The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

The Link opens with
"According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all".

Eric Lerner of course does have some baggage as he is the author of a book called "The BB Never Happened"that has totally been refuted as speudoscience....and yes, I have read it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not only is it the length of post killing Miss Mico Mouse in my phone on the treadmill as she tries to read the post she gets headaches.

Humpty and gang.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I may not but by discussing things step by step maybe we can all learn more.
My object is not support anything but merely to understand what each model says... Models may or may not describe reality and we may never know what is reality.. Our models are attempts to put something together that above all helps us interpret observations and predict outcomes.
All I day to you is so far the big bang model overall works best.
And it is a car work in progress and it to put it crudely "patched up" in so gar as new research may offer refinements to the model.
Do you think that is wrong.
But small steps.

Well this is something to discuss.
Have you heard the expression "tired light" well that could be the way it is, but scientists have looked into that and consider that idea won't fly.
They have good reason to think the way they have it figured is the best answer after considering all sorts of other ideas.

You can't deal with all you cover so casually but all I can say is one thing at a time and each thing you raise is not stuff that has not been considered in arriving at the current model.

Well all that says is we have over one hundred years of developing the current theory (arguably more) and you feel it can be dismissed for what reason and in place we put what?

Patience you could learn more and try and understand what the theory really says.

Have you googled to find observations in support of the current model?
You may like to gather facts on the matter because failure to do so leaves you very uninformed.

I use an anology which can be dangerous because folk focus on unimportant detail rather than grasp the principle that the anology seeks to outline.
I hope my post is readable I only have a small screen and it limits my ability to reply in detail.

Overall you can see the current model in whatever way you wish.
I once was somewhat like you in that I would criticize say the back ground radiation ,to pick one aspect, but rather than criticize I read more and more to understand why the model is the way it is...I simply suggest there is more to it than you conclude.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have seen all those evidences, and not one of them is actually reliable, and can are all easily debatable and disputable, none of them prove anything conclusive.

On the contrary, plasma/electric universe explains almost all the holes the Big Bang has, while the Big Bang cannot explain any of its holes.

But Halton Arp was never disproven, never.

I know exactly what the Big Bang is all about, but the fact is tons of books, lectures and media says that the universe came from absolutely nothing-I guess when you say that you sell the nonsense better than a true science.
However the part of hypothesis that says that the universe expands and does not expand into anything 100% proves you 100% wrong-3d universe cannot exist and expand into nothing that is dimensionless!!!!!
This is exactly where the Big Bang model falls apart, the model may not say how is universe created but it does say how and where it does expand to (to nothing-which is 100% wrong.

Any speculation that is based on irrationality is not science, and speculation based on a hypothesis that something with dimensions can exist and expand and yet there is no space and there are no dimensions outside-proves that the model is wrong, and it is not based on knowledge and data but it is based on something that is called imagination and faith into mathematical BS, this is not science people, wake up.

Youa re the one who is claiming that Big bang model/hypothesis is correct, and the fact you have actually failed to address and explain how can something that exists and expands exist inside nonsexistence is beyond me-like every religious fanatic you just don't want to give up from your religion, I cannot believe that you cannot think with your own head, but with the head of others/other scientists-which are not scientists anymore since they all believe in something that is simply not possible in any way-and yet you all criticize all those people who believe in ghosts, witches, gods and etc., you and the rest of the scientists are no better than them.

 

The above really highlights the ignorance shown throughout your lengthy evangelistic like crusade to somehow invalidate the BB...Sorry, ol son, the above is easily shown for crap by the simple fact that the BB was a singularity "OF" spacetime, as opposed to a BH singularity being a singularity ÏN" spacetime.

Secondly, this is in the mainstream science sections and what you are currently conducting in this little crusade is not mainstream accepted science.
You need to post your nonsensical claims in the alternate section. No, as yet I have not reported it.

 

Your lengthy meaningless rants say otherwise.

Firstly just because you fail to understand the BB model does not mean it is incorrect: That just highlights your agenda elsewhere and ignorance.
Secondly science readily concedes that as yet we do not know the how or the why: The evidence though points to the universe evolving from a hotter denser state.
We also know abiogenisis [life from non life] to be a fact, since we are here, but as yet, we do not know the exact path and methodology

 

On the contrary, everything what is written here on this thread I already know, but why than scientists started from nothing and they sell books from this BS?
That is not science, that is marketing.

