The Big Bang Never Happened

I’ve seen several references recently to plasma cosmology and have spent the day studying this and the current state of BB theory. I have to admit I now find the obstacles to BB theory overwhelming. It appears to be no longer a theory based on observations but a patchwork of blackboard math models that bear no relationship to reality. The dark matter idea is perhaps the most disastrous and must be the death of BB. Without dark matter BB is dead and dark matter has never been observed and seems highly unlikely will ever be observed.

But there are other issues that BB can’t explain that further rings its death bell. See the articles below, they have many further references. Fun reading.

In contrast, plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates and doesn’t require any of the massive speculations of BB. But it is also a predictive theory and is quite elegant although much work is needed. It is also a more satisfying infinite model with no dramatic beginnings or endings.

Short extract -

Super-brief Summary (for the casual reader): The big bang no longer holds any water, due to several problems. For instance, superclusters, being 350 million Light Years in length, could not possibly have formed through gravity alone in the mere ~15 billion years since the big bang. Plasma makes up over 99.999% of all the matter in the universe - these electromagnetically interacting gases fuel the creation of large objects such as superclusters, and drive other phenomenae (?) such as the separation of matter and antimatter.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319591
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

I also suspect that many will continue to cling to BB even in the light of new contradictory observations because they have invested their life work in the theory. They will find it hard to accept they are totally wrong.



Cris

Cris

Has plasma cosmology solved these problems yet?

- origin of the cosmic background radiation and its isotropy
- the abundances of helium and deuterium
- motion of galaxies

These are addressed but you'll need to reasses how you think of these things. Remember we have been indoctrinated to believe BB is true and everything is in relationship to that. But BB doesn't address those issues very well when examined more closely. Read the articles.

I’ve seen several references recently to plasma cosmology and have spent the day studying this and the current state of BB theory. I have to admit I now find the obstacles to BB theory overwhelming. It appears to be no longer a theory based on observations but a patchwork of blackboard math models that bear no relationship to reality.

I suggest that maybe you've been reading the wrong sources. Plasma cosmology, as I understand it, is largely an internet nutter theory.

Did you read any astronomy journals, or reputatable popular science publications, or just dodgy internet sites?

The dark matter idea is perhaps the most disastrous and must be the death of BB. Without dark matter BB is dead and dark matter has never been observed and seems highly unlikely will ever be observed.

Please explain how you arrived at your assessment that it is "highly unlikely" ever to be observed.

In contrast, plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates and doesn’t require any of the massive speculations of BB. But it is also a predictive theory and is quite elegant although much work is needed. It is also a more satisfying infinite model with no dramatic beginnings or endings.

Have you read any critiques of plasma cosmology, at all, or only pro-plasma sites?

I also suspect that many will continue to cling to BB even in the light of new contradictory observations because they have invested their life work in the theory.

Which contradictory observations are you thinking of?

James,

So read the articles first.
I'm usualy not easily convinced.
Dodgy sites - they are usually obvious with some suspicious claims.
I still have some studying to do.

You might also like to see this open letter published in the New Scientist 22nd May 2004. Together with a long list of signees and their institutions.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The acknowledged flaws in BigBang theory do not automatically validate plasma cosmology.

Cris

I understand I may need to reassess those things, but I would also need to understand how plasma theory deals with those observations. Currently, it does not. And these are just a few observations in which plasma theory has not explained.

And the way I understand plasma (cosmology) is that although plasma certainly does exist, I think it might only be added as a part of BB theory in the formulation of galaxies, if at all. I don't think it has such far reaching effects that have been asserted such to explain the formulation of our universe or to preclude BB theory altogether.

I will, as you suggest, continue to read up on it, but please remember, there have been a number of cranks and crackpots on the internet who are pushing plasma cosmology, electric sun theories and other such electrical assertions that simply cannot explain many observations or fly in the face of observed and measured phenomena.

Q,

Yes understood. I think the emphasis here is more about the faults with BB rather than the strengths of plasma, as Ophiolite also indicates. The idea of dark matter for example doesn't appear to be good science. With such vast quantities required with zero observational evidence, this feels more like religion than science.

I would tend to agree with you in regards to dark matter. If the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, one would expect to find local dark matter. Unfortunately, since it does not theoretically emit or absord light and does not collide with particles, it would difficult to observe.

Can we replace dark matter with plasma? Not really, since it has not been observed and should have been observed, especially since it IS plasma.

I, for one, would be interested in discussing the faults of BB theory and would also be interested to see if plasma theory can explain those faults. If so, both theories could quite possibly be combined.

But I would also like to see first, plasma theory explain current observations before moving on to other areas.

Hi! all.

I don't have much time but I introdused the BB never happened website here, Chris has been nice enough to take a look at it, others may think it flaky, but I've also been reading pro's and con's of the issue.

**Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

A number of people have asked me to reply to Ned Wright's critique of the BBN. Observation since the last edition of the book was published in 1992 have only served to make the arguments in it stronger and to further contradict Wright's assertions.

Large Scale Structures

Wright claims that large scale structures in the universe can be created in the time since the Big Bang given the existence of dark (non-baryonic) matter in the right amounts. There are two errors here. Even calculations by advocates of the Big Bang show that the structures we observe would take about 5 times as long as the Hubble time(the hypothetical time since the Big Bang) to form, even with dark matter. And, second, there is no evidence that dark matter exists.

Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These voids typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002)]. These are merely the largest structures commonly observed in present-day surveys of galaxies. Still larger structures exist, but are few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size with the scope of the surveys themselves.

Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[F. Hoyle and M.S. Vogeley, "Voids in the Point Source Catalog Survey and the Updated Zwicky Catalog", Astrophys. J., vol 566, pp.641-651, Feb. 20, 2002].**Get the rest here (http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/)

** THE BIG BANG NEVER WAS!

The CHANDRA X-Ray Observatory is fulfilling its promise. Modern cosmology is being found wanting with every new discovery. The reason is simple. The universe is governed by the powerful electric force, not gravity. So by detailed imaging in x-rays, Chandra is able to see clearly for the first time the tell-tale signature of electrical activity in the centres of cosmic powerhouses - supernovae and galactic centres. What will replace present cosmology? A new PLASMA cosmology. Plasma constitutes 99.999% of the matter in the universe. It is staggering to realise that Big Bang cosmology is restricted largely to the physics of 0.001% of the universe - solids, liquids and gases on the surface of this planet! And much of the accepted physics of stars is untestable by experiment.** The rest here (http://www.holoscience.com/news/bigbang.htm)

Intro to plasma cosmology:click (http://www.plasmacosmology.net/)

There's still lot of reading to do, time is limited for me, many questions may be answered in those sites above, this is new folkes, so there will be lots of pro's and cons to the new theory of plasma cosmology, but in the end, science will prevail.

Godless

>> plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates ..........is quite elegant although much work is needed. >>>

indeed, much works

But guess what.... if you talk about it, you will get ridiculed,
LOL..... other established theories have become law nowadays......

from link

>> in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, >>

under the threat of universal net moderation...... yea may not speak your mind, nor mention your research...
Moderators net wide are comatose in current theory... strange really considering science is the topic


and NO ONE knows even one truth !!!!!

>> The universe is governed by the powerful electric force, >>>

again correct.... E and g are one and the same.... though mediated through B


As an aside

Considering "water in space" and the BB (also GR) are so indoctrinated into the population... I wonder if the God botherers are behind this destruction of proper scientific validation.

I have NEVER experienced this total shut down on thoughtful scientific discussion, as show by numerous net science discussion (forum) sites..... something is being buried, IMO !

THE New World Order even writes the science of the day....... mmmh, this was predicted in science fiction....

There is only one "free" true science forum on the net......

>>Has plasma cosmology solved these problems yet?

- origin of the cosmic background radiation and its isotropy
- the abundances of helium and deuterium
- motion of galaxies >>>

I would say (a) and (c) are solved//// helium ?

>> Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter.


Magnetic Bloch walls

Q,

Yes agreed. More later.

Ah, TruthSeeker. I see you use a consistent posting style. Will you shortly be changing your name to TrashShouter? I shall copy and paste my remarks to you from another thread, since they seem apposite here.

Thank you TruthSeeker for your thoughtful, measured contribution to what could have been an interesting discussion. Are you always so penetrating and analytical in your posts?

Problems with The Big Bang.

Top 10 problems (Meta Research).

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10 If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Ref: - http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

Top 30 problems (Meta Research 2002).

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Is the universe expanding? Expansion has not yet been observed.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

I'll list relevant extracts later.

Hey! My post was deleted!!!
That's not nice.... :(

Ah, TruthSeeker. I see you use a consistent posting style. Will you shortly be changing your name to TrashShouter? I shall copy and paste my remarks to you from another thread, since they seem apposite here.
Which one? The asteroid one?
Well, yeah. That thread deserved it. This one was just to be silly... :D

Oh... and my name should have already been changed to "PartySeeker"....

[I]Thank you TruthSeeker for your thoughtful, measured contribution to what could have been an interesting discussion.
Your're welcome. :D

Are you always so penetrating and analytical in your posts?
Sometimes I'm silly too.... :D

Problems with The Big Bang.

Top 10 problems (Meta Research).

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10 If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Ref: - http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

Top 30 problems (Meta Research 2002).

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Is the universe expanding? Expansion has not yet been observed.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

I'll list relevant extracts later.
Yep. Does that help with your search to immortality?

Anyways... what would be a plausible explanation for the data obeserved by the Hubble Telescope? What does the redshift mean, then?

I'm not saying I believe in the Big Bang. In fact, I've always had my doubts... But I'm curious to understand redshift.....

Happy New Year, Cris. ;)

Yaba Daba! :m:

TruthSeeker.

Read the links, lots of cool info there, many questions answered, and others raised ofcourse. Ah! science got to love it.

Red Shift.

The entire Big Bang theory rests on the red shift being due to the Doppler Effect, i.e. everything is flying away from us – expansion. That in turn leads to the assumption that there was a beginning and hence a big bang. Everything else about the theory including the cosmic background radiation (CBR) assumes that single critical assumption.

But actual expansion has not been observed by any means in fact I cannot find anything that shows the universe is expanding, and indeed in many studies just the opposite or just ambiguity. The red shift alone seems to be a very tenuous and fragile thread on which to rest such a major theory without additional corroboration.

If the red shift can be shown to be due to anything else other than Doppler then the entire BB theory instantly collapses, since there is no other credible observable evidence to support it. All other related ideas appear to have alternative explanations; some more reasonably support a static universe, or are just fudges (with dark matter a major fudge) to support the initial assumption.

So with that in mind I went in search of articles that either give alternatives to Doppler as an explanation for the red shift or that some entities with high red shift that should be far away are actually close. In this latter case we cannot then reasonably conclude that the observed red shift is due to Doppler, either entirely on only in part. I have examined many sites and articles and I thought I’d start with Halton Arp first. His short biography here reveals his formidable qualifications.

Short Biography for Halton C. Arp

Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt.Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!

References taken from his website http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts

This following abstract shows the discovery of objects with high red shifts that are close. BB says these should be far away. BB appears to be seriously broken since we cannot reliably use it to state that red shift is a result of Doppler.

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

From this I’d conclude that these red shifts must be due to other causes other than Doppler, and also that there appears little to conclude the universe is curved or expanding.

Some other websites of some interest.

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/PartIII/III15BigBang.html

Tired light revisited and variations - http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

http://www.mcn.org/c/irapilgrim/sci08.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Discovery of H2 explains redshift - http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/pc.html

A comedy reference http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm Pseudoscience at its worst.

Enough for now, although having spent the day reading articles again I do feel even more convinced that BB is quite wrong. And the rebuttals appear more like articles of faith.

Hi TS,

Yep. Does that help with your search to immortality?Nope. This is just another of my interests. I originally discovered sciforums as part of a web search on cosmology and I wanted a place to explore my hypothesis on bubble theory, which was my first post here.

Anyways... what would be a plausible explanation for the data obeserved by the Hubble Telescope? What does the redshift mean, then?LOL. It was Hubble himself who made the observation not the telescope that was named after him. Redshift refers to the wavelength of light shifted to the red when an object is traveling away from you. If it was coming towards you it would be shifted to the blue wavelengths. This is known as the Doppler effect that historically has been used to describe sound effects, e.g. a car coming towards you then going away. Hubble observed that all galaxies and objects were red shifted and reluctantly concluded that that probably meant the universe was expanding in all directions. From that BB was born.

Happy New Year, Cris. Hey and the same to you.

Cris

The entire Big Bang theory rests on the red shift being due to the Doppler Effect, i.e. everything is flying away from us – expansion.

And yet, the big bang theory ties in with much of what is known about the Standard Model of Particle Physics, too. Strange...

But actual expansion has not been observed by any means in fact I cannot find anything that shows the universe is expanding, and indeed in many studies just the opposite or just ambiguity.

Which kinds of studies are you referring to? (No need to give specifics or references. Just a brief summary of the findings.)

If the red shift can be shown to be due to anything else other than Doppler then the entire BB theory instantly collapses, since there is no other credible observable evidence to support it.

What about the cosmic microwave background radiation, as has been recently extensively studied by the IMAP project? What about the particle physics findings of symmetries and symmetry breaking among the fundamental forces?

All other related ideas appear to have alternative explanations; some more reasonably support a static universe, or are just fudges (with dark matter a major fudge) to support the initial assumption.

You'll need to specify.

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.

From memory, Arp's conclusions from his observations have been criticised by the mainstream astronomy community. Have you looked at any refutations of Arp's ideas?

From this I’d conclude that these red shifts must be due to other causes other than Doppler, and also that there appears little to conclude the universe is curved or expanding.

What other causes do you suggest?

Tired light revisited and variations - http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

Tired light has been completely debunked, as I understand it, since it does not fit certain types of observations (again, from memory, these include observations of type I supernovae). Have you read anything about the debunking of the "tired light" theories?

James,

And yet, the big bang theory ties in with much of what is known about the Standard Model of Particle Physics, too. Strange...And the same for static universe models as well surely? What specifically did you have in mind that supports expansion rather than static/dynamic?

Which kinds of studies are you referring to? (No need to give specifics or references. Just a brief summary of the findings.)I didn’t note the references only remembered reading them in passing. I’ll need to deal with expansion/contraction evidence later. But essentially if the various constants are adjusted slightly then the universe would be contracting and not expanding, or that the rate of expansion is not credible. There were several paragraphs in several articles that alluded to those effects. It made me realize that these subtleties put BBT on a knife edge of credibility. I.e. modeling is being used to push the theory rather than observation.

What about the cosmic microwave background radiation, as has been recently extensively studied by the IMAP project? But CBR is only supportive of expansion if expansion is true. It isn’t direct evidence of expansion. Other explanations are possible given a static or dynamic model. I’ll deal with CBR separately sine it is a key feature of BB. But I noted that the lower than expected temperature is more consistent with a static model rather than an expansion model.

What about the particle physics findings of symmetries and symmetry breaking among the fundamental forces?[/quote]Why is that relevant to expansion and redshift?

You'll need to specify.The major items are included in the articles I have already listed.

From memory, Arp's conclusions from his observations have been criticised by the mainstream astronomy community. Have you looked at any refutations of Arp's ideas?I looked briefly but couldn’t find anything that refuted his observations that he hasn’t already rebutted on his website. Do you know of any specific criticisms?

“ From this I’d conclude that these red shifts must be due to other causes other than Doppler, and also that there appears little to conclude the universe is curved or expanding. ”

What other causes do you suggest?It isn’t necessary to offer an alternative only to show that within BB it is false in key areas, unreliable as a predictive mechanism, or entirely wrong. Other causes for Redshift must be the object of other research. Although several are offered in the articles I have referenced already.

