The Big Bang Never Happened

reply to post by mnemeth1


No one likes to be told different so the recipe of Tesla's works
have been obscured for good reason.
A physics teacher thought I would go on in Physics but I went
on in electrical engineering.
A lab class demonstrated the force between two currents.
DC currents.
I said what about force from AC currents and I corrected
myself before the teacher.
Well Tesla found AC that he made had a one way flow and
eventually generated forces he could control as he said his
craft would be suspended by a beam on top and from a beam
in front and back go forward and backward (1912).

Evidently the Illuminati are great listeners and had the power
to see if what Tesla said would actually work. So for the
Tesla UFO story that is. Some how the Letterman science kids
that showed like charges gave opposing force to a tin pie plate,
a charged flow from a craft can apparently go on its own.

ED:
Google: Tesla's (real) Flying Machine
Third one down, the pdf has dates and publications for Tesla
references. However will still be far from understanding the
working yet I just printed out page 4 and 5.


[edit on 7/4/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by trace_the_truth


i disagree, because in order for it to be white, there'd have to be many, many particles to reflect the light - think of our atmosphere... also, if you've ever owned a laser pen, then you'll notice that from viewing behind the laser, it looks like one solid line, but if someone's down the street and off to the side of viewing your laser beam, then they're gonna have trouble seeing the beam because the dust particles are spread out from their perspective...

even if space isn't a vacuum, there aren't many particles tat reflect light in it, so that light is going to look dimmer... think of a flashlight at night - on a clear night if someone's half a mile away holding a flashlight it's going to look like a little speck. however, if it's foggy or dusty out, then you're actually going to be able to see their beam, and not just the source of the light...

anyway, i think all this totally makes sense, because i've learned that there might not be a Big Bang at all for quite some time now...

Originally posted by adrenochrome
the whole "theory" of reality as a fractal was something i was thinking of on my own the other day... you know, it totally makes sense, to think that there was never a "Big Bang", but instead that reality and the multiverse have ALWAYS existed, because if a Divine Creator exists (and it does), what was he doing before the "Big Bang" in nothingness?

when you learn that time really does NOT exist, and that man only uses it as a reference to help him along the way, then you'll understand that there's only Now, and Now's in a constant state of change, and it is infinite, and always has been, and has existed because it's a gigantic fractal! even before middle-school, i've wondered if there was another universe inside each and every nucleus of an atom... and we're just inside our own universe that's in another nucleus - the fractal theory totally makes perfect sense!!

it's too bad man has to constantly borrow from the past, and borrow from the future, to feel anything in the Now - appreciate Now for what it truly is, and you'll eternally be happy, because all reality is, is just an infinite eternity, and it always has been!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the big bang is a myth, no one believes it, atleast i dont.

Originally posted by adrenochrome
reply to post by trace_the_truth

 

i disagree, because in order for it to be white, there'd have to be many, many particles to reflect the light - think of our atmosphere... also, if you've ever owned a laser pen, then you'll notice that from viewing behind the laser, it looks like one solid line, but if someone's down the street and off to the side of viewing your laser beam, then they're gonna have trouble seeing the beam because the dust particles are spread out from their perspective...

Sorry, but it appears that you don't understand the nature of light correctly. Of course you can't see a laser beam from the side. Stars are spherical and their photons are always aimed directly at you. They give off photons omni-directionally, like a spherical light bulb.

If you look up at the sky at night, what do you see?

A massive amount of blackness a a multitude of (mostly) white points and all of these photons are traveling through a vacuum, reflecting off of nothing. The individual photons that are reflected off of something are not seen by you.

There are many problems with the idea of a static and infinite universe. One being that with infinite time, matter, and stars, every where you looked at the night sky would end on a point of white meaning that everywhere you looked would end up on a star.

Another problem is that the universe would become infinitely hot and would not be capable of containing life because the entire universe would have gradually reached the same temperature as the stars.

Here is a reference for what I am talking about. It's a classic question in astronomy.

www.arachnoid.com...

