Deception of Big Bang Theory

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    LOL at all that crap.

    There ARE theories that are far more rational than all the smoke and mirrors listed above. But I will leave y'all to it, to fight whoes fantasy is the most fantastic.
    LOL
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Put up or shut up, nutjob.

    What theories are better at explaining the observations we currently have?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    "all the smoke and mirrors"

    Like Victorian charlatans trying to convince people of the existence of imaginary spirits?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> What theories are better at explaining the observations we currently have?

    OK slanderer ( I just love slander, moron)... a too simple explanation.... (ESGT shows that red shifting is due to the basic structure of the Universe.)

    but here goes

    What do we see in the cosmos ?
    we see a red shift.
    What does this mean for light?
    It means that that light has lost energy. It still travels at c.

    OK experiments have been done and the results indicate that light moving away from the earth's surface is red shifted, light coming to the surface is blue shifted.

    Now introduce cosmic lensing,,,,, some galaxies seen have their image shattered and refracted, much as an image of the sun on a swimming pool's floor. The structure of the water surface in this case causes the lensing.

    Now is it gravity or something else that is causing cosmic lensing? We all know that when light bends it loses energy..... it is red shifted
    But the current explanation for cosmic redshift is
    galaxies receding..... a doppler like effect.
    But with so little know about the cosmos, even everyday gravity...etc
    it is totally illogical to assume that the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light rather than accept that the basic structure of the Universe is the cause of red shifting.
    Too little knowledge and too much weed.

    I have the math, BUT I will say no more on this subject.
    Bye
     
  8. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Correct.

    Huh? Nooo... Light moving away from an observer is called NOT VISIBLE! :m:
    As an object that emits light moves away from the observer, it appears red shifted. The light still, of course, must be moving toward the observer to be seen.

    Ok. Sort of.

    We do? It is? No. You are completely wrong on this point. Reflection or refraction or lensing of any kind does not cause light to be redshifted.

    Correct.

    Given that even your basic knowledge of light is flawed, I'd say your ideas are just as worthless.

    No you don't.

    Good thing too. Bye.
     
  9. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    If something other than movement in realation to each other is causing the Red-Shifting, then it should also be causing some Red-Shifting in the galaxies of the local cluster which are getting closer to us, and are Blue-Shifting as a result.

    These observations alone kill everything you just posted.

    If that weren't enough, though... there is the fact that the deeper we look into space, the further back in time we are looking, and the more densely packed clusters seem to be.

    Thirdly, if the universe was in some sort of steady-state, there is the nasty fact that gravity has a very long arm. We should expect to find that a steady-state universe would be collapsing. Something must exist to counterbalance the force of gravity, and in our universe, that happens to be the initial expansion.

    Please see my last post on the previous page for a unique bit of speculation (or at least a nice laugh, if you are a good skeptic!)
     
  10. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Can anyone say "Olbers Paradox"?
     
  11. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I remember being told the analogy: if a soluble aspirin were dropped in an Olympic-size swimming pool the molecules of the aspirin would represent matter.

    Is this true and what consequences would this have for 'dark skies'?
     
  12. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> Something must exist to counterbalance the force of gravity

    It is called energy!

    Cold matter is controlled by "gravity"... (IMO this is a bad name)
    Hot matter is expansive and actually increases "gravity" in that region, this is why galaxies have a flat rotation curve and solar systems do not. So in effect there are two types of "gravity" both generated by different mechanisms, one primary and differential. The Pioneer anomaly shows this in our own Solar System.

    Quite simple really. Sorry if this is not complete enough for you, BUT that is all I will say on this matter.
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Well the universe is matter, as URI agrees, and it's agreed that the universe has a diameter, and so, is bounded, so gravitational time dilation must have been in play during the rapid expansion of the first few days, therefore, the stars need not be billions or millions of years of age.
     
  14. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Space is neither, although the latter could be debated more successfully than the former.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Our Hubble Volume is bounded. The universe is infinite. We can only see a small part of it because we've only been around for 14 billion years or so. That or God is interfering with all of our experiments.
     
  16. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    If you mean Dark Energy, then it is not a given that there was the same amount of dark energy at every epoch in the histroy of the universe.
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is garbage. Anyone who can't see this should not be discussing these topics.
     
  18. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Since a finite amount of matter has expanded, it must have an outer boundry, you're oughta luck BM.
     
  19. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,026
    That does not mean that there is no space beyond the matter.
     
  20. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    ...and Walter L. Wagner has already explained this with aplomb...
     
  21. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Space is matter, so you'll have to call what's beyond matter something else.
     
  22. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    La-La-land?
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    How 'bout Zenbabeldom?
     

Share This Page