Tired light has been completely debunked, as I understand it, since it does not fit certain types of observations (again, from memory, these include observations of type I supernovae). Have you read anything about the debunking of the "tired light" theories?Understood, that’s why I referenced the article as “tired light revisited”. Much of what I read today was about “tired light” which was refuted in many cases. However, despite those objections it keeps reappearing in different forms. The article here included a different definition to the others I saw, and is perhaps incorrectly titled since it doesn’t really promote light entropy.

Hum,
We can verify the redshift with supernova data, galaxy intrinsic brightness, and quasar gravitational lensing.
So even if the ESG theory were correct, it would only off set the true value by a small margin.
Not enough to show no expansion.

Just a thought.

Nope. This is just another of my interests. I originally discovered sciforums as part of a web search on cosmology and I wanted a place to explore my hypothesis on bubble theory, which was my first post here.
Yeah, well... everything is connected anyways...... :m:

LOL. It was Hubble himself who made the observation not the telescope that was named after him.
Huuuum.. he must have had a very good eye......!!!! :eek:

Redshift refers to the wavelength of light shifted to the red when an object is traveling away from you. If it was coming towards you it would be shifted to the blue wavelengths. This is known as the Doppler effect that historically has been used to describe sound effects, e.g. a car coming towards you then going away.
Yeah, I know all that. Since the most boring times of my life- high school...

Hubble observed that all galaxies and objects were red shifted and reluctantly concluded that that probably meant the universe was expanding in all directions. From that BB was born.
That's not correct. He actually said that the expansion of the universe should not be inferred from his data. :eek:

Cris,

Here is a clue for your quest. Altough distant galaxies show a redshift, the closest irregular galaxies and even the Andromeda galaxy actually shows a blueshift. In fact, even a huge globular cluster (Vega, I think) shows a blueshift. What does that mean? It means that all those galaxies are getting closer together. If you would guess, you would of course guess that the smallest galaxies are moving toward the bigger ones due to gravity.

This is not a very simple scenario. You have an entire universe to think about and the only observations you can make are close-by. So what you do, is that you infer what happens elsewhere in the universe by what is happening here. Once you observe what is happening around you, ask yourself what is going on on the other "side" of the universe. Is it the same thing? Well, likely yes. So think about this same scenario all over the universe. Close-by you have blueshift, elsewhere you have redshift. Where is the center of the universe? The answer is nowhere. This is one of the main questions of BB! In this scenario you have blueshift everywhere in the universe. An ET would observe the same thing. The ET would infer the same theory of expansion. But that is silly. You can't just look at the details, you have to look at the big picture as well!!!! ;)

What about our observations of the so-called "early" universe? Quasars? What do they mean? They are gigantic galaxies with massive black-holes inside them. Are they our past? In the BB theory, yes. However, look at the data! Do you think it is really the past? Think about the blueshift and observe what happens next, when all those galaxies come together. Once you think about that, you will have the answer. The same answer that the ancients somehow knew, long time before us....... :eek:

The entire Big Bang theory rests on the red shift being due to the Doppler Effect, i.e. everything is flying away from us – expansion. That in turn leads to the assumption that there was a beginning and hence a big bang. Everything else about the theory including the cosmic background radiation (CBR) assumes that single critical assumption.
CBR, eh? Does that really prove BB? Or does it actually give evidence for brane theory!? Maybe neither...... ;)

Blobrana,

We can verify the redshift with supernova data, In what way? Could you be more specific please?

galaxy intrinsic brightness,.Yet this doesn’t appear to be the case.

Quote from Lerner -

“One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

and quasar gravitational lensingI looked at this but couldn’t find any studies where this was used to verify expansion. Do you have anything? But doesn't this depend on using redshift as part of the calculation? If so then it cannot be used to verify redshift due to Doppler.

So even if the ESG theory were correct, it would only off set the true value by a small margin.
Not enough to show no expansion.Clearly not really a justifiable statement from what I can see so far.

TS,

I would expect to see some blue shift even with expansion. Imagine radial lines coming from a center. Everything that is past us would be red shifted, anything still behind us that is moving faster than us would appear blue shifted. But still everything is flying outward.

But I think the dominant observation is red shift almost everywhere. There is not the random mix that you imply.

I didn't imply a random mix. I implied that from every point in the universe, the same observation is made- that is, blueshift close-by, redshift far away...

I looked at this but couldn’t find any studies where this was used to verify expansion. Do you have anything? But doesn't this depend on using redshift as part of the calculation? If so then it cannot be used to verify redshift due to Doppler.


Hum,
i won’t bother to repeat the supernova data results, or the galaxy intrinsic and apparent brightness, which have no doubt has been covered elsewhere,
But a quick search on google will show that the supernova data shows a slight deviation from a linear graph; towards in particular to an acceleration in the expansion.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec13.html
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/

http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/HubbleDiagramPhysicsToday.png


The gravitational lensing technique relies on simple geometry and the intrinsic brightness of that galaxy.
Quasars by their nature are small compact sources a few light years big, so that any feeding frenzy and their associated change in luminosity are easy to see and time.
So when we see two or more images of a quasar on either side of an intervening galaxy with the same spectra; then because the paths of the light beams take different routes and lengths of times to arrive here - we can work out the ratio of the distance that the quasar is behind the galaxy.

(ie one quasar will brighten or dim before the other one)

And we know how far the galaxy by it intrinsic brightness.
( for example, the brightness of a spiral galaxy is directly related to its rotational velocity - Tully-Fisher Relation, or through intrinsic brightness of its planetary nebulas, or just of it total brightness etc)

So when we compare the redshift against the results from distant and near sources (say, Cepheids) and medium distance indicators and they tally, then we can be fairly sure that the redshift data can be relied upon.


BTW, on a slightly different note, here is a link to some research done at the Green Bank Telescope to detect and study radio emissions at four specific frequencies between 1612 MHz and 1720 MHz coming from hydroxyl (OH) molecules in a galaxy more than 6 billion light-years from Earth, (at a time when there is a kink in the expansion graph), which you may find interesting.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/constants/

Blobrana,

Ok thanks. Some nice references. I've started reading and need to continue. My first confusion is that I can see how the distances are being determind but not the velocities. I.e. I'm not sure I yet see a confirmation of expansion without using redshift.

The disagreement over the Huble constant though is somewhat revealing of the problem with BBT.

I'm not sure I yet see a confirmation of expansion without using redshift.

Hum,
i`ll just add that the velocities are `<i>apparent velocities</i>` (as its really space that is expanding).
The first link i gave shows the stepping stones that are used to piece it all together. Treat it like a detective novel with `<b>the steady state theory</b>` as the dead victim.


The disagreement over the Huble constant though is somewhat revealing of the problem with BBT.

Yeah,
the disagreement is a major upset for BBT.
It means that we have to invent a mechanism (<i>i`ll call it `dark energy`</i>) that seems to have kicked in about 6 billion years ago and is slowly accelerating the expansion.

Blobrana,

Ok I'll go back and re-read. And I really have a problem with "space expanding", not that I can't understand the concept but that it seems contrived.

So we have a Hubble constant, an Einstien constant, dark matter, and dark energy. Any chance you can put the peices together for me and show me how it is all now meant to work?

Isn't that what everyone has been trying to do?
What are the chances WE will succeed if they themselves can't!? :bugeye:

Hum,
you naturally assumed that i hadn't worked out that matter inside blackhole is perhaps be transformed into a negative space-time geometry (Dark energy) , or that Dark Matter is perhaps the shadow remnant of the E8 x E8` super symmetry breaking? ;)

@Cris
As TruthSeeker pointed out these are the current problems being worked on.
The LHC that is being built may be able to shed some light (hehe) as to how it all fits together.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

What are the measures for dark matter and dark energy? Is it the same? Is it proportional? If they are, maybe they are related.....

