The Big Bang Never Happened

page: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hey... Great post! I wrote up something last year "Disproving the Big Bang Theory" haha.. even made some images to go with it. I get into God and what not.. but I think you will appreciate the concept. Read the whole thread then look at this image:


I have a lot clearer concept in my head since then... but if you check that out you'll get what I'm trying to get across.

The reason I am posting this is because I well.. you are trying to disprove the big band and well... the image you posted of NGC 7603 is directly related to what I am trying to get across.

One thing though... Basically... our universe could be expanding right now... but at one point it will start to shrink back down when it starts losing mass to another universe. Also... it could be infinite in time.. but in my theory it has borders.

Let me know what ya think!

[edit on 5-7-2009 by danman23]




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Oh, I think it happened, in infinate numbers. The cyclical nature of this is called "brane theory", where various universes come into rather nasty contact, causing a new creation. Each brane is the mebrane of another universe. When they collide be sure your wearing your helmet.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

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


If it makes you feel better, I'll say "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."

Nit picking over how I frame red shift has no bearing on the main thrust of my argument, which is:

1. quasars and galaxy clusters show quantized red shift - impossible if red shift is a function of "expanding space" from a big bang.

2. quasars magnitude does not correlate to their observed red shift

3. we see high and low red shift objects interacting with each other.

4. we see highly improbable configurations of quasar clusters around host galaxies.


All of which observationally refute red shift being caused by "expanding space"


As a side note, to quote Hubble himself:


The data in the table indicate a linear correlation between distances and velocities, whether the latter are used directly or corrected for solar motion, according to the older solutions. This suggests a new solution for the solar motion in which the distances are introduced as coefficients of the K term, i. e., the velocities are assumed to vary directly with the distances, and hense K represents the velocity at unit distance due to this effect.


In effect saying distance and velocity are interchangable terms, which of course, astronomers interchange all the time. Given the Hubble law, if one knows velocity, one also supposedly knows distance.

For those who are a little lost in this discussion, here's a calculator showing how redshift, velocity and distance are all related to each other.

This relationship is what I am refuting with my arguments.




[edit on 5-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
well even a layman can tell you velocity and distance have absolutely no correlation at all, aside of coincidental

example : I am moving at 70m/s down the highway Northbound...

How the hell are you going to determine my distance from your location by knowing my velocity?


You will need to know which highway im on, and what section (location)



[edit on 5-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
well even a layman can tell you velocity and distance have absolutely no correlation at all, aside of coincidental

example : I am moving at 70m/s down the highway Northbound...

How the hell are you going to determine my distance from your location by knowing my velocity?


You will need to know which highway im on, and what section (location)

[edit on 5-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



You're missing the point entirely so you're not even wrong..

Think of something more like a baseball being thrown. You can certainly know both the position and the velocity.

With microscopic particles, measuring the position disturbs the particle's momentum; measuring the momentum disturbs its position. It would kind of be like trying to measure the velocity of a baseball by throwing another baseball at it.

Maybe it would be more clear to think of an electron microscope and think of the electrons as baseballs. When imaging something, you're bombarding it with billions upon billions of baseballs in order to get a return image.

Now imagine trying to determine the velocity AND position of a proton by bombarding it with a bunch of electrons while your target is moving about from being hit.

Further, consider that the electron is described as a wave as its position is where the wave is concentrated, and the wavelength of the electron is its momentum. This makes position uncertain as the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain that the length of the wave is not clearly defined.

It's also not that you can only know the position OR the momentum, but that as you increase the accuracy on any property, the other decreases.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Interesting you say this, because i never brought into the whole 'Big Bang' theory. To me theres too much that is unexplainable, scientists just cant face the fact that the damn universe has been here and will be here forever. The human mind just cant comprehend the thought of forever and tries to explain it away with theories and such. But no matter the theory there is always something that must of been there 'before' whatever has happened, and then before that and before that etc etc which must go on forever! You cant escape forever!
I have learned to accept that things can be there, maybe not in the same state but realistically this universe has always been and will always be.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by trace_the_truth

Originally posted by muzzleflash
well even a layman can tell you velocity and distance have absolutely no correlation at all, aside of coincidental
You're missing the point entirely so you're not even wrong..

Hmmm I wouldn't say either of you are wrong, but you seem to be talking about different subjects than the topic of this thread. Refer to the OP:


Originally posted by mnemeth1
A plot of galaxies red shift compared to their luminosity:



I thought all we were saying is that the graph in the OP shows a more or less linear relationship, which can be expressed in the form of a linear equation y=mx+b. Not all points fall on the line obviously, so it's not an exact relationship and/or there is observational error.