Abiogenesis unprovale, since there is no way we can know how it all started and how exactly it went.
If one part of the model is incorrect so is the rest of it, because it changes everything, especially the part of the model which assumes how it all started in the first place-this has always been the case in reality.

 

They certainly sell more books then that promoting your mythical deity and any Electric/Plasma nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's because it is science, a discipline in perpetual progress, rather than your silly alternative proposition which is non scientific and long defunct.

Abiogenisis is the only scientific theory open to explain how life is here.
But if you have any further info, well I'm all ears!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

 

What's wrong with you man? Do you lack something or what? you cannot compare singularity which does not exist-since it is dimensionless you are just making assumptions over assumptions and none of them can ever be proven, since dimensionless singularity cannot exist at all, and it does not exist.
Singularity does not exist, universe did come from something and from somewhere not from nothing-because this is simply 100% impossible, if you wantr to believe in mathematical ghosts and witches go ahead-but that is not science that is religion disguised as science.

And you missed 2 parts:
Read this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html

Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?

The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?“) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state?

Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity — a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature — would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation.

We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest — neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue.

In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics — the theory of the subatomic world — even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe.

That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!

There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning — a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.

Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 1. A schematic of the quantum tunneling from literally nothing, that may have given birth to our spacetime. Credit: Pam Jeffries.

 

I know this as well, pleas don't post this anymore because you are posting the same thing always, it's pure math, and nothing none of that is proven.
The fact is none can see what is truly going on on quantum level, it's like blind man proving the existence of the frog and its anatomy-impossible.
The same thing happens with experiments-they are all invalid because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE PROVING, and relying on mathematics is totally wrong apporach, since it is based by mathematics, and not on the real evidences.

 

Again, hypotheses that are unprovable, why post them if you cannot prove anything, none can-that's the limitation of people/scientists that none wants to accept ever.
Reyling on such models will never solve so many things and secrets the the universwe has, and observations show that hypotheses always need to change, the only thing that does not change is hypothesis that is already unproven-Big Bang hypothesis.
Space and time are concepts that are not physical and therefore cannot be influenced by something/anything physical, this entire approach is so much wrong.

 

You mean like this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf

The Universe: the ultimate free lunch:

Abstract.
It is commonly believed that the origin of the Universe must have involved the violation of natural laws, particularly energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics. Here is it shown that this need not have been the case, that the Universe could have begun from a state of zero energy and maximum entropy, and then naturally evolved into what we see today without violating any known principles of physics. The fundamental particles and the force laws they obey then come about through a series of random symmetrybreaking phase transitions during the period of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Universe appears as a quantum fluctuation.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420814-800-review-the-ultimate-free-lunch/

Review : The ultimate free lunch


By Marcus Chown

The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth,
Addison-Wesley/Jonathan Cape, £18.99, ISBN 0 224 04448 6

IN 1979, a 32-year-old American physicist called Alan Guth came up with a
crazy idea. If he was right, the Universe was nothing more than a submicroscopic
quantum fluctuation, all the stars and galaxies which crowd space out to the
limits probed by the most powerful telescopes accounted for a mere million
million million millionth of all there was and, in principle, it was possible to
make a universe in the laboratory.

Guth christened his crazy idea “inflation”. And since 1979, there have been
many attempts to explain it to a popular audience, with varying degrees of
success. This latest one, The Inflationary Universe, has the merit of
coming from the horse’s mouth.

Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem” that arises in Grand
Unified Theories (GUTs). These theories attempt to show that the three
nongravitational forces of nature—the electromagnetic force and the strong
and weak nuclear forces—are really aspects of a single “superforce”. GUTs
maintain that the differences between the various kinds of particles in nature
are not fundamental, but a consequence of the way they interact with the more
basic “Higgs field”.

When the Higgs field was symmetric—at the ultra-high energies in the
earliest moments of the big bang—all particles were identical. Only when
the Universe cooled enough to shatter the symmetry were particles endowed with
their distinctive characters.