I dont think anything remotely resembling dark matter even exists. It's a made up hypothesis in order to make assertions work.

(The overall galaxy's gravity "feeds its own motion ... unlike the case of the solar system," Cooperstock told SPACE.com.

The science of the new argument is complex, but here goes:

"In the galaxy case, having rotation, we have found that general relativity provides a very important potential that is connected to the density of the galactic matter in what we call a 'nonlinear' manner,'" Cooperstock says. "This is unlike Newtonian physics."

This nonlinear effect has been noted before. "The interesting twist is that this holds also for the simpler steady rotational motion under gravity as in the galaxy," he said.

The upshot: The motions of stars in galaxies "is realized in general relativity's equations without the need to invoke massive halos of exotic 'dark matter' that nobody can explain by current physics," Cooperstock said.

A small percent of what used to be considered dark matter is made of burned-out stars that are hard to see. Predictions for how much of that material exists would not change.

Also, the new idea does not yet explain how large clusters of galaxies bind together. Further research by other theorists might solve that problem too, however, Cooperstock said. The new analysis has been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal but has yet to be reviewed by other scientists.) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051010_dark_matter.html

Godless

I dont think ^{(just joking)}

Hum,
But, i know what you mean.
Similar to when the `<i>undetectable</i>` neutrino was proposed...

But that first theory you mention was chewed up and spat out,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51264&page=2&pp=5

Though,
it seems they have come back for more....

Is it the same? Is it proportional? If they are, maybe they are related.....

I don`t know.

>> This nonlinear effect has been noted before.

Just need a new theory of gravity.... seems all 'old' theories are inadequate

Fudging figures (complex or not) is not the way forward IMO

URI:

You have been warned...

...there have been a number of cranks and crackpots on the internet who are pushing plasma cosmology, electric sun theories and other such electrical assertions that simply cannot explain many observations or fly in the face of observed and measured phenomena. so how far can two electrc fields not affect eachother in any small amount ?

THE BB theory collapsed when it was discovered that there is acceleration in the expansion of the universe. But some still cling around that collapsed bridge to truth, while few have already crossed that deluge.

What are the measures for dark matter and dark energy? Is it the same? Is it proportional? If they are, maybe they are related.....

I hope U have read this link http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
and do checkout the electric universe in it and U can ignore Blobrana for good.

Welcome to the thread Anomalous, I like to see those of the few, that have come to terms and accept that the big bang never was, it gives credence to theistic ideals of a creator, who made the bb happened in the begining. Thus BBT is nothing more than religion cloaked in science.

so how far can two electrc fields not affect eachother in any small amount ?

Huh?

checkout the electric universe in it

Complete Velokovskian nonsense. Let me ask you something, what does an electric field do to plasma?

I hope U have read this link http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
and do checkout the electric universe in it and U can ignore Blobrana for good.
Sure. Nothing new there...
I'm surprised scientists didn't know that. Don't any of them ever study quantum physics? :bugeye:
It fits the data...
So how did the universe begin?

Plasma is different though. It is not like you would be electrocuted in space....

So how did the universe begin?

The negative pole was expelled from unity.

Eh? :confused:

You may wat to take a look at this.....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=944753#post944753

Hum,
I'm not sure the negative pole (or lets call it a monopole) was expelled.
it just was... there were billions of them (they were just was a defect in space-time created due to symmetry breaking).
And when inflation occurred it just diluted the number to one or two in our observable universe.

so how far can two electrc fields not affect eachother in any small amount ?

Huh?

checkout the electric universe in it

Complete Velokovskian nonsense. Let me ask you something, what does an electric field do to plasma?

Have U ever heard the term "Solar Wind" ?

The big bang theory is breaking up. However the emotional attachment to the assumptions and rhetoric, to consive such a concept is hard for some to accept physics as is, but seek to fit as they rationalize from their previous belief that it is so. Our minds must be open to new scientific evidence, should always be opened to accept new observations, instead of trying to cling to old rationalized ideas. As we advance as a human race, we will find that many of our theories perhaps were wrong when in light of new evidence. New evidence has been presented, however it takes time to come to conclusions of what actually is our new discoveries telling.

Since I'm only a layman in cosmology science. Though interested in it as a child, I like reading about it, and keep up with news when ever something hits the air waves. But with our discusion here, it makes for new search in this field. Here are a few links and perhaps some new ideas;
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies (http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm)

The above explains that redshift does not necesarily show expansion between the galaxies, the observation would literally take billions of years to conclude that the galaxies are indeed seperating, this has not been observed.

**( Cosmology: Big Bang cosmologists conclude that more distant galaxies move faster because they assume the redshift to be caused by the Doppler effect as more distant galaxies show a higher redshift. However, no one has actually observed yet that the distance between galaxies increases with time (obviously, one could tell this only after billions of years). In fact, the 'Hubble Law' is not at all an exact linear relationship but only an average tendency with quite a significant spread. It is even known that there are spectral lines from the same object (!) that show differences in the redshift by up to 10%. This does of course completely invalidate the interpretation of the redshift as a Doppler effect. I have consequently suggested an alternative explanation for the galactic redshift as being due to the electric microfields in the intergalactic plasma (i.e. the redshift would essentially be distance related but not velocity related)** http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#cosmology

Is science being suppresed from evolutionist themselves who favor BBT, and theist who adopted the new science of their day, and accept the BBT as their (let their be light) from a mythical creator? Science will prevail, if one has the initiative to accept new observations without having any bias for their beliefs, but only what the evidence has presented. That is what science is, the search for evidence despite it's outcome. The idea is not new, however the cosmological argument goes from one theory to another, when one side thinks has all the answers, evidence seem to come to light that show otherwise. Lets not bog down with "beliefs" in unproven theory, lets actually see where the evidence leads us were ever that may be.



Godless

Godly words Godless

Great articles

Let me ask you something, what does an electric field do to plasma?

Have U ever heard the term "Solar Wind" ?

Yes, I have. Could you please answer the question?

Let me ask you something, what does an electric field do to plasma?

Have U ever heard the term "Solar Wind" ?

Yes, I have. Could you please answer the question?

I already did answer; What happened to your semblance

I already did answer; What happened to your semblance

*sigh*

I didn't ask you what a magnetic field does to plasma, did I? Remedial English wasn't part of your curriculum?

I already did answer; What happened to your semblance

*sigh*

I didn't ask you what a magnetic field does to plasma, did I? Remedial English wasn't part of your curriculum?

Ladies and Gentelmen the EGO has landed

You lost, (Q). Give up...

:m:

Ladies and Gentelmen the EGO has landed

So, in other words, you can't answer the question, why didn't you just say you had no idea what you're talking about?

You lost, (Q). Give up...

And another?

Why do you guys come to these forums, obviously its not to learn something?

Why do you guys come to these forums, obviously its not to learn something?
Of course not! How silly of you! I'm just partying!!! :D

*shake shake babe!* :m:

im a bit late joining this conversation.
i found on www.thebigbangneverhappened.org the plasma fusion article to be particularly interesting.
cool stuff!!

anyhow, thats all i have to say.

Ladies and Gentelmen the EGO has landed

So, in other words, you can't answer the question, why didn't you just say you had no idea what you're talking about?

You lost, (Q). Give up...

And another?

Why do you guys come to these forums, obviously its not to learn something?

Ok man I give up, u r a genius and science cannot progress without U from the point where it is now at http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasma4StateMatter.html

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje

SO what is expanding our universe ?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1105voyager.html

You know, I dont believe in god. However, it takes lot of more effort to believe in science than god. I mean if you believe that god created everything, so much simpler. Anyways, yeah theories are under constant reviews, so I am not surprised that the Big Bang theory is under constant attack.

Anamolous

Ok man I give up, u r a genius and science cannot progress without U from the point where it is now at

You are a complete and utter bonehead. Did you read the link you posted? No. Did you read and understand my question? No. Nice job, bonehead.