I believe our perception of time is entirely different to reality, that the universe could always have been here and will always be here for ever (Something i have trouble to understand), then if it is true, it would point strongly in favour of having an immortal soul meaning we in our own way will live for ever.

reply to post by fapython


are you stoned?

lol neway!..

look something happened to get this all started.. we know that as a fact coz we are here talking about it..

so once we get that little mute point out the way we deal with 1 god and 2 science

God meant to be the "thing" that created "the big bang" if you listen to science..

so what is god? well its just what ever made us really? lol ..

so now i think well what are we going to do about this little problem?

i feel it is needed to get our act in order and accept the fact something made us..

we cant all be wrong?

we have a lack of understanding in some ways...

if god made you then he made science ? you get the logic? so he must have made aliens

then we get to the anunaki story "we was made by aliens" yeah thats all fine and dandy for me.. who made the aliens?

lol get my point? the aliens must be as un aware as we are.. some accepted it and tried to stay here..and some was so dumb they killed off there own planet

ring any bells?

and yes it was not a bang.. no sound in a vacuum

The preponderance of the evidence still supports an expanding Universe. The notion that red shift hs a non-Doppler cause is tenuous at best, requiring considerably more evidence than has been offered.

Among other things, Einstein's original equations required an expanding Universe. At the time he produced his equations, the Universe was believed to be static. In order for the Universe to be static, Einstein had to diddle with his equations, adding what he called the "Cosmological Constant", which made the Universe hold still. There was never any justification for this Cosmological Constant. When the evidence showed an expanding Universe, Einstein abandoned this Cosmological Constant, and called it the worst mistake in his professional life.

As for science refusing to see, blah, blah, blah. Science is, by its nature, conservative. It must be. It has a certain set of theories, data, hypotheses, beliefs. When new information is acquired, it needs to be viewed in light of the existing theories. You don't just toss a theory because something doesn't seem to fit. First you double-check your facts, to make sure they're correct. Then, if they're still there, you see what you can do to work them into the existing fabric. Eventually, if they refuse to fit, you need to abandon the old theory and devise a new one. However, the first response is always to retain what you have and build on it.

This is neither obstinacy nor harmful. It is how you avoid what you see in New Age people and various amateurs, who go chasing madly after one notion, then another, never getting anywhere because there's always some new thing that comes along.

Yes, there will be times when you must overthrow the old beliefs, have a scientific revolution - a paradigm shift, it's called. But for every paradigm shift, there are many thousands of other notions that either turned out to be based on error, or were incorporated into the established order.

You can't have a paradigm shift every time someone thinks up a new idea. That leads to chaos. so science is conservative, and that's perfectly OK.

Anyway, don't worry. Eventually all the old scientists die out, and the new guys take over. "Science advances one funeral at a time", as someone said.

Nobody is claiming the big bang model is perfect, but it's got a lot of support like the redshift of galaxy data presented in the OP, and perhaps most compelling are the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe findings. We have to admit that the observations which led to the pronouncement of "Dark Energy" refute the accusation that if science finds anomalous results which don't agree with the accepted theory, it will sweep that evidence under the rug or ignore it. That hasn't happened, the data so far has continued to be accepted, and yet as far as I know, there is no known explanation or theory to model how "dark energy" works. Cosmologists don't have all the answers (why would anyone go into the field if they did?) So for you conspiracy theorists who think that science just ignores data it can't explain, it should have ignored the dark energy data, right? (because we can't explain it).

The quasar data presented in the OP does pose a bit of a paradox in that it doesn't follow the same luminosity vs redshift pattern as galaxies, and I don't know the reason, but I can think of a couple of possibilities like gravitational lensing and/or a function of the age of the quasar versus prevalence and luminosity. It's certainly a valid question raised in the OP and if anyone has an explanation I'd like to see it.

Regarding the quantization of redshift studies referenced in the OP, I am not an expert on that subject matter but I did read up a little bit on that and in some of the sources I found some red flags like they arrived at the results "using simulated data" whatever that means.

