The Big Bang Never Happened

page: 4
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I thought all this quasar redshift and interaction with less-redshifted objects anomaly stuff was a 1970s and 80s thing and that theory had moved on quite a bit since then...... ?




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tribewilder
The problem here is that I cannot grasp ageless nor infinite in size.

If I think about this too much I will either get a massive headache or go completely insane.


Excellent work on your thread..

I do wonder though, can anyone really grasp infinity??


I think infinite in time is easy to justify, infinite in size is not.

If we rethink time completely from the observational aspects of reality we get this:

Time is a measurement or comparison of a rate of change of matter against another rate of change of matter. All observations are measured "in time" only because the rate of change of our brain chemistry coincides with the rate of change of data of our senses.

So the real question is: which way does the causality fit? Is there matter because there is time, or is there time because there is matter?

If time is an abstraction of a property of matter then it doesn't have any universality or special dimensional quality about it. Where there is no matter there would be no time. There is matter, therefore there is time, therefore there has always been time.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Yandros]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
I thought all this quasar redshift and interaction with less-redshifted objects anomaly stuff was a 1970s and 80s thing and that theory had moved on quite a bit since then...... ?


Yeah, that's when some of the connected objects were first discovered.

Cosmologists have moved on by ignoring the problem and pretending it doesn't exist haha.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
1)why is the infinite universe not overflowing with light? several reasons

as mentioned earlier - light dissipates as it travels , or dimming

also, asteroids, planets, rocks, dust, gas , etc will block light

therefore it would be impossible to have a superluminous sky even in an infinite universe

2) no matter where you are in an infinite system, you are always in the middle - there is infinite going either direction

so technically, if the universe is infinite , we are at the center of it

any point in a infinite system is the "middle" or "center"



btw - great thread OP and excellent discussions

and btw, i dug up my 5year old thread called "Why the Big Bang couldn't have ever happened"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i made some great arguements back then, in fact i think i was smarter back then than i am now (im getting way too old)



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I have been very interested in the various problems with the redshift method lately so thanks for the thread!

However I don't believe that totally or partially disproving redshift as a function of distance necessarily disproves the Big Bang, it just proves that our method of measuring distance is flawed.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
thats alot of heavy reading for a holiday Saturday...anyone care to sum it all up in a paragraph?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
I have been very interested in the various problems with the redshift method lately so thanks for the thread!

However I don't believe that totally or partially disproving redshift as a function of distance necessarily disproves the Big Bang, it just proves that our method of measuring distance is flawed.



Some would argue that is the case.

I have to wonder why we would continue on with the theory though if the primary observational evidence in favor the BBT is completely discredited.

What we are left with as supposed evidence of the BBT is light element abundance and the CMB on which to base claims of expanding space.

Both of which I feel have superior explainations in plasma models.

To quote Lerner:


The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.


and


The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.


What we are left with is two competing theories, and I think its clear that Occam's razor favors the plasma model.





[edit on 4-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


ah love this one stared!!

i made the same point kinda as you have..

my question was more about logic tho..

the question i asked was what way is UP... you should have seen the posts some were so funny i was crying


great post my friend



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Good post! and I am inclined to agree with you.

I just though I would make that point as there has been a lot of posts going off topic, sometimes in a fairly rude manner too.

I personally don't have a problem with the Big Bang as a concept but I am far from devoted to the theory.

But what I think you demonstrate quite well is that there are so many problems with our model of cosmology that it's time to start taking alternatives seriously instead of just keep piling theoretical constructs on top of it and ignoring data when it doesn't fit.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by denursty
I have heard about this red shift discrepancy recently but have not heard any ideas as to an alternative theory. Is the universe expanding or not? Even if we cannot rely on red shift data to gauge distance, then what is it's significance?

Before Hubble's law theories for the nature of the Universe were basically that it was either contracting, static or expanding. Edwin Hubble, with the help of Milton Humason, determined that the doppler effect of light can be used to measure velocity similar to how a radar gun is used.

Mapping out the distance of star clusters within galaxies has been done by using their magnitude and the inverse square law but this has its limits, inaccuracy increasing with distance. Then using the redshift of this light to determine its velocity a model for an expanding Universe can be made but there are several problems with this theory that upset the whole big bang theory. The question for the nature of the Universe remains unanswered.


Originally posted by MrVertigo
However I don't believe that totally or partially disproving redshift as a function of distance necessarily disproves the Big Bang, it just proves that our method of measuring distance is flawed.

Using Hubble's constant to theorize an expanding Universe and reversing this expansion to a theoretical single point in time and space is the foundation for the big bang model. If Hubble's constant is found to be inconsistent than the big bang becomes speculation at best.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hubble did express caution using the redshift of light as a constant without further observations but it was immediately accepted as proof the Universe was expanding.

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."
Wiki


Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Let them continue to believe , apparently like the OP, in the Aristotelian belief that the celestial masses move because there are invisible angels up there pushing them along.

I thought this was the model for the big bang, God and the angles did it.
I wounder if you could explain the definition of "Quintessence"? Is it angles moving stuff around or is it dark energy? And what is "M" theory, an angelic aetherial membrane?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You're mistaking pure snark for condescension. ( BTW, "you're" is the proper contraction for you are, and not your (as in the 3rd line of your post. Also it's let's for let us.) I was afraid this thread was going to turn into a debate. Debates have no place in scientific exploration. There either was, or was not, a Big Bang.It is irrelevant to the fact whether x number of people believe it.In 1540 C.E., everyone believed that all of the cosmos revolved around the earth. That didn't make it so. Some people try to perpetuate common but mistaken beliefs, either out of self-aggrandizement, greed, or for other reasons, but sometimes merely out of a need to convince themselves that, "These people who actually spent years or decades studying a subject aren't so smart. I know something they don't know." everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
And of course, there are unexplained facets of BBT. That is the reason for continuing research and study. For as Niel DeGrasse Tyson puts it, "The only civil right that I absolutely demand is the right to be smarter tomorrow than I am today.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Quintessence is an album released by Quincy Jones and his orchestra. It was released in 1961, his only album on the Impulse! Records jazz label.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Debates have no place in scientific exploration.