From the link YOU provided (bold is added):

The solar magnetic fields embedded in the plasma are carried into space by the solar wind to form the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF).

The solar wind confines the magnetic field of Earth and governs phenomena such as geomagnetic storms and aurorae. The solar wind confines the magnetic fields of other planets as well.

So, now that we've both established that the solar wind is affected by magnetic fields, let me ask you one more time...


How does an electric field affect plasma?

Read it over a few hundred times to make sure you get it.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje

SO what is expanding our universe ?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1105voyager.html

GRAVITY

How does an electric field affect plasma?

Perhaps this answers your question Q! (http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/fieldif.htm)

Godless

Anamolous

Ok man I give up, u r a genius and science cannot progress without U from the point where it is now at

You are a complete and utter bonehead. Did you read the link you posted? No. Did you read and understand my question? No. Nice job, bonehead.

From the link YOU provided (bold is added):



So, now that we've both established that the solar wind is affected by magnetic fields, let me ask you one more time...


How does an electric field affect plasma?

Read it over a few hundred times to make sure you get it.


I was just trying to use your brain. but ...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1

Shouldnt expect more than this from a kindergarden dropout like me.

I was just trying to use your brain. but ...

Shouldnt expect more than this from a kindergarden dropout like me.

I didn't. Thanks for the link but I was hoping you could answer the question in your own words so that I'm confident you understand the differences.

From the link supplied by Anomalous

>> Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.


In a cosmic situation this is seldom the case

Like charges in parallel motion attract... pinch effect
Unlike cgarges in parallel motion [b]repel]/b]

You have to wonder what's up with the atoms when you see those numbers...
1 million ton of force... and yet the nucleus is kept together...
Quite remarkable......

From the link supplied by Anomalous

>> Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.


In a cosmic situation this is seldom the case

Like charges in parallel motion attract... pinch effect
Unlike cgarges in parallel motion [b]repel]/b]

and what about the adjacent ones form near star to the outer peripheri

I was just trying to use your brain. but ...

Shouldnt expect more than this from a kindergarden dropout like me.

I didn't. Thanks for the link but I was hoping you could answer the question in your own words so that I'm confident you understand the differences.

I am a nobody yet I see everybody

...
So, now that we've both established that the solar wind is affected by magnetic fields, let me ask you one more time...


How does an electric field affect plasma?...

I dont know but may be both are in play but
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/images/plasma_lamp.jpg

>> and what about the adjacent ones form near star to the outer peripheri >>>

not sure what you are saying, Anomalous

But all plasma is in motion. Even though the plasma may be neutral overall,
the various ions are highly charged in an electron sea...... The properties of vacuum and ionising radiation, self induced magnetic fields, and motion (external magnetic fields) make for a high powered mix

AFAIK

Charge separation occurs at cosmic body level

where cold (condensed plasma) matter in its various states and separation distance form capacitance effects

anamolous

I dont know...

Yes, thats what I thought. Nuff said, then?

>> and what about the adjacent ones form near star to the outer peripheri >>>

not sure what you are saying, Anomalous

But all plasma is in motion. Even though the plasma may be neutral overall,
the various ions are highly charged in an electron sea...... The properties of vacuum and ionising radiation, self induced magnetic fields, and motion (external magnetic fields) make for a high powered mix

AFAIK

Charge separation occurs at cosmic body level

where cold (condensed plasma) matter in its various states and separation distance form capacitance effects

Whats your point and why should we assume thats right, who told U ?

Real world electric repulsion http://whyfiles.org/shorties/ion_thruster.html

Of course not! How silly of you! I'm just partying!!! :D

*shake shake babe!* :m:

I just opened a beer :D

ETs don't drink beer :bugeye:

ETs don't drink beer

How do you know? :confused:

Look at them. Do you see any big bellies....? :D

yes,

now lets all bow down to the new theory, that is all truth and knwing,


im just playing, ut in all seriousness, i have already thought about this theory and am done philosophising it within my own mind,

unless the plasma is infinite then it still poses the same questions as before, "what before", etc etc blah blah blah,


theorys to disprove theorys, philosophy to disprove philosophy, its kinda funny,


peace.

These EU ideas need to be looked at again in light of these new mainstream findings that I have posted on the nature of lightning and other atmospheric plasmas, new astronomic observations on quasars, black holes,and the elemental constituents of space.

Don't these two recent findings of X-rays, Y-rays and neutrons in CG lightning lend support to the Electric Universe idea?

Joe Dwyer Paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf


Russian Science News
http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2...-13-5_65_e.htm


This view of Nova remnant is interesting:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k


As we get more observations of GRBs and X-ray flashes like these our understanding of Stellar and Black hole evolution should get nailed down.
As these results filter in it will be interesting to see how EU theory holds up.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...060831-08.html

And this
:Heavy hydrogen find alters galaxy formation theory
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4117430.html

Also, hopefully the next generation of particle accelerators should bring even more grist for this Plasma based mill.

Erich J. Knight

>> the red shift can be shown to be due to anything else other than Doppler >>

Red shifts are due to "spin fields"
which surround all cosmic matter.

Hope this link works for the GRB & XRF relationship:


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/edsumm/e060831-08.html

Maybe GAUGE will provide the answers we need for gravitons, and the Axions of Dark Matter too, and we will have all the grist we need to prove or disprove EU:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/9/1

Also:
I thought this would be supportive of EU views on the Big Bang:

Hypography Science Forums - Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

http://forums.hypography.com/astronomy-news/8252-big-bangs-afterglow-fails-intergalactic-shadow.html

Look at them. Do you see any big bellies....? :D

I believe Yoda liked Carlsburg. Chubaca? Who knows. :D

what does beer got to do with the big bang?

Everything! Ever heard of inflation? :D

You also need to be REALLY drunk to imagine the Big Bang in the first place! :D

The Big Bang Never Happened

I’ve seen several references recently to plasma cosmology and have spent the day studying this and the current state of BB theory. I have to admit I now find the obstacles to BB theory overwhelming. It appears to be no longer a theory based on observations but a patchwork of blackboard math models that bear no relationship to reality. The dark matter idea is perhaps the most disastrous and must be the death of BB. Without dark matter BB is dead and dark matter has never been observed and seems highly unlikely will ever be observed.

But there are other issues that BB can’t explain that further rings its death bell. See the articles below, they have many further references. Fun reading.

In contrast, plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates and doesn’t require any of the massive speculations of BB. But it is also a predictive theory and is quite elegant although much work is needed. It is also a more satisfying infinite model with no dramatic beginnings or endings.

Short extract -


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319591
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

I also suspect that many will continue to cling to BB even in the light of new contradictory observations because they have invested their life work in the theory. They will find it hard to accept they are totally wrong.



Cris

Never mind all that 5h1t you have quoted there is a simpler proof the big bang never could have occured. Imagine when all the matter in the universe was in a space the size of our solar system - it would have been dense beyond that of a black hole. Time is supposed to stop at the event horizon.
It would therefore have taken an almost infinite time to escape - this oversimplifies the effect but I have kept it short and simple such that you may understand it.

Never mind all that 5h1t you have quoted there is a simpler proof the big bang never could have occured. Imagine when all the matter in the universe was in a space the size of our solar system - it would have been dense beyond that of a black hole. Time is supposed to stop at the event horizon.
It would therefore have taken an almost infinite time to escape - this oversimplifies the effect but I have kept it short and simple such that you may understand it.
What an idiot.

All of the matter in the observable universe was contained in what we would measure as the diameter of a proton or less. It was hot and dense indeed, but not compressed as in a classical black hole. The metrics by which we measure space and time were themselves shrunk down to incredibly tiny propotrions. The "big bang" was the sudden expansion of the metrics of space and time.

