The Big Bang Never Happened

the so called lookback time is nothing more than, the our observational horizon.
Given the simplistic model of the expanding universe as a spherical shape with radius equal to the age of the universe, the best we could do would be to see half the universe.
We wouldnt be able to see anything past the big bang because the light wouldnt have had the time to reach us.
This notion is compounded by the hyper relativistic expansion of the very early universe.
Now imagine that the universe is much much bigger than we think, and everything within our observational horizon lies on a very small patch of the surface of the sphere that is the expanding universe. Even though every thing is moving away from the center, it appears to us that everything is moving in the same direction, ie the great attractor.
The whole notion of dark matter and energy is an unfortunate detour in physics.
Given basic geometric considerations, the best we could hope to observe is half the universe. Only half the mass would be visually acounted for.
Now take into consideration how fast star evolution and galaxy formations occured in the very early universe, a great deal of the mass would have already gone dark by now, the stars burned out and died.

reply to post by sirnex

Thanks for the link, that's an interesting story!

But it does tend to state a single exception to your statement while confirming the opposite of your statement:

Bahram Mobasher of the Space Telescope Science Institute, leader of the science team, explains, "We found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images of the UDF and expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, we found evidence that it is remarkably mature and much more massive. This is the surprising discovery."

So other known galaxies at similar distance are young and small, which your source confirms, that was my point, thanks for proving it with your source!

They also said:

"If the distance measurement to this object holds up to further scrutiny, the fact such a galaxy has already completed its star formation implies a yet earlier period of intense activity," Ellis adds.

Which raises a question about the accuracy of the distance measurement.

However when I studied cosmology, the time since the big bang had estimates going all the way up as high as 20 billion years old. Perhaps we've lowered the age estimates a bit too far.

But I don't think you can ignore the preponderance of evidence on other known galaxies at similar distances being young and small. What if they just got the distance wrong on this one galaxy? Or what if this one galaxy matured more quickly than the others, like that kid in my 3rd grade class who was a foot taller than all the other 3rd graders? He was the same age as the rest of us, he just grew faster, I don't see any reason why some galaxies can't grow faster than others either, in fact I would expect some variation in growth rates in galaxies as well as people.

reply to post by sirnex


The very high energy/matter densities of the very early universe meant that star, and galaxy formation proceeded at a much greater rate in the begginging of the universe.
All the matter and energy was present at the birth, not created as time went by.
At one point in the very early universe(ABOUT 300K YEARS AFTER tbb) the mater/energy density was so high that it put the universe under a photonic pressure of round 14psi.
thats so much light it exerted 14 pounds of pressure per square inch.

the earliest stars were born and died in just a few thousand years and would have been giants, that exploded violently as they died, forming the first black holes around which subsequent galaxies would form.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

...Which raises a question about the accuracy of the distance measurement.

I think your right on target here, I would go further with this and add that all distance measurements of deep space objects should be questioned.
The Hubble constant also needs to be questioned due to the increasing amount of contradictions. The theory of an expanding Universe is based upon these erroneous observations so this theory is also in question.

I thought the whole idea of this thread was to take a moment to step back and look at what we know like the laws of physics. When we start dismissing the laws of physics to explain a theory then there is nothing to rely on and science has been replaced for religion.

When is the scientific method going to be used again. I mean hasn't this gone far enough? Neutron stars, Pulsars, Quasars, Magnatars and now "LookBack Time"? I am sorry if I seem disrespectful but this sounds more like Alice in wonderland than science.

All of those phenomena have very simple explanations that work well with the laws of physics but this contradicts the big bang and therefore cosmology.

reply to post by Devino

Hey if someone comes up with a better theory to explain the observational evidence, I'm willing to abandon the theories we've got in favor of the theories that expain the evidence better. I just haven't seen those theories yet. The author of this thread has some fascinating theories, but to me they don't explain the observations better than current theories. But that doesn't mean I'm "married" to the current theories, I'm not, I'd like to see better ones.