Unforutnately we aren't talking about science, we are talking about fantasy theories conjured up by physicists that involve belief in invisible matter, warping space, and fiat lux.

Facts are facts, but theory is theory, and as such its entirely debatable.

I believe the facts paint an entirely different picture compared to what the elite minds of theoretical physicists are telling us.

I have got hundreds of papers written by electrical engineers and plasma physicists that propose alternative explainations to observed cosmic phenomena that do not require belief in things like strange matter or warping space.

Theoretical physicists have devolved into claiming that the physics of the universe is actually different in different areas of space. To me this is not science any longer.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Yandros
 

I disagree with some of your thoughts on infinity.
If infinite means to have no beginning nor ending than there are no points to measure from with which to compare. All points are finite and, as you have mentioned, measurements are comparisons of these points so to say "infinite time" or "infinite amount" would be an oxymoron.

Time is motion and motion is energy. Energy is conserved in matter giving it motion. The concept of separating these things is impossible, theoretically.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The holders of the Tesla free energy UFO need to deflect you
from the Tesla discovery of the electrified ether.

The The Big Bang Never Happened in a nut shell is by Eric Lerner

Sorry but Eric does not know about the ether being an insulative
fluid with electrical carriers ( Tesla carried currents perhaps without
electron, named by Kelvin, per say through the air-ether) or he
would know why the big bang is funded.

And not by any church, just Illuminati hiding behind religion to protect
their free energy inventions of electrical engineer Tesla.

Why should religion fund the Big Bang Theory cause I'm sure in
in their great wisdom will deem man's ideas inferior to what
God wants man to see.

ED: To get more religious, we live in a world of God own creation
that has no beginning or end to if that is what the EU perceives
perhaps we should swing in their direction.


[edit on 7/4/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by Devino
 


Quintessence is an album released by Quincy Jones and his orchestra. It was released in 1961, his only album on the Impulse! Records jazz label.


Dig deeper, the meaning of this word goes back beyond recorded history. The relevant definition I was thinking of pertains to dark energy.

In physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe.
Quicky Wiki-


The new buzz word in cosmology these days is 'quintessence', borrowed from the ancient Greeks who used the term to describe a mysterious 'fifth element'
Astronomy Today.

My overall point is that science is coming full circle with their theories.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

And not by any church, just Illuminati hiding behind religion to protect
their free energy inventions of electrical engineer Tesla.



I said this to a different poster in another post, but it applies here as well.

A few years ago I would have called you a raving lunatic, but today I'm inclined to agree with you.

I think what such comments strike at is the methodology by which our future physicists are taught.

Doctoral grad school for physicists is like a brainwashing boot camp. You are not given a choice to question the foundational theories, they are taught as gospel.

The problems with existing theory are not dealt with until AFTER you graduate and have been hammered for half a decade with indoctrinated belief systems. At which point, of course, you will attempt to solve the problems given to you with the same foundational theories you have been taught.

It is a perpetuating cycle of self-delusion and a subject for an entirely different post that I will address after I've throughly beaten this one into the ground.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
1)why is the infinite universe not overflowing with light? several reasons

as mentioned earlier - light dissipates as it travels , or dimming

also, asteroids, planets, rocks, dust, gas , etc will block light

therefore it would be impossible to have a superluminous sky even in an infinite universe

2) no matter where you are in an infinite system, you are always in the middle - there is infinite going either direction

so technically, if the universe is infinite , we are at the center of it

any point in a infinite system is the "middle" or "center"



btw - great thread OP and excellent discussions

and btw, i dug up my 5year old thread called "Why the Big Bang couldn't have ever happened"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i made some great arguements back then, in fact i think i was smarter back then than i am now (im getting way too old)


I really love this post.. people read what he is saying here

we are some what the reason for everything... what ever made this universe has always had you in its equation!

so by big bang you mean BOOM from what? well for get the boom lets focus on the booms components...

and what are they?

well we have us... for starts..

then we have what? a big huge space thing!! well yeah it is a thing just like we are..

how or why we wont know, this goes into philosophy and metaphysics

so the big bang as we call it did hapen but we are apart of it and the result of it right?

I mean everything would have had to be here in the first place to create you?

thats why we have yin and yang i guess we are needed and not needed.. as in our body i guess... i mean if your smart enough to keep ur brain on a chip or something close to still being you "dunno how that works but whatever" you would be here for a long time right?? or what ever reason..

so why do we have infinity if you "life" is finite?

simple
its only infinite at that point in time relative to you!

ie the only reason you see infinity is YOU



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
i should have made it more simple to understand what i mean


If you look in the mirror what do you see?

Do you see you or do you see infinity ?

because when you was not alive you did not know what infinity was.. and when you die you wont know what infinity is will you?

so.. infinity reflects how you work

symmetry!

and how do you work? you ask questions correct? to further your own brain spunge?

what do you think you live inside?

we reside in a physical representation of a question and we are not the ones asking.

if you take a question as a function in of its self its chaos the outcome of witch is ? you got it! logic


so what is our universe? its a question
thats why we have so many lol

the big bang was like

what do i want for dinner

sounds simple? it bloody is





top topics
 
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join