Instead of "megabrain" this idiot should call himself, quantumind

It was hot and dense indeed, but not compressed as in a classical black hole.

fool, how could it be hot if there was no atomic motion to generate the fucking heat. and how the hell could the entire universe be so damn small, that's just stupid. and if THERE WAS SOMETHING (dense hot shit), then big bang doesn't explain the origin of MATTER/universe!!!!!!

fool, how could it be hot if there was no atomic motion to generate the fucking heat. and how the hell could the entire universe be so damn small, that's just stupid. and if THERE WAS SOMETHING (dense hot shit), then big bang doesn't explain the origin of MATTER/universe!!!!!!
Poor child. Let me help. If I have a nice baloon with spots painted on it, and it deflates, the spots move closer together, and the spots themselves get smaller. The spots represent matter. The baloons surface represents space. The space itself is contracting, and therefore the matter is also contracting as it also gets closer together. The relationship is not necessesarily linear.

See? The matter shrinks along with the space. And of course it dosen't explain the origin of the universe! What a silly child!

Since the thread has started, and still untill now, the evidence keeps pouring in against the BB theory. The BB theory if falling apart from the evidence colected by NASA's own probes. ;)

Big Bang is Wrong (http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/)

BB theory under fire (http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm)

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test (http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html)

That last one was the most recent event that has taken place, yet driving the nail in the coffin of BB theory.

It's kinda sad in a way. I bet many scientists dedicated their entire lives studying this myth we call "Big Bang"...

The author of this thread displays a potential to improve. All to the contrary are beyond improvement.

Cris

Has plasma cosmology solved these problems yet?

- origin of the cosmic background radiation and its isotropy
- the abundances of helium and deuterium
- motion of galaxies

The so called cosmic background radiation is false - there IS proof of this.
The universe IS expanding BUT it did not start from a singularity.

The baloons surface represents space.

teehee. space can't expand because it doensn't consist of anything. besides, there's no real proof that the universe expands.

And of course it dosen't explain the origin of the universe! What a silly child!

lol, what's the point with the theory then? when the theory was new, they said it explained the origin. some still do.

teehee. space can't expand because it doensn't consist of anything. besides, there's no real proof that the universe expands.



lol, what's the point with the theory then? when the theory was new, they said it explained the origin. some still do.

space is infinite: The universe is expanding in space.

space is infinite: The universe is expanding in space.
In space or into space?

In space or into space?

Do you change <i>into</i> a new suit and admit to metamorphosis?

Do you change <i>into</i> a new suit and admit to metamorphosis?
Space itself is expanding. Matter on the large scale is moving with the expanding space. And the BB is alive and well. I can also show you hundreds of papers disputing relativity.

Space itself is expanding. Matter on the large scale is moving with the expanding space. And the BB is alive and well. I can also show you hundreds of papers disputing relativity.

Space is devouring the greater VOID

The Big Bang is False - Just because the Universe was smaller in the past does NOT automatically mean it was infinitely smaller. There are holes in the big bang theory and not just black ones[Humour HA HA].

Space itself is expanding. Matter on the large scale is moving with the expanding space. And the BB is alive and well. I can also show you hundreds of papers disputing relativity.
Well, the evidence is not supporting BB. And I'm sure someday we will have something more accurate then relativity...

Well, the evidence is not supporting BB. And I'm sure someday we will have something more accurate then relativity...
I am working on it's replacement as we speak, I've got it all down to a little pink fluffy ball but then the maths seems to give way. Any Ideas?

TruthSeeker.

Read the links, lots of cool info there, many questions answered, and others raised ofcourse. Ah! science got to love it.

The big bang is alleged to have occured on a Tuesday morning at 0315 15,755,327 years and 58 days ago. This is wrong! even accounting for the change to the Julian calendar it was a Friday.

The big bang is alleged to have occured on a Tuesday morning at 0315 15,755,327 years and 58 days ago. This is wrong! even accounting for the change to the Julian calendar it was a Friday.

Then we should change our modern calender because the week should start on a monday, not a friday. Therefore. it should be monday or tuesday today, depending on how Megabrain was counting.

Bloody hell...still the beginning of the week and i was already in the weekend mood.

The big bang is alleged to have occured on a Tuesday morning at 0315 15,755,327 years and 58 days ago. This is wrong! even accounting for the change to the Julian calendar it was a Friday.

He,he,he good for a laugh, however it apparently appears it "BB" just never took place. ;)

BB is BS.





Sorry, I had to say it... :D

I find it rather absurd that the start of the universe should be reffered to as a 'big bang', apparently it was less than a plank length in diameter, so it should be 'little' and as for 'bang' that is generally refered to as a noise, but no-one can hear you scream in space therefore "silence" springs to mind. I therefore contend that big bang should be replaced by something more accurate such as "Small silent expansion" At the risk of being thrown out of the forum I might suggest that "small silent fart" would be far more descriptive. Since the scientists are so way out in their naming, might their theories also be off track?

"small silent fart"

Yup! no wonder it smells like shit around here! :D

No, that was you! :D

Don't put the blame on BB! :D

The standard model stands up. At least this simulation is trouble for Plasma Cosmology supporters:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/10/16

"On the case of the "missing" helium
27 October 2006

Astrophysicists may have solved the embarrassing problem of why there is so much less helium-3 in the universe than predicted by standard cosmology and star-evolution theories. Peter Eggleton of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US and colleagues at Monash University in Australia have calculated that when aging low-mass stars swell to become "red giants", the large amount of helium-3 they have produced is pushed down into the stars’ hot interiors, where it is then burnt up. The result suggests that our understanding of the Big Bang is correct after all (Sciencexpress 1133065)."

How big is the universe? How far does space extend? Common sense tells us that the universe must be infinite, for it is impossible to imagine an absolute boundary somewhere with no space beyond it. And since nothing can come from nothing, boundless space – which in theosophy means infinite consciousness-substance – must always have existed.
The standard big-bang theory – the most popular scientific theory of the origin of the universe – tells a very different story. It claims that in the beginning – just 8 to 15 billion years ago – there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no energy, no consciousness, not even any space. And out of this nothingness the universe suddenly popped into being as a result of a ‘random quantum fluctuation’. After originating as an infinitesimal point, of infinite density and temperature, space has supposedly been stretching like elastic ever since.
However, if there was no space and no matter or energy before the hypothetical big bang, there was obviously nothing to undergo a ‘fluctuation’ and nowhere for it to occur! But big bangers have long since abandoned ordinary rules of logic and have created a fantasy world of their own, based on advanced mathematical acrobatics. Some big bangers claim that space curves round upon itself so that it is finite and yet has no boundaries. They believe that the universe will at some point in the future start to contract, and end its life in a ‘big crunch’ in which it annihilates itself, leaving ‘literally nothing’.1 Other big bangers claim that although space popped into existence a finite period ago and expands at a finite pace, it somehow became infinite – and yet even though it is infinite it still manages to keep on expanding!2 It is amazing that such half-baked ideas have managed to be passed off as ‘science’. But as George Orwell once said, ‘There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them.’
When confronted with any scientific theory, it is important to distinguish between facts on the one hand and assumptions and interpretations on the other. It is also necessary to examine opposing points of view. But scientists who challenge the reigning theories often encounter major obstacles in trying to make their voices heard, with the result that the public may be completely unaware that alternative ideas exist.
In a recent article listing the top 30 problems with the big bang, astronomer Tom Van Flandern points out that the theory is constantly undergoing ad hoc adjustments in order to accommodate new, unexpected discoveries.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm
:D ;)

The Big Bang never happened the same way as HIV never was proved to exist.

Rubbish. HIV is proven too exist. There is only circumstantial evidence for the Big Bang.

The Big Bang never happened the same way as HIV never was proved to exist.

A quick google will show you images of the HIV virus. Why do you say therefore that is has not been proven to exist?

A quick google will show you images of the HIV virus. Why do you say therefore that is has not been proven to exist?

geese dude ur like from what planet?:rolleyes: ? Earth? Yeah...we are on the same planet. I AM TRYING TO MAKE A POINT HERE. yes HIV exists....because there is proof...and yes Big Bang happened because there is so much proof. The statement is geared to deniers of facts, it is an opposite of what I believe in, and is used to reinstate the insanity of one's suggestion that HIV does not exist and big bang never happened.