Luminosity is claimed to infer distance, does that make sense? (Galaxies further away are dimmer)
Redshift is said to infer velocity, does that make sense? (same effect as a train passing you blowing the horn where the pitch changes from high to low, except based on light instead of sound)

So can you now look at that graph and see the claimed correlation between distance and velocity?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


It knocks down yet another supposed proof of the Big Bang Theory. Or, of course, the expectations will be shifted rather like when they found out about the uniform background temperature when they expected uneven *and thus hyperinflation was born*. They have married themselves to a mythic beginning point that cannot be proven as if they were there and knew it to have happend and dishonestly twist their findings to keep that mythical beginning. Big Bang is not science, it's pure clung to modern myth.

reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Good points.

reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Everyone has an agenda with everything they do sir. It is only really a question of what does that agenda serve. To pretend otherwise is naive at best.

reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Um no, he got it right. Condescention, now perhaps that is not what you were aiming for I will give you the benefit of the doubt for that. But that is most assuredly what you achieved, your inference was that us low ignorant "heathens" are to be valued instead of scorned as the one you address does. That, sir, is condenscention at it's very core.
P.s.: I know I most likely misspelled that word but as long as you catch my drift packaging means jack to me. And nor do I really care much for pretension.

reply to post by chiron613
 


Only when you choose to look at the "evidence" in a certain light and accept the twists and blatent re-edits used to keep a beginning point you can't really prove that gets disproven repeatedly through observation.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Quite true.

One problem I have with a universe compressed to a point, erm, singularity, is the existence of charge. I understand charge exists as a measured difference of potential with the background, without which it wouldn't be, and therefore all the laws of electrodynamics would not exist.

That is one problem.. I have with the chicken and egg notion. I accept reciprocating as highly questionable also as a result. And the finite/infinite question is similar to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Don't you think it is presumptious to claim to know what lies beyond the event horizon? We havn't even found one yet. We only have math models of such to explain all the activity we are picking up from the stars. Not that I am stating you would, it is meant in a general manner.

Raspberries are good, they are in season now. Have you had a chance to pick any? I think that is what we are supposed to do until someone has an epiphany.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


Nope I unfortunately live in the city.
But I think we are just supposed to live our lives and let ephaninies come as they will or not at all.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

Don't you think it is presumptious to claim to know what lies beyond the event horizon?
Yes. As I said in an earlier post, we can presume all we want, but I don't see how any presumptions about the interior of the event horizon can be proven. I think it's safe to say if you have a theory about what's inside the event horizon, nobody will be able to prove you wrong for a long time (or right for that matter).


Originally posted by Matyas
We havn't even found one yet.

Are you sure about that? Black holes do have a unique testable property, that they don't have an observable "surface", so energetic matter or energy striking the surface of non-black hole objects has a chance to re-radiate. Energetic matter or energy striking the event horizon of a black hole doesn't, and this difference provides us with an observable signature for black holes. These studies are more than math models:
Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons
Advection-dominated accretion and the black hole event horizon
Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes

These results provide indirect evidence that black holes do have event horizons.



Originally posted by Matyas
Raspberries are good, they are in season now. Have you had a chance to pick any? I think that is what we are supposed to do until someone has an epiphany.

Taking your raspberry analogy early in the thread a little further, I think what the OP has shown is that there are holes in the raspberry. And in that analogy, we are ignorant of what caused those holes (such as possibly a worm or insect?).

Until we find what is responsible for what caused the holes, we will have some people thinking that since it has holes in it, it might not even be a raspberry, certainly a popular view in this thread. But the scientific community seems to be thinking it is a raspberry and is trying to figure out what caused the holes. Maybe not the greatest analogy of over-simplifying an extremely complex topic but that's sort of how I see it. In any case, if the worm is discovered and can be proven to cause the holes it will go a long way toward resolving this question.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Black holes don't exist.

When I get around to it, I'll create a separate post with voluminous amounts of data showing the whole thing is a bunch of hog wash.

Key falsifying evidence being we have not directly detected gravitational waves. No predictions have been met when it comes to falsifiable testing.

Keep in mind Einstein never believed in them.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Black holes don't exist.(snip)
Keep in mind Einstein never believed in them.

I agree, it's funny that Einstein didn't believe in them, even though they were predicted by his own theories, or so other scientists claim. But so far Einstein's theories have been shown to be right in so many detailed observations. What would Einstein think of the title of this article?:

Proof that Albert Einstein's black holes do exist

Any thoughts on alternative explanations for the observational data in that article or the 3 papers? Or if you prefer to save the discussion for your black hole thread that's fine too.

I did see a gravity wave experiment where Joseph Weber made a 3100 pound cylinder and tried to measure gravity waves with it.