If you look at astronomy over the last 500 years, we've had 500 years of essentially being "wrong". When the preponderance of new observations requires us to abandon the old model and accept a new one as has happened numerous times in astronomy/cosmology, then we do so. But look for example at the change in our model of the universe when we replaced Newton's model with Einstein's model. Newton's model worked quite well at explaining most of the data, but it wasn't perfect. Einstein showed if you travel really fast, Newton's model falls apart. We weren't traveling really fast at that time so that's why it worked. But GPS wouldn't work based on Newton's physics, it takes Einstein's modifications to make it work.

My own belief is that we will see cosmology adopt a new model of the universe, in a fashion parallel to the way we accepted Einstein's model in favor of Newton's model. That is, not everything in the old theory gets thrown out, but refinements and modifications will be made to better fit the existing observable data. And then that theory will only hold up until we make new observations and tweak it again. This process isn't new, it's been going on for over 500 years and will continue to go on, though not at the pace some would like to see, but as the previous poster said, science has some good reasons for being somewhat conservative about abandoning old theories and accepting new ones. But when the evidence is compelling enough, it happens.

In summary, I find a lot of interesting anomalies in the data, many of them worthy of additional research and the development of new theories. But I look at all the evidence for big bang theory (with it's noted incompleteness and yet to be answered questions), and I look at alternative explanations of the universe. So far, I have not seen an alternative explanation which is supported by existing evidence better than the big bang.

I have seen scary things like one professor of electrical engineering who obviously doesn't understand electrical engineering come up with some crazy theories that don't make any sense, but fortunately the other 99.99% of electrical engineering professors and physicists do know how electrical engineering works. I guess my advice to anyone who is not technical enough to read the papers would be to watch out for the one guy who disagrees with everyone else. Every once in a while that one guy is right, the other 99.99% are wrong, like when one guy thought the earth revolved around the sun, instead of vice versa, so I would not dismiss them completely, however I would be aware that probably most of the time, going against the 99.99% of the smartest experts in the relevant subject matter isn't going to be siding with the team that turns out to be right.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

WMAP data was recently found to be full of errors due to the way the information taken from the sensors was processed.

This means all findings that support dark matter and energy based on WMAP data are wrong.


arxiv.org...
Observation number correlation in WMAP data
Ti-Pei Li, et al. accepted for publication in MNRAS arXiv:0905.0075v1 [astro-ph.CO]

This was released the 1st of May 2009.

The ACG wrote a newsletter article on the findings you can read here:
www.cosmology.info...

The WMAP data also shows apparent large scale voids in the background radiation too large to be attributed to the big bang and it also shows a preferred direction to the universe, which is also impossible if there was a big bang and the CMB is what scientists say it is.

I could write an entire book on the number of problems the WMAP data presents for big bang cosmologists.

Again, I quote Lerner for those who missed it the first time. These are just a handful of the dozens of problems with BBT theory that observationally falsify it.

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
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.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
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.

There are so many problems with theory of the big bang that I feel the theory has devolved in to utter non-scientific pseudo-science. Invisible matter, multiple dimensions, dark rivers of unexplainable energy, etc.. etc.. etc..



[edit on 5-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by chiron613
The preponderance of the evidence still supports an expanding Universe. The notion that red shift hs a non-Doppler cause is tenuous at best, requiring considerably more evidence than has been offered.

Actually, it only takes one picture of a high red shift and low red shift object connecting to each other to prove non-doppler red shifts are real.

Today we have numerous examples.

I'm not sure how much more evidence it would require to make you personally feel comfortable, but if we are to follow the rules of science, if something is observationally falsified, it must be rejected.

NGC 7603 being the primary example of the impossible.

Dozens of papers showing quantized red shift, dozens of papers showing high and low red shift objects interacting with each other, dozens of papers showing quasar magnitude does not correlate with their red shift, dozens of papers showing trillion to one odds of quasar clustering around host galaxies.

These are indisputable facts.

Facts that are ignored.