The Big Bang never happened the same way as HIV never was proved to exist.

The last 2 posts, did not understand your sarcasm ....
:p

Ooops , you posted before I did , Dragon ...

The last 2 posts, did not understand your sarcasm ....
:p

Ooops , you posted before I did , Dragon ...

yup dragons fly faster than sputnik satellite. :cool:

Anyway , Ophiolite is right ... the big bang has never been proved , it is only a theory - this theory works sort of well , so it is a decent theory ...

But nobody knows the truth ......

Then again , if the big bang theory falls , then I am not sure, that plasmatheory would be my first choice - I prefer the cyclic model,
which starts with a gnab gib ......

Dragon, in the pseudo science section, people do deny the existance of HIV and the big bang. I thought you'd gone crazy for a minute.

Show me a better explanation for:

-doppler shifts indicating expansion at increasing velocity
-cosmic background radiation which was predicted and subsequently found more than a decade later

The big bang doesn't have to start at a singularity. It doesn't describe the origin of the universe just the evolution of the universe.

Show me a better explanation for:

-doppler shifts indicating expansion at increasing velocity
-cosmic background radiation which was predicted and subsequently found more than a decade later

The big bang doesn't have to start at a singularity. It doesn't describe the origin of the universe just the evolution of the universe.

ya gotta have something in orderer to fill the gap for unknown...fill it with something known.

What's that dragon? I think the big bang is currently the best theory that explains the evolution of the universe. Sorry if i did not make that clear.

Is there any evidence supporting the plasma field theory? If a plasma field is the cause for redshifts and CBMR, surely we could think of a way to setup some sort of experiment/test? I see alot of talk:
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

But no evidence.

The evidence agaisnt the bb theory is increasing here's the latest report:
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

The BB never happened, what's left is politics! evidence from NASA's own satalite is coming in against the bb theory.

The "Big Bang" Is Just Religion Disguised As Science
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000355.htm

Two World Systems Revisited:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

Idiotic bullshit. Those sites are crap. I could post some UFO sites that tell you what the aliens know about the big bang. The confirm that it really happened.

Try some actual science websites that dont react to a non-event like missing shadow effects by declaring the BB dead.

Dont bull shit the messenger, bull shit the message. In other words seek concrete evidence against "the big bang never happened" theory. As it is becoming obvious by the evidence presented against BBT. Though you elonquently deny it, aparetly without even considering the evidence. Just by calling my websites "bull shit" does not contribute nothing to the debate, now does it?


http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Read something and learn something new;
http://www.amazon.com/Bye-Big-Bang-Hello-Reality/dp/0964318814

As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an unproven theory.
http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

**When ever a new theory of accepted norm is brought up, people will first redicule, then they flatly call the deniers, delusional, quaks, or loosers, when evidence is observed, it will be denied, untill concrete evidence is brought forth. Now do realize the BBT does not have concrete evidence, it's the accepted theory, your an atheist, you should know that the BBT fits the theistic nonsese of creation, thus why I deny this theory. The evidence presented for BBT is crumbling, you can deny it all you want, evidence will determine which theory is right.

Did God cause the big bang? That is what half a dozen new books about science and religion--whose authors range from a Reagan-administration official to an Israeli physicist to an elementary-particle-theorist-turned-Anglican-priest--are saying. The fact that the universe abruptly exploded into existence out of apparent nothingness some 15 billion years ago, they submit, means it must have had a supernatural creator.**
http://www.slate.com/id/3142/

BBT is nothing more then theology disquised as science!!

Godless:

Are you being satirical here? Or also coming out in support of those who claim there are legitimate experimental deficiencies in the Big Bang model? Because I think it can be claimed, by any scientist of worth, that not all evidence - in fact, a great deal of evidence - does not synch up with current conceptions of the Big Bang.

The intent is not satire, I'm only presenting another view of cosmology. One which does not come as empty claims, for it has presented evidence and observation discrediting BBT. However there seems to be a controversy in the scientific comunity, about futher exploring these claims.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The intent is not satire, I'm only presenting another view of cosmology. One which does not come as empty claims, for it has presented evidence and observation discrediting BBT. However there seems to be a controversy in the scientific comunity, about futher exploring these claims.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Hilarious, a list of who's who in the world of crackpots crafting a letter to the scientific community.

Godless:

Then I am glad to count you amongst those who conceive of the Big Bang as slowly losing credit as a scientific theory owing to the newest observations.

That open letter mentions dark matter as one of the unproven phenomena propping up the big bang theory. It's my understanding that the existence of dark matter is suggested by orbital velocities of stars in excess of their galaxies' escape velocities. Does anyone know if the signatories take issue with these observations?

Laika:

They consider it basically drawing for straws.

But dark matter is not simply a contrived 'phenomenon' invoked to salvage big bang theory. Its existence has been put forward in a different context.

Godless:

Then I am glad to count you amongst those who conceive of the Big Bang as slowly losing credit as a scientific theory owing to the newest observations.

Nonsense. BB theory hasn't lost any credit.

Q:

So 90% of the universe's mass being unaccounted for by the Big Bang is...not a bother to you?

What's next? You're going to start supporting goecentrism because scientists said it was right?

Nonsense. BB theory hasn't lost any credit.

Nonsesnse, the BB theory is a theory that has no credible credit at all, fact is it's a hypothesis that will probably never be proven, one started by a damn priest, to further support the "creation" universe. ;)

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Q:

So 90% of the universe's mass being unaccounted for by the Big Bang is...not a bother to you?

That would be the non-baryonic matter, why would you say it's unnaccounted?

What's next? You're going to start supporting goecentrism because scientists said it was right?

haha, funny. Why do you support the crackpot theories, because scientists say they are unfounded or because the crackpots say they are correct?

Nonsesnse, the BB theory is a theory that has no credible credit at all, fact is it's a hypothesis that will probably never be proven, one started by a damn priest, to further support the "creation" universe.

It's interesting to note that plasma theory also models creationism, in fact, it must.

Q:

That would be the non-baryonic matter, why would you say it's unnaccounted?

Oh, you mean the unobserved matter which we've been searching for in vain for over thirty years? Which is rapidly losing scientific credibility even as we speak?

Funny, you discredit God, yet you are fine with purely conjectural entities which account for the vast majority of space.

Oh, you mean the unobserved matter which we've been searching for in vain for over thirty years?

So, what you're struggling with is the fact that "observed" matter which does not emit or reflect eletromagnetic radiation simply doesn't exist, according to you. And clouds of nonluminous gas and dwarf stars don't exist?

Which is rapidly losing scientific credibility even as we speak?

Or perhaps, more accurately, you're losing credibility here?

Funny, you discredit God, yet you are fine with purely conjectural entities which account for the vast majority of space.

Doesn't appear that way.

With all due respect, the BB is in extremely good shape. The fact that there are features of the universe that we have yet to explain (dark matter, dark energy, the prevalence of matter over antimatter, etc...) has nothing to do with the validity of the conception of the universe rapidly expanding from a hot, dense state to what we currently observe. This is supported so far by all observations.

We know that evolution is a fact, but just because the exact mechanisms are under debate and we don't have a "complete" fossil record does not cause us to toss evolution out the window.

With all due respect, once upon a time Copernicus & Galileo were considered crackpot by the mainstream scientist supported by theistic religions. Cause they believe the heliocentric theory observed by Copernicus rather than the accepted notion of Heraclides (330 B.C.) the geocentric theory.

These observations of space where done in very primitive times, however the accepted "theory" of Heraclides was the dominant theory of how space worked for over thousands of years, the church embrased it, and to contradicted it was considered blasphemy punishable by church rule.

