut the door on the steady-state universe.

No physicists or cosmologist has been able to add 1, 2, and 3 and make a steady-state universe that looks like ours does now. Because, that’s not our universe. Our universe is a “Big Bang” universe.

[DryLab]

The facts are:

1 – there IS cosmic microwave background radiation

2 – those emissions DID radiated from black body plasma (i.e. the universe was hot) some time ago

3 – the universe is cooler now

1 -- True

2 -- True as far as DID radiate from black body [--snip--] The remainder of the sentence does not hold logically. The black body radiation might simply be the temperature of the miscellaneous debris of the universe as it is heated by starlight. This was calculated by Eddington before the turn of the century to be about 4 degrees kelvin.

3 -- Does not hold logically. :)

[modest]

1 -- True

2 -- True as far as DID radiate from black body [--snip--] The remainder of the sentence does not hold logically. The black body radiation might simply be the temperature of the miscellaneous debris of the universe as it is heated by starlight. This was calculated by Eddington before the turn of the century to be about 4 degrees kelvin.

3 -- Does not hold logically. :)

 

"black body" spectrum means by definition that it cannot have come from stars or quasars or the like. Besides, COBE also mapped dust and it was quite different from CMB and not spread so even throughout the universe. And, if dust were responsible for CMB then it would show the spectrum of it's constituent elements. So, YES #2 is true. Very true. It's well accepted.

 

And, if 3 didn't hold logically then we would all be waste deep in scorching plasma. Let me look around.... Yep, #3 is true

[DryLab]

"black body" spectrum means by definition that it cannot have come from stars or quasars or the like. Besides, COBE also mapped dust and it was quite different from CMB and not spread so even throughout the universe.

Wikipedia seems to have it a little different than you suggest. Blackbody radiation is simply radiation that has no spectrum. It's all one wavelength.

 

And, if 3 didn't hold logically then we would all be waste deep in scorching plasma. Let me look around....

Nope the logic still doesn't work. It is not a given that the universe was ever hot; that is part of the theory we're discussing:)

[coldcreation]

The facts are:

1 – there IS cosmic microwave background radiation

2 – those emissions DID radiated from black body plasma (i.e. the universe was hot) some time ago

3 – the universe is cooler now

 

...snip....

 

One is observed.

 

Two and three are nothing more than interpretations based on the BBT. So two and three are not, as you wrote most likely erroneously, facts.

 

 

CC

[modest]

Wikipedia seems to have it a little different than you suggest. Blackbody radiation is simply radiation that has no spectrum. It's all one wavelength.

 

It has a spectrum and it is not one wavelength. So, no part of this is in any way true.

 

In fact, a black body spectrum is a graph over the change in wavelength. But, if you go back to wikipedia, look up what the bbs means. Look up planks law. You see, "Big Bang" standard cosmology PREDICTED a certain spectrum to the background radiation. When they got the results it was so astonishingly exactly the same as they predicted that now they know without a doubt the universe was filled with plasma at 3,000 Kelvin. You can no longer make logical arguments beyond this point. Sure, you can have your conspiracy theories. But, out of everything standard cosmology ever predicted about our universe nothing has been found wanting. Physicists know this - I guess it'll just take some time for the conspiracy theorist to catch up.

[Mike C]

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 expansions IMHO!

 

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 fraction of one with its RS of .0035-.004.

 

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

 

There are other lesser problems also.

 

Mike C

(formerly New Science)