Deny ignorance.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by chiron613
The preponderance of the evidence still supports an expanding Universe. The notion that red shift hs a non-Doppler cause is tenuous at best, requiring considerably more evidence than has been offered.

Among other things, Einstein's original equations required an expanding Universe.

The expanding universe theory seems to conflict with the basic Laws of Thermodynamics (LOT)"...energy can neither be created nor destroyed"

The only way for this universe to expand is by the equal contraction of another universe.

The expansion of the universe is limited by the equal contraction of another universe to fit the LOT

This contraction / expansion model is empowered through,the ether or dark energy theories or Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance"

The red shift could be part of the overall dark energy models(doppler or not)

The infinity of this universe is not found within its expansion, which is limited by the counter contraction of a parallel universe, but by the universe's ability to divide itself

The universe is infinitely divisible into smaller parts of observation(scale), without effecting the total balance of the whole.

Our ability to observe a given scale of the universe becomes our shared perception of the universe or a synchronicity

The infinite division model allows for the expanding /contracting universe to fit the LOT without upsetting Einsteins apple cart

I would recommend researching the work of Nassim Haramein for more details on the scalable universe model

Resonance Project

edit spelling of link(dooh)

[edit on 5-7-2009 by NWRHINO]

reply to post by NWRHINO


I see a little problem with that theory.

It requires faith in other "universes" not able to be directly tested, observed, or falsified.

Also, as to the quoted comment, Einstein's equations do not demand an expanding universe. Einstein himself originally objected to the idea and was only persuaded otherwise based on Hubble's findings - which I have just proven are no longer valid.

In order for big bang theory to work it requires a hypothetical inflation field which was never put forth by Einstein and has no bearing on his theories.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Actually, it only takes one picture of a high red shift and low red shift object connecting to each other to prove non-doppler red shifts are real.

If two objects are gravitationally connected to each other and rotating about each other, isn't this exactly the effect we would expect to see in the big bang model? One object will tend to be moving away from us at a redshift/velocity higher than would be otherwise expected, the other object would tend to be moving away from us at a redshift/velocity lower than would be expected. Therefore the redshift of the two gravitationally connected objects can be different under the big bang model if they are rotating in this fashion. I don't see why you think this is an issue. There are some big holes in the big bang theory, but this isn't one of them.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
WMAP data was recently found to be full of errors due to the way the information taken from the sensors was processed.

This means all findings that support dark matter and energy based on WMAP data are wrong.

Interesting, they say further study is needed, I can agree with that conclusion.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
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.

I agree on this point, the hypothetical entities dark matter and dark energy aren't adequately explained and we need a new theory to explain everything, these are holes in the current model big enough to drive a truck through. Whoever comes up with a theory that explains all the current observations better than the current model will get a place in the history books alongside Newton and Einstein.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Actually, it only takes one picture of a high red shift and low red shift object connecting to each other to prove non-doppler red shifts are real.

If two objects are gravitationally connected to each other and rotating about each other, isn't this exactly the effect we would expect to see in the big bang model? One object will tend to be moving away from us at a redshift/velocity higher than would be otherwise expected, the other object would tend to be moving away from us at a redshift/velocity lower than would be expected. Therefore the redshift of the two gravitationally connected objects can be different under the big bang model if they are rotating in this fashion. I don't see why you think this is an issue. There are some big holes in the big bang theory, but this isn't one of them.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

We see instances of objects supposedly on the other side of the universe from each other interacting with each other.

This is impossible if red shift is a function of distance.

Uhhh... Redshift is NOT a measurement of distance, and It never has been.

Redshift is a measurement of VELOCITY.

Third line

-Edrick

I know I like to drone on about how Einstein was wrong, but I don't think the average reader understands what I mean when I say that.

When I say "Einstein was wrong" I mean very specifically, the hypothetical ideas that have sprung from his work are wrong.

Einstein himself was very open about the possibility his ideas were wrong and never really went out on a limb with his ideas.