No difference exists today how theistic "scientific" agenda try to usurp and manipulate science to fit their interpretation of origins of our universe. Whether one model or the other fits their "fantasy" is to me irrevelent, what is at stake here is that some scientist have observed, have proof of observations that contradict the accepted notion that a big bang happened at all. What science is supposed to do is embrase any theory with an ounce of credibility and try to discredit, show further evidence to support the accepted notion. However what has been observed by me and many other sertainly and obviously more qualified than all of us, is that they are fixing new observations to fit their model, thus deceit the main stream to accepted notion.

In the field of cosmology - the study of how the universe began, how it works, and where it is going - a number of popular theories are considered so "obviously true" that few dare to challenge them. The big bang, black holes, dark matter, and the fundamental theory of gravitational dominance in the Universe are widely presented as FACTS by the scientific mainstream. But what if I told you that a key underpinning of these popular THEORIES has already been disproved by Space Age discoveries?

I am not a scientist, and have no exotic theory to peddle. But even I -- a common man with no training in the sciences -- know that the big bang theory is false. I repeat, I KNOW this...and so do many in the Establishment. They just haven't gotten around to telling you yet.

The big bang, or rather the reasoning behind the theory, has been shattered by recent images from space. This may seem like a bold assertion, but it's not. It's an indisputable fact. The most fundamental assumption behind the big bang has been proven wrong. I will explain why in plain English.

The entire rationale for the big bang rests on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called REDSHIFT. The light from distant objects in space is shifted towards the RED. What does this mean?
http://www.rense.com/general58/darkage.htm

(NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 - Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?
In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was unvariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothsesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.
Flash forward to October 2002. The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels, there it is! Actually the NASA "proof" picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. Many non professionals immediately produced very good pictures of the bridge from the same NASA picture. Here is shown a comparison of the press release picture and a deep print of the same picture by Jack Sulentic of the University of Alabama. (JPEG image of NGC4319/Mark205 by B. Lempel)
Science, 11 Oct. 2002, p. 345, ran a small article on the statements from both sides, but most science magazines just accepted the NASA release as refutation of the connection. Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.)
See pictures:
http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=6

**(A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.

The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation—including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!)**http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041227prediction-bigbang.htm

Yes I know, the mainstream will say! Hogwash, bull shit sites, bla,bla,bla, but nothing to say about human nature.
But the same text-books that extoll the magnificence of scientific achievement and discovery fail to mention the numerous black eyes of science. Many are unaware that below the visible exterior of this noble endeavor lies a dark underbelly of corruption, greed, and political warfare.
;)

Godless

Well, if your argument is based on the attacking of a "mainstream" theory (one with enormous support from actual scientists) just because it's mainstream, then good luck with that.

No difference exists today how theistic "scientific" agenda try to usurp and manipulate...
That's a pretty sad view of current science. Look around you and tell me that our current understanding of the world and the cosmos is based on dogma and ignorance. Then shut off your PC (or MAC), give up electricity, and never again accept treatment at a hospital other than the occasional blood-letting.

...science to fit their interpretation of origins of our universe
Isn't that what science is suppose to do? Look at the data, come up with an interpretation, and see if it fits existing and future observations?

Listen godless,

You can "dismantle" any current branch of science completely and utterly by referring to some crackpots with no training who jump on one or two instances of observations (that are very difficult to make or resolve in many cases) and declare the "theory" dead.

It takes overwhelmingly convincing evidence to "dismantle" an established theory that has proven itself under intense scrutiny. Your examples of Copernicus and Galileo are disengenuous because the preceeding "theories" were not based on intensly scrutinized observations and data.

If you are going to dismantle the BB then you need to show, conclusively, that the .01% of "anamalous observations" represent reality, while the 99.99% that remain are somehow wrong.

Again, good luck with that.

Superluminal, I am sorry. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Mac is not an acronym. You're only supposed to capitalize the first letter.

You can "dismantle" any current branch of science completely and utterly by referring to some crackpots with no training who jump on one or two instances of observations (that are very difficult to make or resolve in many cases) and declare the "theory" dead.


Hmmm....No training? are you kiding? LOL.. Here's a list of these crackpot's creditials:

Short Biography for Halton C. Arp
Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt.Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.

Yea! Harvard is puting out crackpots now a days :rolleyes:

Eric J Lerner:
http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/eric_j_lerner.htm

Michael Ibison, Ph.D.
Dr. Michael Ibison is a Senior Research Physicist with the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. He joined the Institute in 1997 from Princeton University's PEAR Laboratory, where he was a visiting scholar. His primary research interest is in extensions to classical electromagnetism. He received a first class honors Bachelor of Science in Electronics from Southampton University, UK. In 1987 he completed his Ph.D. in Laser Physics - analysis of space and time confinement of laser beams in non-linear media. He has published some papers in physics and other fields.

In 1948, Bondi, Hoyle and Gold formulated the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe is contantly expanding but matter is constantly created to form new stars and galaxies to maintain a constant average density. It is probably fair to say that this theory dominated over the rival Big Bang theory until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation caused a sudden change in fortune.

Bondi was a major contributor to the golden age of general relativity (roughly 1960-1975). He was one of the first to correctly appreciate the nature of gravitational radiation, introducing Bondi radiation coordinates, the Bondi k-calculus, and the notion of Bondi mass, and writing influential review articles. He popularized the sticky bead argument which was said to be originally due, anonymously, to Richard Feynman, for the claim that physically meaningful gravitational radiation is indeed predicted by general relativity, an assertion which was controversial up until about 1955. He codiscovered an important family of exact dust solutions now called the LTB dust (Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi dust). Bondi also contributed to the theory of accretion of matter from a cloud of gas onto a star or a black hole, working with Raymond Lyttleton and giving his name to "Bondi accretion" and the "Bondi radius".

He became a professor at King's College London in 1954, and was given the title of Emeritus Professor there in 1985. He was secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1956 to 1964.

needless to say super, these are not just your ordinary "crackpots"

Thomas Gold (May 22, 1920 – June 22, 2004) was an Austrian astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. Gold was one of three young Cambridge scientists who in the 1950s proposed the now mostly abandoned 'steady state' hypothesis of the universe. Gold's work crossed academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astrophysics, space engineering, and geophysics.

Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University
O. C. (Order of Canada)
F. R. S. C.
Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.
Professor, Physics, Laval University, Québec, Canada: 1962-83,
Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,
Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.

These scientist have creditials super, they are not just blowing wind out of their ass without good reason! ;)

A history of crackpots!
THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/arrhenus.html
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Godless

Being a 'credential' junkie does not good science make.

The problem is when those with credentials are shown to be wrong from their peers refuse to listen.

Arp, Lerner and Marmet are perfect examples, who have now attained crackpot status as a result.

Q
The problem is not wether they are wrong, the problem is that their peer refuse to funnel further inquiry accepting a theory as fact! BBT is not a fact, and they themselves proclaim this, however every observation made is made to fit their model of what they now perceive to be fact!

*American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.* http://amasci.com/supress1.html

Q
The problem is not wether they are wrong, the problem is that their peer refuse to funnel further inquiry accepting a theory as fact! BBT is not a fact, and they themselves proclaim this, however every observation made is made to fit their model of what they now perceive to be fact!

That is where you're wrong, scientists don't consider BB theory as fact, the only fact is that the universe had a beginning, and BB theory is the best model to show what happened just after that beginning.

I read Arp's book several years ago. It was well written with lots of intersting photos of seemingly paired objects with a low red-shift and a high red-shift component.

While some of the paired objects might be just coincidence (super-imposition of distant and near objects, with the 'bridge' being the coincidence), the large number of examples found by Arp suggests another explanation needs to be found. I suspect that gravitational red-shift might well be a major factor for some of the anomalous high red-shift quasars found 'associated' with much lower red-shift galaxies.

In any event, his work calls for further investigation of his anomalies. I do not believe that BBT theory is invalidated by his examples, as the great bulk of observation fully supports BBT theory. It does, however, call into question some of the 'cherished' beliefs regarding quasars, etc., and hence deserves further serious investigation. My views on the BBT are posted elsewhere