Lookback time doesn't violate any laws of physics. It doesn't show any disrespect to scoff at it so much as an unwillingness on your part to read up on the concept, so you can at least understand it well enough to point out exactly where the flaws in the concept are before you scoff at it. Right now, I'm not sure you really understand the concepts involved. Once you do, if you would like to point out how and why they are flawed, I'm willing to listen.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have to admit, I did just skim through your links but I am willing to take the time to read it. My comments were a basic summary of what I read and that I consider "Lookback Time" a violation of relativity but not physics. Thank you for these links though, I'll look through them more closely later as it takes some time for me to mentally digest data like this. I didn't want to appear as though I was focusing on ridicule and debunking but that I have put some thought into this.

I have read a considerable amount of stuff relating to all of the phenomena that I previously listed and I see a problematic trend that continues into cosmology today. It is a pattern of explaining the data to fit the theory and this is not a good scientific method. Any approach that is used should follow the laws of physics and relativity and this is where I see the problem begin. There is no evidence that dark matter/energy or gravity waves exist yet these are used in contradiction to physics and relativity. Apparent luminosity and redshift of distant stars that are used to determine distance both have problems that are being ignored yet again these are favored over physics and relativity.

If that isn't problematic enough this comment really throws a wrench into the works when describing lookback time, "Distance has multiple definitions in an expanding Universe." -from your PP
So what do we have if there are multiple definitions for velocity, distance and age?

To believe in the BBT the laws of physics and relativity must be thrown out. If this were the case then what was the cause for the big bang? We still need those laws to describe the force for the BBT. So do we throw them out or keep them?. I view this as cherry picking in the worst way.

I really appreciate your input because it helps me with the biggest problem I have with this whole topic. Cosmology describes explanations for this data that increase with complexity as the amount of data increases just to keep in favor of the BBT. The theory for an Electric Universe explains these phenomena without these complex explanations and problems but this is not the direction science is going, William of Ockham might be rolling in his grave.

I enjoy simple explanations over massively complicated and contradicting ones and if cosmology gets any more complicated and contradicting I won't be able to follow. Everything in my life confirms that simple Understanding is true, confusion and over complications are false.

I don't know if I can describe well the flaws that I see in "Lookback Time". It deals with relativity but before I get into this I think I'll take some of your advice and do what I can to try and understand this concept more.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


OK, so that one galaxy out of many at the beginning of the universe could all be wrong in their redshift estimates for distance and actually be closer than the redshift shows? I mean come on ... Either redshift is an accurate marker of distance or it is not. If all old galaxies at the beginning of the universe are wrongly calculated by redshift, then something is wrong there. All of them? That makes no sense, only old galaxies from that time period are wrong, but not the younger galaxies?

If we're seeing young and old galaxies that far back, and that link is not the only example, there are many more, then what that is telling me is that there is something wrong with the big bang theory.

[EDIT TO ADD]

I've been doing some research and I'm finding some information about young galaxies near our own galaxy. These seemingly young galaxies should be only a few hundred million to one billion years old given the type of stars present and the lack of heavy elements present. Either BBT is wrong or galactic/stellar evolution is wrong. We can't have old galaxies back at the beginning and new galaxies near us if the universe had a beginning. Something isn't adding up, and I'm guessing it's the BBT.

reply to post by punkinworks

The very high energy/matter densities of the very early universe meant that star, and galaxy formation proceeded at a much greater rate in the begginging of the universe.
All the matter and energy was present at the birth, not created as time went by.
At one point in the very early universe(ABOUT 300K YEARS AFTER tbb) the mater/energy density was so high that it put the universe under a photonic pressure of round 14psi.
thats so much light it exerted 14 pounds of pressure per square inch.

Ok, great explanation for the appearance of old galaxies where one would think they shouldn't exist. One problem I have with that, why do those pressures only account for old galaxies and not the young ones of the same age that existed within the same pressures? Why did those pressures that created the old looking galaxies have no effect on the younger ones?


