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.

 

The Big Bang Theory is Wrong

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
In my previous post I stated "If the earth is not in the center and we look towards the direction of the center, we should see galaxies slow down with distance first then increase speed with distance after passing the center region. "
I should have stated "If the earth is not in the center of the universe and we look towars the galaxies between the earth and the center, we should see the rate of increase in speed with distance would be less than that when we look away from the center. "




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Actually, astronomers only observed red shift of distant galaxies indicating near the speed of light by assuming the red shift was only due to Doppler effect and they cannot observe galaxies with speed equal to or faster than the speed of light away from earth because the red shift would stretch the light too much to be detected. By extrapolation, they conclude that galaxies further away would have even greater red shift as the red shift increases with distance from earth and eventually, the speed would reach and even exceed the speed of light. Of course, they either forgot or ignore that if Big Bang did occur, the matter or mass could only be accelerated to a speed near but not equal to the speed of light and the electromagnetic energy can only expand at the speed of light. The Theory of Special Relativity shows that no mass can be accelerated to the speed of light and the fact that no particles with mass have ever been observed to travel at or accelerated to the speed of light no matter how much energy the particle accelerator puts in them proves that the extrapolation of those astronomers are wrong.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPang
 


Correction of error in my post on Dec20,2007 :
2/ Matter is a higher concentration of energy per unite space than (electromagmentic energy).



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPang
 


Sorry, it's (electromagnetic) energy.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Albert Einstein believed in the Big Bang theory. However, the Big Bang theory not only contradicts the Law of Gravity, it also contradicts Einstein's own theory of General Relativity which says extreme concentration of mass and energy would cause space to curve so much that it forms a loop or a hole in which matter and energy can not escape. According to his own theory, the space at the singularity should have been so curved that it looped around to form a hole. So if there had been a singularity at the beginning of the universe, it would have been a black hole from which nothing could escape.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPang
 


I just learned from the history channel that actually Einstein did not believed in The Big Bang Theory. I thought that he did because many Big Bang Theory presentation mention Einstein without mentioning that he did not believe it. May be Einstein was right after all.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Some scientists, in order to make the Big Bang Theory not contradicting the Law of Gravity, speculate that before and at the very beginning of the Big Bang, the fundamental forces in the universe have not been separate yet. They believe that gravity became separated from others forces only after the Big Bang.
However, this speculative explanation creates more problems than it can get ride of.
So if all forces were combined in the primordial singularity, what made the primordial singularity overcome this combined force and explode suddenly? There must have been changes in the primordial singularity to make it explode. If there were changes in the singularity, that would mean time existed before the Big Bang, not at and after it.
They also need to explain why they believe gravity did not exist independent of other forces in the primordial singularity when gravity is proved to exist independent of other forces in the black hole ( singularity) within galaxies.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grock

Very soon we will find that a vast many of our assumptions and scientific theories are wrong and will soon go the way of the flat earth and the earth as the center of the universe. Remember this: Just because they teach it to you in school does not mean that its true...


I want to see the PROOF that YOU came across yourself, not some websites you read, and decided you suddenyly knew it all, or you can get the # out of here.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPang
 


actually, the current explanation is that the laws of physics as we know them didn't apply prior to the "big bang"

reply to post by SimonPang
 


logical fallacy, argument from authority



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


"The current explanation is that the laws of physics as we know them didn't apply prior to the "big bang"
This explanation is just a speculation. It is similar to the view that the foundamental forces were combined prior to big bang, so that there was no gravitational effect to overcome during the Big Bang. But this speculation has problems that I mentioned in my last post.
Since the Law of Gravity is obeyed in the supermassive black holes in the universe, it is not scientific inference but speculation to say that gravity did not exist in the theoretical primordial singularity.
Another explanation prososed by by some scientists is that the primordial singularity was a WHITE HOLE instead of a black hole. So matter was expelled from the white hole instead pulled into it.
Actually, a singularity WITH ZERO VOLUME AND INFINITE GRAVITATION DENSITY has never been proved to exist and such a singularity is against the law of quantum mechanics which proves that matter cannot have zero volume. If there is volume in a singularity, then the gravitional effect cannot be infinite but has a finite value. For matter to be pulled into a a black hole and expelled from a white hole, the gravitational density of the black hole must be greater than that of the white hole.