The problem is, gravity waves are so weak, they would only change the size of the cylinder by the size of a proton. If you enlarge an atom to the size of a football stadium a proton might be something like a marble sitting on the 50 yard line, it's nearly impossible to measure like this, I would say impossible. I'm not sure we will be able to measure them on earth, perhaps in space, using LISA which you can read about at the bottom of this page:

Testing Einstein



LISA- Laser Interferometeric Space Antenna (Image courtesy of NASA)

I think it's due to launch around 2011, that's our best shot, and even with that, it won't be so easy to measure gravity waves. If you drop a grain of sand, not only does the sand fall toward the earth, but the earth falls toward the sand too. But trying to measure the earth's movement toward the grain of sand as it falls poses tremendous challenges, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think most people would agree that it does, it's just an effect which is immeasurably small. Gravity waves are sort of like that, so when I hear we haven't measured them yet, I try to keep that in mind.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Einstein's theories never predicted them.

Hilbert came up with them to explain an unexplainable observation and he used flawed physics to do it.

Hence, why Einstein never agreed with them.

Here is a blatantly falsifying finding that remains unexplained about the galactic center:

Theory holds that these stars could not have formed in their present location, because the gravity of the nearby supermassive black hole wouldn't have allowed a gas cloud to contract into a star, says study leader Jean-Pierre Maillard of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris.

On the other hand, Maillard told SPACE.com, the stars could not have formed too far from their present location. Why? Because there wasn't time. Massive stars die young. The seven examined in the study can't be more than 10 million years old, or they would have exploded already. So the seven stars, along with the middleweight black hole, all had to migrate inward within the past 10 million years -- an eyeblink in the 13 billion years of the galaxy's lifetime.

All this means the cluster probably formed about 60 light-years out beyond its current orbit, the calculations show.


They have no explanation for this finding and you'll not hear them talk about it again. It refutes our theories of stellar age and black holes. Both of which are wrong.

I actually watched a NASA conference presentation on this finding. The physicist trying to explain it was at a loss and seemed to think other invisible black holes kicked these stars to their present location. Total hogwash with no proof behind any of it.


As for the LISA, biggest waste of money on the planet next to the LHC.

If the LIGO didn't find any, LISA will not find any.

In fact, the data from LISA will be completely worthless due to errors caused by static energy pulling and pushing the satellites, just like Gravity Probe B.

Scientists make a myriad of excuses for why LIGO didn't find any, but the bottom line is they never would have built it if they didn't expect it to find any. Their theories said LIGO should be able to detect them, it didn't.

Now they want to waste umpteen millions on LISA which also will not find any. I know with absolute certainty that current cosmological theory is dead wrong so I can make this prediction with total confidence.

Gravitational waves do not exist and neither do black holes.




In fact, if I really want to go out on a limb, I'll say the top people in charge of the LISA project know it will be a complete failure so they might just blow the thing up on launch and claim it was a systems failure.

How's that for a conspiracy prediction.




[edit on 6-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Here is a blatantly falsifying finding that remains unexplained about the galactic center:

Theory holds that these stars could not have formed in their present location, because the gravity of the nearby supermassive black hole wouldn't have allowed a gas cloud to contract into a star, says study leader Jean-Pierre Maillard of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris.

On the other hand, Maillard told SPACE.com, the stars could not have formed too far from their present location. Why? Because there wasn't time. Massive stars die young. The seven examined in the study can't be more than 10 million years old, or they would have exploded already. So the seven stars, along with the middleweight black hole, all had to migrate inward within the past 10 million years -- an eyeblink in the 13 billion years of the galaxy's lifetime.

All this means the cluster probably formed about 60 light-years out beyond its current orbit, the calculations show.


They have no explanation for this finding and you'll not hear them talk about it again. It refutes our theories of stellar age and black holes. Both of which are wrong.

I posted a link claiming to be the closest to concrete proof we have, but you didn't want to address that, and prefer to address this instead? OK. This article really doesn't claim to be proof, it uses words like "appears to be" etc. But with that in mind, let's examine the quote you pulled above from the article. If it's supposed to be apparent to me exactly which part of their argument is obviously flawed, I'm sorry it's not, maybe you can explain further? I think I sort of follow their train of thought, though I'm not 100% sure.

(Edit: On second thought, we don't need to spend time on that, I found another study the following year by a German research group claiming to invalidate their result. So perhaps it would be better to discuss the claimed nearly concrete proof I cited)

I'm not sure I follow your counter argument either, but it sort of sounds like since you think our theories of stellar age are wrong, they can't be right? I don't know if our stellar age theories are precisely accurate or not, but so far as more massive stars burning up their fuel more quickly than less massive stars, that seems to make some degree of sense. My primitive analogy would be if I cut down 8 big trees and chopped them up into firewood, if I built a big enough bonfire, I could burn all the wood in just one night, whereas if i build a smaller fire, burning up that same amount of fuel will take much longer. Not the greatest analogy I admit since it's comparing chemical with nuclear reactions etc etc but still it's not so obvious to me why our theories of stellar age must be wrong.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
In fact, if I really want to go out on a limb, I'll say the top people in charge of the LISA project know it will be a complete failure so they might just blow the thing up on launch and claim it was a systems failure.