In an eternal universe where matter has always existed and has always followed the laws of physics, I don't see young and old together as a problem at all. Yet, when old lives along side young when old didn't have time to develop yet then we run into some problems.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]

I agree there is no real big bang theory and the word infinity is actually a barrier to try and stop all rational thought.
The universe is a huge space we know nothing about and never will some people even doubt that humans have ever left our solar system, seems a whole lot of this trying to keep us on earth, gravity being the biggest, then radiation and the fact its apparantly light years away so why bother think "Trueman Show"
So no big bang theory just a great big experiment where everything is controlled by heat and light i.e the sun hence why so many cultures worship the sun and without this guiding light nothing could exsist.
Could alien life actually be things trying to advise us hence the supression or hiding of all UFO information.
Were the past civilisations that worshipped the sun wiped out as they knew too much....no one seems totally sure what happened
Were the dinosaurs a previous failed experiment so again wiped out...no one seems totally sure.
Are natural distasters and diseases just there to control population...Mother Nature will always win the battle so we have no real chance in the long run to prevent or eradicate either.
Are theyre groups of people who are aware of this and involved with this in order to aid the experiment along...years of no real significant the term inventions or theories then we turn a corner, we invent the wheel discover fire...still not mastered by our nearest animal relatives, the term New World Order sounds very apt.
The serious threat of the ozone layer, maybe we found a way of penertrating the actual seal keeping us in.....so all things that contribute must be banned.

So for me there is no big theory just the start of an elaborate experiment.

Originally posted by trace_the_truth
"Dimmer" is not a scientific term. You are no scientist, that much is clear. Photons do not lose energy as they travel. Further objects appear dimmer because photons are dispersed. If the universe were infinite with infinite stars then dispersion would not even come into play for practicalities sake because the spectrum of dispersion would result into the infinite concentration of photons in any particular area.

Hmm, such a scathing attack and then you offer a rebuttal which contradicts the very theory you're trying to defend... Amusing..

Photons DO lose energy as they travel, hence the red shift. This is caused by their interactions with the billions of other particles along the route, which produces the red shift.

You assertion that if space was infinite then light would be everywhere, thus making space white is just silly. All stars produce the vast majority of their "light" outside the visible spectrum, which in itself is just a tiny fragment of what is out there.

If you look up at any point in the night sky and could "see" in all wavelengths, then you would indeed by looking up at a sheet of white (I use the term white to illustrate a point, not as a claim of the colour you would see). Your claim is just absurd in itself.

However, this neither proves or disproves either theory, as it stands to reason that the earth is going to be litterally bathed in "light" from every point in the sky anyway, given how vast and full of stuff the Universe is.

Originally posted by trace_the_truth
I'm sorry. You are going to have to present me with someone more worthwhile in your next post to have me take you seriously. As of now, I am viewing you as a joke.

Hmmmm..... The proverbial pot comes to mind.

Correct in the sense that everything is already created on a spirit level, and on a physical level it is manifested, or brought into life, a lot of places that are built are from unseen societies of mankind, but what entails as mankind may baffle or stagger ones imagination so what is you were created in OUR IMAGE, about.

Something made from nothing, the ethers, the dark sea of infinity. There are creators out there that keep genetic feeds from different points of time or different eras of humanity. Perhaps to correct genetic disorders, or show off some different creations of the mind.

reply to post by menguard


There.

I meant to do that as you meant to post here.

I know, it irritates the guards when they realize they are not in on it, but today I make an exception. That is how important this is. Well, for me. Can't speak for everyone.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have been reading what I can about the concept of lookback time going through your linked PP several times and I even watched part of a documentary about it. The same problem pops up that makes this whole concept fall apart in my opinion and it has everything to do with the definition of space. When it comes to the science of physics, astronomy and cosmology there is no tolerance for ambiguity with the definitions of words like space, distance and time. If these words have multiple definitions that are arbitrarily flexible then they lose all reliable meaning turning this debate into theology. Definitions for these words must remain constant for them to have any real meaning, the biggest issue now I think is with the word "Space".

When it comes to relativity nothing can be observed traveling faster the the velocity of light. If we are discussing acceleration then the velocity of light is the limit, beyond that inertia becomes a greater resistance than any force accelerating it.
Accumulated velocities cannot be observed traveling faster than 'c'. If two objects are moving away from each other both having velocities 80% of 'c' they do not equal to 160% respectively. Observers on either object will measure light traveling at the same velocity, coming and going, in all directions. This is an over simplified summary of special relativity which describes the contradiction with 'lookback time'.

So what about the expansion of space? This expansion is said to be the cause of a force created by the big bang, so the energy from this force must have come from somewhere. We should be able to calculate the amount of energy this would have been, theoretically up to this point anyway. No matter how large this amount of energy could possibly be it cannot overcome the limitations to 'c'.

