It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Bang is an Hoax !

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
L3X

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Look this
Intersting stuff
Now the Key Project is debunked
curious that recently happened another great event: the official announcement regarding the existence of the Dark Matter..
2006...Nice year


[edit on 4-9-2006 by L3X]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I don't see anything in that paper that concludes anything about the big bang and it being a hoax. In fact i don't see anything about the big bang in the paper at all.

Am I missing something?


Besides, even if it were discovered that the big bang may not have happened it still doesn't make it a hoax just a theory that has been been replaced or at least considered as less than accurate, which to my understanding, this paper doesn't do and is not trying to do.


L3X

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by silentlonewolf
I don't see anything in that paper that concludes anything about the big bang and it being a hoax. In fact i don't see anything about the big bang in the paper at all.

Am I missing something?


Besides, even if it were discovered that the big bang may not have happened it still doesn't make it a hoax just a theory that has been been replaced or at least considered as less than accurate, which to my understanding, this paper doesn't do and is not trying to do.



For my understing the question is that the quasar redshift isn't caused by universe expansion but is only an unknown characteristic of the quasar

[edit on 4-9-2006 by L3X]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Red-shift is only a side effect of the Doppler effect. If an object is getting closer to you, any kind of wave (light, sound...) emited by that object will have a higher apparent frequency than that it actualy emits (for a light source, this is blue-shift). If the object is getting away from you, you'll see an apparent frequency smaller than that it actualy emits (this is the red-shift). In astronomy, the red-shift is used as a measure for distance in correlation with the big-bang theory. But that is only an average. If a galaxy is getting away because of the univers expansion, that doesn't mean that the galaxy is fixed in its local cluster. In fact, in its local cluster, a galaxy can have a motion toward us or away form us, and that adds up to the univers expansion. And if the galaxy is moving toward you, it will have a smaller red-shift than that of galaxy moving away from you.


If this is the case, the fact that they are all very close to the centers of the galaxies suggests strongly that they are physically associated with these galaxies and are in the process of being ejected from them.

this was from your source.
If the quasar is being ejected from that galaxy toward you, it will have a smaller red-shift. If it is ejected away from you, it's red-shift will be higher. If you measure it's red-shift and also that of the galaxy that ejected it, you can than compute the relative speed of the quasar to the galaxy.
So this is not a proof that the big-bang theory fails.


L3X

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
If i've understand well the facts are this:
-The frequence is smaller if the object is getting away (or toward) from me
-If the Object is ejected away from me the frequence is high

right?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Close, but not exactly. Because of the big-bang, we can assume that all of the distant objects are moving away from us, so they all have red-shifts. But if in its local cluster an object is moving toward us, its speed will be subtracted from that of the expansion and relative to us it will have a smaller speed, thus a smaller red-shift. But if the object is moving away from us, this speed will be added to that of the expansion and the relative speed to us will be greater, thus it's red-shift bigger.

edited to add the link for the doppler effect

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Apass]


L3X

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
Close, but not exactly. Because of the big-bang, we can assume that all of the distant objects are moving away from us, so they all have red-shifts. But if in its local cluster an object is moving toward us, its speed will be subtracted from that of the expansion and relative to us it will have a smaller speed, thus a smaller red-shift. But if the object is moving away from us, this speed will be added to that of the expansion and the relative speed to us will be greater, thus it's red-shift bigger.

edited to add the link for the doppler effect

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Apass]


thx for this explanation very comprehensible



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Your welcome! If I can help, any time then!



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
You should also read up on M-theory if you haven't already. Then youll see that the big bang may in fact not even be a special event!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
The big bang is a theory.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
If you take a look at a chart that maps all of the redshifted items in the universe, you will see that they extend in straight lines all with the earth in the center. Either red# is a wrong way to tell distances or the earth is the center of the universe. Which one seems correct ?

Redshift is wrong, and there is no big bang.
Thats my opinion.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I still don't get why humans think they know what happen like billions of years ago. Come on now, what are the chances are "theories" are correct. Note the word theory, the big band is yet to be proved.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
A Scientific Theory cannot be proven, period.

Only Maths can be proven.

You can only weigh the evidence for and against a given theory to see whether the theory stands up to observations. If the vast majority of the evidence says that you are mostly right(Like in General Relativity), then there is only a need for small revisions. If, however new evidence suggests that a theory is profoundly incorrect(via observation) in many instances, then that theory is thrown out and then the scientists start forming a new Hypothesis based on the available evidence. Once they successfully test the hypothesis it becomes Theory. Rince and Repeat. The continuous cycle of Science. I love it.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
If you take a look at a chart that maps all of the redshifted items in the universe, you will see that they extend in straight lines all with the earth in the center. Either red# is a wrong way to tell distances or the earth is the center of the universe. Which one seems correct ?

What chart are you refering to?

If the big bang theory is correct, then the universe is expanding. Then from any point within the universe (including earth) all things would look like they are moving away. Is this what you mean?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I always thought they tacked on Accelerating Expasion Theory to the Big Bang Model to make their equations work?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
If you take a look at a chart that maps all of the redshifted items in the universe, you will see that they extend in straight lines all with the earth in the center.

Erm, which chart?

It sounds as though the chart you're seeing is wrong. The Big Bang origin area wasn't Earth.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Actually, well realtively speaking, every point you go to in the universe will appear to be the origin of the universe. The expansion part does this nifty effect, so there is no way to point to "where" the big bang started.

Take the balloon example that most people use, now draw it full of dots and then collapse to a point (everything begins at that point basically). Now inflate balloon and the effect is that every dot is the center of the bang as every dot was at the starting point and from your vantage point on any dot after the expansion, you are still that starting point. Nifty....



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I always thought they tacked on Accelerating Expasion Theory to the Big Bang Model to make their equations work?

Not sure about that, but the Big Bang was first theorized in 1927 by Georges Lemaître, and then verified by Edwin Hubble in 1929. What Hubble observed was that when measuring objects in space they all appeared to be red shifted and moving away, as opposed to blue shifted for something moving toward you. This led him to believe that because everything was expanding it must have originated from a single point, thus the big bang theory was born. The idea that the expansion was accelerating came later in the 1990's.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9/22/2006 by Hal9000]

[edit on 9/22/2006 by Hal9000]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
That is what I'm talking about, the Accelerating Expansion part.

I've talked to a few Physists on the subject, and they said that the Big Bang theory was most likely incorrect due to some paradoxes that arrise when trying to reconcile Accelerating Expansion with the Big Bang. I have no idea what the mathematical interpretation would be or how the paradoxes arrise when trying to combine the two, but their arguments(at least the parts that I could understand) seemed quite convincing.

I don't want to repeat it now as I fear I'll botch it, but I'll shoot them an email and try to get them to explain it to me again.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Yeah, that is the part where I get lost. They say because the expansion is accelerating, there must be some force being applied, which makes sense. But then they say the force was due to more matter in space than we thought, which doesn't make sense to me. I would expect if there is more matter out there the universe would not be accelerating, but slowing down and eventually reverse and collapse then start the whole cycle over again. So now they call this unknown matter "dark matter", and they are trying to prove it exists. That all goes over my head.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join