For example:

1. Einstein did not propose the big bang, at first he rejected the notion. Only after Hubble presented observational evidence of expansion did he agree it was possible (ie. not a foregone conclusion).

2. Einstein never believed in black holes and wrote scholarly papers saying as much.

3. Einstein had no role what-so-ever in the creation of, or the support of, the following theoretical objects:
Dark matter, dark energy, the Higg's particle, black holes, neutron stars, strange matter, multiple dimensions, multiple universes, MOND, or any other theory that postulates physics changed or is different in different areas of space. Given that he argued against black holes, I have to assume he would be arguing against all of those objects as well.

4. Einstein stated that General Relativity says space is imbued with inherent properties, he considered these properties of space to be an aether.

5. Einstein was never satisfied with his theories and concluded his own theories were QUESTIONABLE because SR and GR were never unified. This haunted him until his death. The fact that SR and GR still have not been unified to this day demands we keep an open mind about scrapping his theories of space and matter.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Edrick
Uhhh... Redshift is NOT a measurement of distance, and It never has been.

Redshift is a measurement of VELOCITY.

Third line

-Edrick

This is pedantic argument.

Yes it is a measurement of velocity, however when put into the context of inflationary cosmology it becomes a tool of distance measurement.

I thought I was clear on that in my first post where I explicitly referred to red shift as a measurement of Doppler effects.

I take it your just trolling.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
We see things such as high red shift objects visibly connected to low red shift objects (impossible if red shift is an indicator of distance). We see quantized red shift, which means the quasars and galaxies around us formed in concentric shells with the earth being the center of the universe (obviously impossible). We also see a lot of evidence refuting things such as gravitational lenses or other supposed phenomena associated with warping space and expanding space. Also, we see quasars grouped around host galaxies in highly improbable configurations. Quasar luminosity and power DOES match the host galaxies they reside around if one ignores red shift as an indicator of distance, further disproving red shift as an indicator of distance.

ALL MODERN COSMOLOGY IS PREDICATED ON THE THEORY OF EXPANDING SPACE AND DOPPLER RED SHIFTS.

If red shift is not an indicator of distance, which I believe has been conclusively demonstrated that it is not by observational evidence, then we can reject the big bang as science and move on to looking at the universe as being steady in state. That is to say, the universe is infinite in size, it is ageless, it is timeless, and no big bang ever occurred. We are simply not privileged to know what caused the universe to exist or when it came into existence, it simply does. We must assume it is infinite in age as it is infinite in size.

Evidence to follow:

Exactly.....Everything that can and will be , already is and was.....

That is the simplest way to describe it .......


We are just much to young as a species to know any better though.....

We think to much in definites ...if that is a word....liek for ex: every time we come to a conclusion that something IS we always think that is all it is, when it is always much more or multiple things.....

We know very very very little about the universe and existence itself , I find it humorous that people have such big ego's that they think they know everything...

Those , to me, are the worlds dumbest people and the ones setting us back from finding out the real truth......

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Edrick
Uhhh... Redshift is NOT a measurement of distance, and It never has been.

Redshift is a measurement of VELOCITY.

Third line

-Edrick

This is pedantic argument.

Yes it is a measurement of velocity, however when put into the context of inflationary cosmology it becomes a tool of distance measurement.

I thought I was clear on that in my first post where I explicitly referred to red shift as a measurement of Doppler effects.

I take it your just trolling.

No, I am NOT trolling, I take a great interest in scientific theories.

I found your definition of Redshift as a "Function of Distance" to be slightly deceptive.

Because Redshift is ONLY a product of Velocity.

The theory that Quazars somehow violate observed cosmological expansion due to their Red shift not being what their "Distance" would indicate is Deceptive.

The quazars spectral lines are shifted according to their Velocity in relation to EARTH, and NOT their distance.

You could state this as:

"quasars are NOT moving at the same rate that the cosmological expansion theory would indicate that an object at that distance from the earth would be traveling."

THIS would at least be accurate.

Your conclusion I find to be... somewhat premature.

-Edrick