So what about the word 'Space"?

Is space an absolute void that is empty and completely absent of anything and everything, or is it a measurable medium existing between mass?
Space as a medium would have energy like heat and light being full of EM waves, ions, various micro (and macro) particles both atomic and subatomic all of which can be measured.
Space as a void is the vary definition of "that which does not exist", no matter how many times we try the equation, 0+0=0, it's always the same. Either way "space" does not and can not expand, it's the distance between two objects that expands.

I can't believe there are serious scientific discussions about these impossible scenarios of an empty void expanding faster than the velocity of light claiming it can do this because it does not exist (empty void=nothing), therefore it would require no energy to accelerate it because the outcome is always zero.

Either I am missing a key point to this issue or the concept of lookback time is pure fiction and a waste of time.

Originally posted by Devino
So what about the word 'Space"?

Is space an absolute void that is empty and completely absent of anything and everything, or is it a measurable medium existing between mass?
Space as a medium would have energy like heat and light being full of EM waves, ions, various micro (and macro) particles both atomic and subatomic all of which can be measured.
Space as a void is the vary definition of "that which does not exist", no matter how many times we try the equation, 0+0=0, it's always the same. Either way "space" does not and can not expand, it's the distance between two objects that expands.

Devino you make some valid points, and thanks for looking at it a little more as it seems you understand the concept now even if you don't agree with it.

I once thought as you until I succumbed to the teachings of modern cosmologists, so your point of view is something I completely understand.

And now you have company in the cosmological community, at least some in the form of a paper called "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?"

by Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
Submitted on 3 Jul 2007 has the following synopsis:

arxiv.org...

While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

Some of the topics in that paper are discussed here:

www.physicsforums.com...

which states:

Much has been written in the debate about whether the space between galaxies is "really" expanding, or whether on the other hand the motion of galaxies is a kinematic recessional motion through space. The equivalence principle strongly suggests that it is impossible to detect any observational difference between the two models, indicating that we have no reasonable alternative but to treat both as being equally valid and mathematically interchangeable.

So far so good, right up your alley right?

But here's the problem:

I'll conclude by noting that while the equivalence principle suggests that 'expanding space' and 'kinetic recession' are merely different descriptions of the same thing, that doesn't mean we have sorted out all of the complexities. In particular, no complete and demonstrably valid explanation has been provided as to how the cosmological redshift and the Superluminal recession of distant galaxies can be explained by a purely kinetic model. However, the equivalence principle encourages optimism that eventually the kinematic model will be fleshed out enough to provide a fully kinematic alternative explanation of those phenomena. On the other hand, we may eventually conclude that a fully kinematic explanation would result in measurable observational differences. That remains a real possibility, despite the faith we put in the equivalence principle. In which case, we will eventually be able to know for a fact whether 'expanding space' causes particles to separate, or whether the particles are moving kinematically through space.

So all that seems to be lacking for your perception of the universe to become accepted is for you or someone else to provide a "complete and demonstrably valid explanation as to how the cosmological redshift and the Superluminal recession of distant galaxies can be explained by a purely kinetic model." Apparently the observational evidence is better supported by the expanding space model, but that doesn't necessarily make it right if we are in fact just missing a piece from the kinetic model.

But it's interesting to see this very question is being debated in the physics community, and even being called "the root of all evil", right? How about that? Star for your post!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I very much appreciate your reply and those quotes you added. I will take the time later to read though the physics forum as well.

Still the one thing that is missing in this discussion and all those that I have read elsewhere about an expanding Universe is the question of whether or not it's expanding. The proof for an expanding Universe has been admittedly found to be flawed and yet this model continues as though it is fact. The question of the nature of the Universe is still open for debate and so far no answer is definitive. Einstein might very well have been correct with a static model, I don't know. What I do know is that the redshift of light is not proof of an expanding Universe.

I have an idea what the cause is for the redshift of light but this requires a lot more time to put together. As for "a complete and demonstrably valid explanation as to how the cosmological redshift and the Superluminal recession of distant galaxies can be explained by a purely kinetic model" I'm working on that.
If I am able to put it together in a cognitive manner something that would be considered a "demonstrably valid explanation" remains to be seen. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong is besides the issue, what's important is understanding which has been my goal.