I believe the following about the universe:

1/ The expansion of our universe and the whole universe was at a single point at the beginning are wrong inferences from the red shift by assuming that the red shift observed in is entirely due to Doppler effect without taking the Comptom effect into consideration.

2/ Our universe was created not from one primordial singularity but from numerous whites holes about 13 billion years ago over a vast extent of space.

3/ There are multiple universes which are in dynamic equilibrium with one another.

To distinguish it from other theories, I call this Multiple Bangs Theory.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Not only that I believe the Big Bang Theory is wrong, I believe Einstein's explanation of Gravity in terms of Curvature of Space is wrong too.

Many textbooks on General Relativity show us a drawing of a star distorting the fabric of space represented by a grid being stretched downwards by the star and a planet revolving around the star in a circular path formed on the grid. The textbooks explian that the reason why the planet goes in a circular path instead of going straight is because the star's gravity curves the space(more precisely space-time) around it. The planet is simply following the path of the curved space.

I am going to prove without resorting to mathematics that the curvature of space explanation for gravity is wrong.

1/ If the space around the star were curved, when we shoot a pulse of laser from the planet towards the direction travelled by the planet at a particular moment (it should point in the same direction of a tangent to the circular path), the laser beam would travel the same curved space ahead of the planet and end up hitting the other side of the planet when the light catches up with it after completing one revolution around the star. But that is simply not the case in reality. In fact, the light beam will continue on a straight line in the direction of the tangent.

2/ Most planetary orbits are actually elliptical instead of circular. It doesn't make sense to say that such a planet is also moving in space by following the curvature of space. Since the star is spherical, the effect of gravity on anything around it should be approximately the same.

3/ The textbooks say if the planet stops revolving around the star, it will move towars the star as the space is curved downward towards the star. In fact, this is a false explanation that takes advantage of people's daily experience with gravity. If space were curved, it still requires a force to make a body move along it. In the drawing, people think the planet will roll down the slope towards the star because of their experience with gravity that pull things downward. However, they forget that gravity is something they want to explain away with curvature of space in the first place. What an irony! If we conduct an experiment in a spacecraft in outer space with the same curved surface and gently put a ball on it representing a planet, the ball would not move relative to the curved surface because there is no gravity or force to move it.

4/ If space could be bended towards the star with dispacement due to gravity, then what would happen to the orignal position where the bended space was. Of couse, it would still be occupied by space. So is the gravitation of the star going to bend that space towards it like it did with the previous patch of space? That would cause an influx of space towards the star instead of bending. If what Einstein meant by bending space means merely imparting it with a property that would bend the path of matter and light without dispacement of space, I would say the space is not bend at all. Only that the property of flat space has been changed.

The above 4 points proves that using curvature of space as an equivalent of gravity is a wrong concept. Gravity around a star would cause a gravitatinal gradient in space pointing from around the star towards it. The closer to the star's surface, the greater the gravitational gradient effected by gravitational field. However, the space remains flat in the presence of gravity.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Well what do you know?


I guess we'll have to mark another one up for the urantia book.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
How about the blackholes? Isn't it true that their gravitation is so strong that they not only curve space but also form holes to another spacetime?

First of all, I want to point out that gravity does have an effect on the time of an object. The stronger the gravitational field, the slower the time goes. It is a well-proven scientific fact.

I also believe that inside a black hole, space occupied by the black hole is ruptured without going throught the stage of bending space. It is like using an intense laser beam to puncture a flat sheet of metal to see through the other side without ever bending the metal sheet. Light bending around a black hole is not due to curvature of space but due to the effect of gravitational field on the light beam.

