The Big Bang Never Happened - Make way for Plasma

Billy T:

You're thinking of lithotripters for kidney stoneys, etc.

Focused-ultrasound focuses ultrasound (duh!) to a single point, raising the temperature at that point about 2 degrees C/second in human tissue, essentially cooking the offending tissue (cancer, fibroid, etc.) in about 20 seconds. Multiple treatments can eliminate uterine fibroids in about 45 minutes, with no discomfort to the patient.

Now, back to the Universe!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not so fast, and not literally true either. Today exists scientific suppresion as did back in the old days, though today they are not executed, jailed, but they are branded as "crackpots" or crazy scientist lame people who have no education in the field. Even you yourself mentioned;

I showed you that these scientist, weren't your ordinary crackpot, Q then tells me

Thus what am I suppose to do? I'm only referencing that the individual scientist who contradict the accepted notion of BBT are not just some backyard astronomer with a $400 telescope and an interest in astronomy out of highschool. These are Havard, Kent, and among other Ivy leage colleges graduates from around the globe in the respected field of inquiry, astronomy, cosmology, plasma, what not!

However their findings, their theories, have been suppressed by mainstream scientist as shown by this letter:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Thus scientific community is not investigating, nor accepting any notion that contradicts their accepted theory.

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

Godless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arp may well be a seasoned astronomer but is also a very bad mathematician, and worse statistician, as can be seen with his unjustified associations of quasar proximities and even worse faulty methods of statistical interpretations. Arp even back-peddled on his claim of velocity caused redshifting a year after publishing his book.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not that they have the credentials, it's what they do with those credentials that matters.

The most prolific of crackpots are the ones with credentials as they can make something "sound" very scientific to gullible laymen.

 

Good. That's as it should be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary blah, blah, blah...

Having said that, there are megatons of raw astronomical data from dozens of ground-based and satellite observatories. Everyone has access to the latest information. This is data at the limits of current resolution and technology.

Surely these highly respected and credentialed dissenters can show that the correct analysis of this data compellingly discredits the fundamentals underlying the BB?

 

Oh! it does to some extent. The thing is that they have not discredited BBT outright, however what they are claiming is that some of their observation does not compute with BBT.

I won't deny this, this is fact, and true, however there's a discrepancy of this analogy when it involves so many different individuals, not all of them could be crackpots with the same agenda, not all of them have conspired together to bring down the mighty BBT, these are scientist with different observations tasks who have claimed that their findings does not conform to predictions of BBT, so there's where the issue lies.

Perhaps as well BBT theory was thought out by crackpot themselves however the theory was believed, not one sicle scientist has been able to give evidence to "dark matter" a crackpot idea believed to be true!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

** Heralding a new age in the cosmos, Norwegian Kristian Birkeland predicted that the universe likely consisted of an exotic component that would later be called dark matter. His comments about this subject matter appeared in a description of the Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903). Birkeland's ideas about the Expedition were published in the fateful year of 1913 which would see the rise of the socialist Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax in the United States of America, two key components of the communist manifesto. Evolutionary processes were in motion throughout all fields of endeavor. Economics, politics, science and the hearts and minds of men and women were in the balance whilst relativism not truth held sway over the modern imagination. Cosmology would suffer from the same 'evolutionary' mindset and Birkeland wrote as much:

"We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space."

In this fashion, Birkeland predicted that because of the 'evolutions' present within the cosmos most of the matter in the universe must be found in 'empty' space rather than that which is observable in stellar objects. It is currently believed that only four percent of the universe is of this ordinary visible stellar type. Further, about a quarter of the universe is made up of the ubiquitous dark matter with the rest of the cosmos being filled with the even more bizarre dark energy. It was Fritz Zwicky, a swiss astrophysicist working for Caltech, who would further the concept of dark matter through the aegis of the Virial Theorem.**

http://www.mysolarsystem.com/galactic_mystery?PHPSESSID=aa993d70f41e9d148d1b9a61682a7db4

From the link above.


So we do believe in crackpots who invented a notion "darkmatter" to fit their agenda, and today this is followed as the holy grail!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hubble Rules Out a Leading Explanation for Dark Matter
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/41/text/

The cool thing is, that every satelite, and every observation gadget we can create brings back data that is colapsing the BBT on it's own.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dark matter is merely matter that does not emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation - are you saying that type of matter couldn't possibly exist?

 

One thing is for sure. There is a huge gap in our understanding of the universe. I find that exciting! There's either an unknown type of particle out there (in huge abundance, and we haven't noticed it yet) or our understanding of gravitation is fundamentally flawed, or spacetime itself exhibits properties on a large scale that are predicted by no theory we currently posess.

Very cool.

 

A modified Newtonian theory, Electrodynamic Spin Gravity explains,
Rotation rate curve of Solar System as an energy wave
Flat rotation rate curve for galaxies, due to energy-in spin
Structure of Universe as per Mach's principle
Shows that a Big Bang could not happen, since time is illusionary
It does not allow time into its final derived constants
It explains the pioneer anomaly
It explains poloidal gravity (energy-out spin) and toroidal gravity (energy-in spin)
and much more

I suppose what you believe is what everyone else says is true, or you work out truth for yourself.
You must remember that proponents of accepted theories are well protected, otherwise order and control would be lost by the high priests of science.

LOL, well they go their road and I will go my road. I do not have to fake Star Wars nor do I have to fake moon landings. It is interesting that NASA, the actual instigator of space action, uses a version of Newtonian gravitation to direct its space craft... and uses it very indeed, a series of equations very similar to ESGT.

Some of us have grown up.

on Edit
Dark matter and dark energy are resolved in ESGT, and fictitious particles such as the neutrino are not needed.
Einstein derailed cosmology, for at least 100 years.. kewl eh?
LOL, but remember, it was the masses that accepted it, including educated people.
Interesting I think, don't you.

 

Neutrinos? Fictitious? Umm... How's that? And you expect anyone to listen to your babble while making statements like that?

 

oh didnt you know, the world is hollow?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yeah! imagine how it is here?, pitifull, of all my worlds I would rather look like so much better than there could be...so it was that way. So now you know...what is about this universe...I know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Im good.

 

Sorry dragon. That just came across as jibberish. I really have no idea what you just said.

 

its ok. this whole thread is pointless anyway.

 

I agree.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051010_dark_matter.html

The thread is only pointless to those whom have no interest in cosmology. To everyone else that has partaken it's obviously interesting!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My honest opinion is "so what?" There are always new studies that suggest this or that. Is what it suggests compelling?

BTW, I thought you were of the opinion that the "ruling dictatorial elite" of science didn't allow any new studies that might upset the apple cart?

 

The above doesn't upset the BBT issue, it's only a different explanation without the Unknown material "dark matter" to explain gravity.

But sinse it seems you have lost interest in the issue, why even bother to reply?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Correct you are sir. The thread is yours.

 

So does BBT predict Dark Matter in the same way that math was able to predict the existence of planets in our solar system before they were observed, or is Dark Matter just a fantasy to prop up a dead theory because so many careers are invested in it?

 

The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called "dark matter" was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1933. He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Thus Zwicky needed the invention of "dark matter" for his theorem to work. However today dark matter remains elusive. Dark matter is the solution of unexplained phenomena, just like god is a solution for existence, untill we have concrete evidence and not just mathametatical equations that need an added "substance" in order to hold galaxies together. That brings me to another observed mathematical theory, one that does not require "dark matter" to hold galaxies together.

Gravity theory dispenses with dark matter:
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8631