But it's interesting to see this very question is being debated in the physics community, and even being called "the root of all evil"

I laughed when I read this part because I finally got the punch line. The religious connection that was in the title, "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?", to the idea that cosmology is becoming a religion. I enjoyed that one almost as much as this discussion.

Originally posted by Devino
What I do know is that the redshift of light is not proof of an expanding Universe.

Lots of proof is given for that position at the beginning of this thread. But just because a distant galaxy has a blueshift instead of a redshift doesn't invalidate the redshift theory, as the OP claims, it merely shows a limited understanding of the current model. And the redshift quantization arguments weren't compelling to me.

Maybe the universe isn't expanding, but if that's the case then better proof is needed than the explanations posited so fat in this thread.

But it's interesting to see this very question is being debated in the physics community, and even being called "the root of all evil"

I laughed when I read this part because I finally got the punch line. The religious connection that was in the title, "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?", to the idea that cosmology is becoming a religion. I enjoyed that one almost as much as this discussion.

You liked that too eh? I often think that belief in inflation, dark matter and dark energy are sort of a religion. We see the Earth exists so we assume an invisible God must have created it, this is religion. We see the expansion of the universe accelerating so we assume there must be an invisible thing called dark energy. Hmmm maybe this is religion too?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
just because a distant galaxy has a blueshift instead of a redshift doesn't invalidate the redshift theory

I think the proof against 'H' as a constant is found in the redshift of Quasars and the apparent luminosity that is in bold contradiction to Hubble's law.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe the universe isn't expanding, but if that's the case then better proof is needed

I agree but to be fair I think the same goes for theories that are in favor of an expanding Universe model.


When I think of the acceleration of a mass and the equivalence principle I look closely at the reactions from the mass to the force that is causing the acceleration. During the acceleration of a mass inertia is the impedance to the applied force and is in the opposite direction that the mass is accelerating (opposing acceleration).
During gravitational acceleration inertia is resisting this force in what appears to be the same direction that the mass is accelerating (objects feel heavy). At least it is logical to assume that gravity is accelerating towards the center point of mass.
Think of the difference between weighing an object that is on the surface of the Earth and again while in a free-fall 'accelerating' towards the ground.
Accelerate by way of gravity towards a mass in a near vacuum with a blindfold on and you will feel as though you were floating, i.e. not moving.

Since inertia is the resistance to acceleration it can be concluded that it will react the same for any acceleration, as a fictitious or opposing force. If this is the case then the mass of the Earth is being accelerated away from its center thus causing the inertial feeling of weight or a 1G force. The problem here is we cannot observe this acceleration from a 3D perspective.
I might argue that the Earth is accelerating forward in time but I'm not ready for that debate yet.

The medium of space, Aether, needs to be a part of these discussions. Laser interferometers like LIGO will not find an Aether wind but "Absence of proof is not proof of absence".

Proof for the Aether is 'Inertia', the resistance to acceleration and the reaction to mass thus causing pressure or the force known as gravity.

This is the beginning for an alternative explanation to the redshift of light, Quasars, the propagation of light and its velocity limit, the inverse square law, the origin of rotation and how solar systems/galaxies are created.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You liked that too eh? I often think that belief in inflation, dark matter and dark energy are sort of a religion."

Yeah, I liked that but then it brings up this thought...
One very compelling piece of evidence that cosmologist might be wrong is the history of modern science academia. They have been wrong not just a few times but on just about every thing that has been said and considered to be the unquestionable truth. Every reliable work of science done by the few brilliant minds throughout history has been resisted by academic science in some of the most powerful and horrific ways. Ultimately this leads into a debate about the religion of science and cosmology, "Is it science or religion that is resisting the truth?".

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
just because a distant galaxy has a blueshift instead of a redshift doesn't invalidate the redshift theory

I think the proof against 'H' as a constant is found in the redshift of Quasars and the apparent luminosity that is in bold contradiction to Hubble's law.

When I first read the OP I didn't know how to explain the quasar redshift plot posted. However, I have since found an possible answer which doesn't seem to contradict Hubble's law:

See this thread: www.scienceforums.net...

