The end is near!

Oh boy. A shame...

And from the way you talk about it, there's no hope for you either. You're a true "believer". Who'd of thought it?

:bawl:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you can show me a source of some solid damning evidence that disproves the theory I am open to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not necessarily, if someone has done a good job disproving the theory I will listen to it.

But are you aware of the many known severe anomalies with red shift? Because for me that is very damning evidence against the Big Bang.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As you well know, the burden of proof rests on the claimant.

Relativity and QM have been validated in the most spectacular fashion for more than 50 years. Cosmic expansion and CMB and cosmic abundances of elements were predicted by these theories before they were discovered. A Triumph!

What you are worried about are simply features of a few aspects of phenomena that need refinement. There are hundreds of wackjobs out there that don't understand science at all and think they have the "answers" to problems (ones that science dosen't even have!).

What exactly worries you about black holes (which we will soon be able to see directly, that is, the event horizon) and the Big Bang model (which is highly predictive and successful) and the existence of dark matter and energy, which certainly exist in some form?

 

Not our job.

I'm not aware of any even moderate, let alone "severe" problems with redshift, and I know a lot about it.

What's the problem?

 

-I´m partly amusing myself but could it be that big bang and blackhole are different sides of the same coin.
Thats my theory, the eternal Shivas dance, destruction ~ creation, ying ~ yang, darkness ~ light, the cosmic wheel ? Multiple/Infinite universes ?

 

Here's a few from Halton C. Arp's site:

Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe

Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific

Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts

 

And another:
Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift: unsolvable riddle for big bang astronomy

 

Very good document, thank you. I´m buying it, the beauty of the plasma electric theory lays in its simplicity.
:thumbsup:

 

That's exactly how I viewed it. Doesn't need any fantasy creations to work either.

 

This quasar is not in the galaxy shown. It's behind it.

And you do realize that you are basing your entire cosmological understanding on one or two guys with theories that address non-problems to the rest of the thousands of astronomers in the world? I read your other links and find nothing of substance there.

What mathematical predictions does this electric theory make that improve upon relativistic cosmology? Does it make any predictions?

 

And using an Answers In Genesis site? For shame...

 

The quasar certainly looks like it's in front of the galaxy to me.

If you watch that video one of the scientists in there talks about predicting the reaction of that comet experiment (don't ask me what it was it's in the video) and was unsurprised by the explosive flash caused by it. The other scientists were baffled, but they don't subscribe to his theory, so I guess they would be.

I think you might want to re-look at the "fingers of God" article which for me shows SERIOUS problems with redshift.

Halton C. Arp is not alone, but he is cataloging anomalies on red shift to build the case. Either way, why not try to build a case against redshift? Isn't that the point of science? If something is true no case against it can stand. If you fail to build a case against it then you help prove it's validity.

What Arp is arguing is that redshift is greater in newly formed stars and, if this is true, that means that redshift has more variables involved than just speed and distance.

So I ask you, what is so irrational about that argument? Have I called upon some Jesus to solve the problem?

Truth is a binary thing, it's either true, or it's false. But when you ask a question like, how was the universe created, and then give me a binary choice of Big Bang or Big Boss, that's when I ask, what are the other possibilities?

 

--- "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. -> Matt. 24:14-15.

"the end will come" --- What end will come? The end of this world's capitalist economic system.

 

Yeah I couldn't find my original source for that one. I think they copied it there!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The end of the Age of Pisces. Beginning of the Age of Aquarius.

 

It's a series of distributed data points that he claims astronomers class as a single supercluster. Do they? And did you also know that the farther you go out to measure, the less accurate your points may be, so there are fewer solidly confirmed data points? This is astronomers being scrupulously honest and Arp being a disengenuous wacknut.

Yes, he is.

So is every other actual astronomer out there (hundreds or more) who makes this their specialty. You know what the handful of anomalous observations mean to them? They have a bad measurement. Or some other unknown conditions (like a quasar that "appears" to be in front of a nearby galaxy) are interfering. You have .01% of observations that don't quite fit, and the reasons are far from settled, yet two or three nuts go on a rampage to demolish fundamental physics because what they really don't like are the facts of nature as they are. An expanding universe pisses them off. Like it did Einstein, Hoyle, et al... Tough shit. They'll get over it.

NO! The point is to learn new things and find theories that fit the observed data. The better the fit, the more likely the theory is correct. A teeny percentage of observations in a field (astronomy) with many unknowns and no way to control for them means nothing. Ever hear of the deicrepancy between the ages of the oldest stars and the age of the universe? Look it up.

Good. Have fun. But that's only what wackjobs do. Actual scientists know what are real problems with a theory and focus on those. Like the flat rotation curves of galaxies, or the apparent incompatibility of gravity with QM.

Everything. There is zero convincing evidence that there is a fundamental problem with our understanding of how redshift occurrs. Is it that it's so exciting to think that there's something fundamentally wrong with everything? If you only knew what us being wrong about how redshift happens...

But that's no argument. There's zero reason for real astronomers to question the extremely well known machanisms of redshift. If you all of a sudden find incontrovertible proof that redshift dosen't work the way we think (akin to finding out that not only were you adopted, but you were really raised by wolves for your entire childhood) then we'll talk.

The reason that these few nuts are alone is not beacuse they have "controversial" theories, but that they are ignoring the basic idea that science isn't about being pissed off and coming up with counter theories just because you are so pissed off.

 

Arp is a well known crank. His mathematics have been refuted as has his assertions. And although Sup says he is alone, he does have followers, equally oblivious.

 

You say he has been refuted, can you please post a link or two with some convincing arguments refuting him. I'm not saying "I'm right and your wrong", but I need a little more than your word to be convinced.

 

superluminal,

what is your opinion of the fingers of God page? He's saying that redshift makes it appear as if Earth is the center of the universe somehow! Can you please respond to that?