Some people who believe that gravity is equivalent to curvature of space say that anti-gravity can never be achieved because everything has to follow the curvature of space in motion. In fact curvature of space is but a wrong idea conjured up by Einstein to explain gravity which no man, including myself, know exactly what it is- yet.

Goodbye to curvature of space. Let's reseach gravity and anti-gravity.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
In addition to the four points I mentioned earlier, I am going to use logical deduction to show that three dimensional space cannot be curved.

Imagine a large rectangular container full of dirt in zero net gravity in a space lab. There is a tiny hole at bottom right corner facing you. Some ants may enter the hole and dig a straight tunnel horizontally along the right edge. If a tiny bug cannot dig dirt but can fit just right inside the straight tunnel, it only has one dimension to move about. That means the bug can only move forward and backward.

However, the ants may dig a tunnel which curves gradually to the left just above the bottom. In this case the bug inside may think it is moving in one dimension but actually it is moving in two dimensions.
If the ants dig a tunnel that curves gradually to the left as well as gradually curves up to the top of the container. The bug inside the double curved tunnel may think it is moving in one dimension but actually it is moving in three dimensions.

Now imagine a big ant farm formed by putting two sheets of opaque plastic material just the height of an ant apart. If the two sheets are completely flat, the ants has only two dimensional freedom and they move within two dimensions. However, if both sheets curve upward or downward gradually in the same curvature, they will form a two dimensional world between two concentric spheres. In this case, the ants may think they are moving in two dimensions but they are actually moving in a three dimensions as a sphere is in three dimensions.

Conclusion:
One spatial dimensional world has a maximum of two spatial dimensions to curve to in space.
Two spatial dimensional world has a maximum of one spatial dimension to curve to in space.
It follows that three spatial dimensional world has a maximum of zero spatial dimension to curve to in space. That means it is impossible for three dimensional space like the one we live in to curve in any spatial dimension.

Time in our world is not something that moves in a constant rate in all circumstances. The rate of time can be affect by gravity, relative speed, relative acceleration or may be some other things yet to be discovered. As time is flexible, we may say that time can be bended.

Since Einstein put time as a dimension of the world we live in and call all the dimensions spacetime. Therefore, even though his concept of gravity can cause curvature of space is wrong, he is still correct to say that gravity can bend spacetime just by definition. However, it is only the time portion that can be bended but not the space portion of a three dimensional space.

Even though space cannot be curved, I believe that it can contract in a linear mode, not absolutely, but subjectively depend on the condition of observers under certain circumstances.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
In my previous post in the paragraph about the spherical ant farm, I said," However, if both sheet curve upward or downward gradually in the same curvature, they form a two dimensional world between two concentric sphere."
The spherical ant farm is just an approximate example to help us understand how a two dimensional world may curve into another dimension. Actually the space inside the spherical ant farm is still three dimensional. So the curvature of the outer sphere must be slightly less than that of the inner sphere. To have a more accurate example of a two dimensional world curve into another dimension, we need to imagine some two dimensional creatures living in a world shaped like the surface of a sphere.

Some reader may then say," Now you just said that the spherical ant farm is in fact three dimension, doesn't it mean that three dimensional space can be curved?"
The answer is,"Not at all."
The fact is that the space inside the spherical ant farm is confined in a shape formed between two concentric spheres of slightly different diameter and thus appear to be curved, but the property of that confined space and the space around it is still flat.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I found the following explanation of the Big Bang in NASA's website regarding the LISA project:

Models of the Universe
"The Theory of General Relativity is one of the pillars of the "Big Bang," a model that describes the beginning of the Universe. The common understanding of this model is that when the Universe began it was infinitely dense, hot, and extremely small. However, the Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." Rather, it was the simultaneous appearance of space and time everywhere in the Universe. Although the Big Bang is very successful in accounting for the expansion of the Universe and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), it doesn't give us a complete picture of the early history of the Universe."

lisa.jpl.nasa.gov...

It was the first time that I saw or heard an explanation of the Big Bang from an authoritative source which says Big Bang did NOT occur at a SINGLE POINT in space." and that "it was the SIMULTANEOUS APPEARANCE of space and time EVERYWHERE in the universe."