CONCLUSIONS:

At any given epoch, quasars' intrinsic Luminosities vary over roughly three orders-of-magnitude. And, quasars appear to brighten from z=3 to z=2, before steadily dimming, by about three orders-of-magnitude, from z=2 to z=0.03, after which quasars have faded from view.

Quasar numbers also follow a similar evolution, rapidly increasing in comoving density, before fading from view:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c218f6efda8.jpg[/atsimg]

Note: "This plot dramatizes the relative brevity of the quasar era when the universe was 2-3 billion years old".

If true then this explains how the quasar redshift data can be consistent with Hubble's law.

For example, if you want to compare apples to apples, take the Hubble plot shown here (Image from the OP):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4cd2fa190c82.gif[/atsimg]

Now this is a plot of all ages, hence linear. If one were to take a narrow range of data from this plot, the linear function becomes less apparent as can be seen by the significant scatter in the upper right portion of the plot. In fact, if you plot the redshift of galaxies believed to be of the same age as the quasars, and compare that to the redshift of quasars also mostly in that age range, the plots may have such little difference as to be indistinguishable. (I haven't tried that but it's certainly the result one would expect given the significant scatter within a narrow range of the horizontal axis).

This in fact would prove that the luminosity vs redshift data from quasars is not at all in contradiction with Hubble's law.

The only problem is I'm not sure how accurate that conclusion is that the quasars are all about the same age within a relatively narrow time window from a cosmological perspective. But if that's accurate, then there's no contradiction between quasar redshifts and Hubble's law that I can see.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He forgot to add the painfully obvious bridges connecting galaxies to these quasars. I understand the current explanation is chance alignment, but to such a degree that a bridge/jet exudes from the galaxy for no apparent reason in just the right direction that it looks like it's connected to something billions of light years away? Every single quasar close to a galaxy? Every single one? Seriously? Chance? WOW! And yet they say it's impossible for chance and randomness to allow for life. WOW!

Originally posted by sirnex
I understand the current explanation is chance alignment, but to such a degree that a bridge/jet exudes from the galaxy for no apparent reason in just the right direction that it looks like it's connected to something billions of light years away?

If you believe everything you see in photographs or video, then you obviously don't realize the camera can and does at least mislead us sometimes if not lie.

We can't let the camera make a fool of us. Seeing is not always believing and what a photo sometimes appears to show is not what is really happening. I can jump to conclusions about the bridge the same way I can jump to conclusions about this photo (you can scroll through them, there are 10 photos).

www.boreme.com...

Is that just chance alignment of the axe and the girls head? I don't think we can any more conclude the axe is in the girls head than we can conclude the bridge is between objects billions of light years apart. The bridge can be to something at a much different distance, that is obscured from view, as apparently the log is in the linked photo where the axe is presumably really located, at a different distance than it appears in the photo. In the case of the bridge, the obscuring object could actually be behind the true source of the bridge, if the object behind is bright enough like a QSO (Quasi-stellar object). Sometimes, coincidences happen, and they are just coincidence.

An astronomer has written something on his website which explores this further, you might find it interesting reading:

www.astr.ua.edu...

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Every single quasar galaxy pair though? I mean honestly, camera tricks with every single quasar near a galaxy just happens to have a bridge connecting the two? Every single one near a galaxy? Sorry if I need to repeat that every single quasar near a galaxy has a bridge. It's like every single one though, near a galaxy.

That's just amazingly to coincidental in my book. Everything I thought I knew about chance and coincidence doesn't allow for every single pair to have a bridge like that. I haven't noticed any counter evidence of a quasar near a galaxy that lacks a bridge, only pictures that show a bridge connecting the two.

Amazingly as well, we can demonstrate redshift as a variable in the lab. Should this not be enough evidence that redshift may just not be as accurate as we once thought it was? When does the religious fervor end and science begins? What about quasars in front of galaxies with high redshifts showing they should be behind the galaxies? How do we explain that away or do we just keep ignoring it and repeating the same argument with religious fervor?

We explain this away to chance and coincidence, but some argue that the chance of life occurring naturally is impossible despite the laws of physics demanding it should occur within our universe. Ah I get it! It's chance and coincidence that we have wrong, we need to rework those to make these arguments stick!

[edit on 27-9-2009 by sirnex]