How's that for a conspiracy prediction.

That's a good one! And it's certainly a lot easier for us to tell if it blew up on launch or not, than it is to measure gravity waves, so it's clearly a testable prediction with obvious results. We'll have to see what happens!



[edit on 6-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I've created a thread disproving black holes here.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The big bang model does not explain the origin of rotation or orbital motions. Observed shifts of light toward the red and blue in some models from orbital/rotational motions are quite different than the Doppler effect used to explain an expanding Universe.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
2. quasars magnitude does not correlate to their observed red shift

I would like to point out that from this problem the magnitude/distance measurement is considered wrong (Cepheid variables) and replaced with a distance that equates to its observed redshift, i.e. redshift is used as a distance measurement.

This is similar to what Edrick was commenting on but I would say that the redshift should not be used as a measurement of distance.
The observed Doppler effect of light might very well show the amount of velocity from that object but what seems to be misunderstood is what "velocity" means from our point of view. The confusion has to do with the relevance of the observed velocity from our inertial frame of reference and its relation to mass. Because of this confusion it makes me wonder if cosmologists actually understand relativity or have even read Einstein's theories.



Originally posted by Matyas
One problem I have with a universe compressed to a point, erm, singularity, is the existence of charge. I understand charge exists as a measured difference of potential with the background, without which it wouldn't be, and therefore all the laws of electrodynamics would not exist.

I couldn't agree with you more and would like to add that this is a very profound observation. There needs to be at least two objects in independent motion for there to be energy of any kind (as per definitions). The theory for a Universal singularity contradicts existence according to the laws of physics-thermodynamics as they are defined by us. If we were to throw out the laws of physics how then could anything be defined?-Welcome to infinity.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What would Einstein think of the title of this article?:

Proof that Albert Einstein's black holes do exist

At face value I think he would use this title as further proof for the contradictions within the academic paradigm.

Does anyone else consider it odd that the manner in which the search for gravity waves are done today match the same search for an aether wind over 100 years ago-including the results?

The way I understand it for black holes to exist gravity must either be; (a) faster then the speed of light to escape and influence objects around the black hole, or (b) gravity is a pushing force- neither of which do not fit the current model.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...cut down 8 big trees and chopped them up into firewood, if I built a big enough bonfire, I could burn all the wood in just one night, whereas if i build a smaller fire, burning up that same amount of fuel will take much longer. Not the greatest analogy I admit since it's comparing chemical with nuclear reactions etc etc but still it's not so obvious to me why our theories of stellar age must be wrong.

I understand your analogy very well but keep in mind that this relies on the theory that the Sun is a nuclear fusion/fission reaction, thus owning all of its energy to gravity and that which is contained within itself.

However, there exists the possibility that the energy stars emit come from a yet unexplained reaction to mass that is not limited to gravity alone.



[edit on 7/10/2009 by Devino]

[edit on 7/11/2009 by Devino]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I don't want to come across as being too defensive of the current model, because obviously it has big problems, like dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. So why not stick with those real problems?


Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The big bang model does not explain the origin of rotation or orbital motions. Observed shifts of light toward the red and blue in some models from orbital/rotational motions are quite different than the Doppler effect used to explain an expanding Universe.


Perhaps not but let's put that in perspective shall we?

Look at this graph:


Originally posted by mnemeth1
A plot of galaxies red shift compared to their luminosity:



What you have basically said, is a slightly different version of saying not all of those points fall in a straight line. Of course they don't. In fact most of the data points are obviously off the line, the line is just a linear regression best fit of the data. So what the big bang can explain is the points that are directly on the line, and there aren't many of those. When you start to look for reasons why the points deviate from that line, there are lots of reasons.

But what some people seem to be suggesting is, because we find that not all the points fall directly on that line, the theory suggested by that line should be dismissed, and that is not a logical argument. So while I agree with you that we might not be able to explain why every data point varies from that line, that does little to convince a rational observer that the linear relationship nonetheless exists.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


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??


When i think of infinity i imagine myself at the 'edge' of the universe walking along a path, and every step i take past the 'edge' a new part of the universe comes into existance to allow for me to step onto it,
The same i imagine to happen for light, gasses, and all stellar objects,





new topics
top topics
 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join