However, the article does not elaborate how that can be compatible with the "common understanding" of the Big Bang model in the drawing it provides, which appears to depict the Big Bang from a single point.

If the Bang did not occur at a SINGLE POINT, them there should have been Multiple Bangs happened SIMULTANEOUSLY EVERYWHERE in the universe, right?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 


To give my own existencial take on the conversation.

I believe that the universe was and always will be, seeing as to how time is supposedly a part of the universe. And nor are universes finite things. Well possibly finite but well its complex and its also a late hour.

And I think the Big Bang has plenty of counter-arguments that can be valid instead.

I believe the universe is an intelligent being (being my view on a god, by no means abrahamic god). More or less our bodies are part of that "body of god" as is all material matter.

I believe that we are in a manner of speaking baby realities in a womb/school. And we can stick around (otherwords reincarnate if we feel we aren't ready) or we can well, be born as another reality or even stick close.

I have various reasons for believing what I believe but I am not seeking to defend my beliefs as I don't care what others think.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Some scientist say the gravity of black holes are so strong that NOTHING can escape from them [within the event horizon.]

However, the same group of scientists also say that gravity is caused by gravitons emitted by all objects with mass and that gravitons travel at the speed of light.

The above two views expressed by the same group of scientists remind me of the origin of the Chinese words for self-contradiction.

A weapon merchant tried to sell his shield to people. He boasted his shield is so tough that NOTHING can pierce through it. When nobody bought the shield then he tried to sell his spear. He boasted his spear is so sharp, it can pierce through ANYTHING. Then a spectator asked him to pierce his shield with his spear to see what would happen. The merchant then realize what he said were contradictory. Therefore, spear-shield became the words for self-contradiction.

So if nothing can escape from within the event horizon of a black hole, how come those scientists say all objects with mass, which include black holes of course, emit gravitons. It is just self-contradictory.

I think if gravitons do exist, then they must be able to escape from within the event horizon to produce the gravitational effect outside the black holes, then their view that nothing can escape from a black hole must be wrong. For graviton to escape from within the event horizon, some people think that they travel faster than the speed of light.

However, some scientists think they can avoid the gravitons explanation by using Einstein's explanation that matter warps space around it and causes the effect we call gravity. Beside the four problems that I mentioned in the earlier posts about the curvature of space explanation, these scientists don't realize that in fact they are holding the same belief which they have been sneering at about one aspect associated with Newton's view of how gravity works, that is action at a distance without a mediator. Some scientists deceptively call the theoretical deformation of space-time geometry a mediator of gravity but in fact if deformation of space-time geometry does occur, it is a manifestation of action at a distance instead being a mediator. If they say matter emits graviton that change the geometry of space, then the problem of how graviton can escape a black hole is still a problem.
If the geometry of space can be really be changed then space is not just a void but should be regarded as something that is not a void.

Using the existence of gravitational field in flat space near matter to explain gravity is most sensible.
Asserting that the flat space near matter is imparted with a stressed by gravitational field without displacement or change of shape of the space but a change to the property of the space to explain gravity is still acceptable but meaningless because it is impossible to prove whether the gravitational pull was caused directly by the field or by the alleged stress of space,
But the explanation that space near matter is bended, curved, wrapped or having a changed geometry is bad science as they all imply displacement of space which does not occur at all, at least in the macro world.

Einstein should have just used gravitatinal field to explain gravity and faced the challenge to explain how gravitational field or gravitons can be emitted from black holes.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Correction of spelling,second paragraph from last:
But the explanation that space near matter is bended, curved, ( wraped)



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
No one has been able to detect or measure the distortion of spacetime
successfully, but i think there is still a lot of support for the theory.

No one has detected or has been able measure or show gravitons neither

I think that the big bang thoery is only a temporary theory, it is hard to remove bbt even though it provides more questions than anwsers, but i dont thoery is very good and i believed it was rushed.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join