The monopole problem arises because, on decaying from its symmetric state,
the Higgs field can adopt wildly different directions in neighbouring regions of
space, creating permanent “defects” that behave just like isolated north or
south magnetic poles. According to the calculations of Guth and others, the big
bang should have spawned as many monopoles as protons and neutrons, a result in
spectacular disagreement with observations.

The only way to suppress the creation of monopoles was by delaying the
crucial symmetry-breaking “phase transition” of the Higgs field. Because
regions over which the field could align itself grew with time, the field would
be smoother when the Universe was older. GUT monopoles, the progeny of chaos,
would be scarcer.

The delaying mechanism Guth hit on was supercooling. Just like water, which
can supercool to 40 °C below its normal freezing point before turning to
ice, the Higgs field could have persisted in its high-energy state long after
the time appointed for its symmetry-breaking transition.

Supercooling was perfect for solving the monopole problem. However, its
consequences for cosmology were dramatic. The Universe would be temporarily
suspended in a “false vacuum”, a bizarre state characterised by a huge and
negative pressure.

Einstein’s field equations contain a pressure term which, together with
mass-energy, is responsible for generating gravity. In normal matter, the
pressure term is of no consequence, but it would have been overwhelmingly
important in the supercooled false vacuum. Being negative as well, it would have
generated a repulsive force. Gravity would blow instead of suck, causing the
newborn Universe to inflate enormously.

Most amazingly, as the Universe ballooned in size—from the diameter of
a proton to that of a grapefruit—the negative pressure would conjure
seemingly limitless quantities of energy from the vacuum. It was this energy
that, when the false vacuum finally decayed, would be converted into matter
heated to a blisteringly high temperature that would then expand as the big
bang.

If inflation was correct, here was an explanation for where most of the
matter in the Universe came from, Guth reasoned. It was spirited out of the
vacuum itself, “the ultimate free lunch”.

It was a mind-boggling conclusion. And it was arrived at by an ageing postdoc
facing certain unemployment unless he could come up with something important to
impress his superiors—and fast. Guth succeeded beyond his wildest dreams,
catapulting himself from the edge of academic oblivion to academic superstardom,
where he was fêted by the likes of Stephen Hawking as the youthful creator
of an entire new field of science. The accidents and chance remarks that brought
about this dramatic transformation in Guth’s fortunes are recounted in The
Inflationary Universe, a riveting behind-the-scenes story of science at its
most esoteric frontier.

more at link....

 

Do you accept that magnetic fields are real?
Just as magnetic fields are measured, so to is spacetime....[see GP-B and aLIGO]
Space, time, spacetime are just as real.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

— Hermann Minkowski,

 

Firstly the singularity does not need to be infinite, it simply may lead to infinite quantities, secondly the singularity starts applying where our laws and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level or around t+10-43 seconds.
Secondly, the BB singularity was a singularity "of"spacetime, while a BH singularity, is a singularity 'in"spacetime.

I missed nothing, I simply have recognised the fact that you most likely have an agenda [religious] and you are contravening rules by pushing alternative nonsense in the mainstream science threads.
Needless to say as I mentioned before, what you or any other baggage laden Tom, Dick or Harry claims, means nothing in the greater scheme of things, despite the efforts you are putting into your anti science crusade, which has not been reported yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06112v1.pdf
The big-bang theory: construction, evolution and status Jean-Philippe Uzan Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris UMR 7095 du CNRS, 98 bis, bd Arago, 75014 Paris.
20 Jun 2016


Abstract.
Over the past century, rooted in the theory of general relativity, cosmology has developed a very successful physical model of the universe: the big-bang model. Its construction followed different stages to incorporate nuclear processes, the understanding of the matter present in the universe, a description of the early universe and of the large scale structure. This model has been confronted to a variety of observations that allow one to reconstruct its expansion history, its thermal history and the structuration of matter. Hence, what we refer to as the big-bang model today is radically different from what one may have had in mind a century ago. This construction changed our vision of the universe, both on observable scales and for the universe as a whole. It offers in particular physical models for the origins of the atomic nuclei, of matter and of the large scale structure. This text summarizes the main steps of the construction of the model, linking its main predictions to the observations that back them up. It also discusses its weaknesses, the open questions and problems, among which the need for a dark sector including dark matter and dark energy.


4 Conclusions
Our current cosmological model can be considered as a simple and efficient model to explain the dynamics of the universe and of the structures it contains.