The Big Bang Never Happened

reply to post by mnemeth1


Subscribed.

Now hear this my revolutionary friend, such a proposition as you make dashes dreams of FTL travel upon the rocks. To let go of so many ideas built up over a century requires us to not only throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the tub as well.

However in this point in time I am inclined to agree, not concur. The finding of massless black holes which appear to serve as anchor points for stars flies in the face of conventional understanding. Or rather they do mine at any rate. Whether or not they should be called black holes is up to debate.

The issue, I believe, is our definition of gravity. I have always suspected gravity is a secondary effect of electromagnetism. If we took pains to map all the properties of the atom we may find this to be the case.

It may not be so bad living in a single velocity universe if we can still get time dialation. All our models will have to be reworked, and the temptation to go overboard into religiosity is stronger than ever with a single velocity, a single particle, and a single force. Nevertheless it would be the unification we are searching for.

Perhaps that is what the high priests are up to, making us eat raspberry cake while they invent God.

Originally posted by Devino
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?

Moreso lately than ever before, and I also believe their findings will be null. But is that what it takes, billions of dollars to reverse the paradigm?

In all this mess I do see a silver lining. If it can be proven gravity is a secondary force which arises from the electromagnetic wave dynamics of the atom, then each atom possesses the potential to function as a logic gate. I admit it is a great reach and a long throw to merely perceive the universe as some great data processor.

Is it awaiting our input? And what sense does it make for such a large processor limited by the speed of light? Or is time not just relative, but irrelevant on that scale?

Most of this is conjecture on my part, subject to change. Dynamic knowledge, which is worlds better than the pabulum we are fed by our institutions. Much reaching must be done to get to the stars.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

What you have basically said, is a slightly different version of saying not all of those points fall in a straight line.

Maybe I misunderstood your intended meaning, I was making a point that there are different uses for the Doppler effect of light like determining the direction a galaxy is rotating. One side of the galaxy will have a slight redshift and the other a slight blueshift comparatively but this should not be confused with its use as proof for an expanding Universe.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?

My comment about the origin of rotation was pertaining to this statement and a long search on my part for such an origin. Two answers I came across long ago were, "There is no force that causes rotation." and "It's conservation of angular motion from the big bang." neither of which make sense to me so I kept searching but that's a different topic.

I don't know of any reason write off the redshift of light as worthless because I believe it still shows an observed objects velocity. However, I have read more than enough literature proving that there are problems with how the Hubble constant has been used to explain an expanding Universe. The problems are not just slight deviations from a predicted linear model but more like way off the chart observations that show yet to be explained phenomena, i.e. new discoveries.

The observed redshift of some Quasars are so high that in order to be even close to the plotted line on that graph their respective distance would have to be further than our ability to detect that object's light. So they are then considered to be the brightest objects in the Universe as to keep in line with the big bang model even though this contradicts relativity.

From this I infer that protecting the big bang model is more important than the laws of physics, relativity, observation, research and new discoveries.
Add: I concluded this before I was aware of any possible religious connections.


[edit on 7/11/2009 by Devino]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.



[edit on 10-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

That's not what I said.

I said that particular image shows galaxies DO follow the "hubble law" but that the "hubble law" is invalid because quasars DO NOT follow the "hubble law".

Hence, its not a law at all.

Not to mention the voluminous amounts of data showing that quasar redshift is quantized, we see quasars and galaxies that are interacting with each other, and that quasars lie in highly unlikely clusters.

All of which refute the "hubble law".

What ever is causing redshift, I think its safe to say its not the expansion of space.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What ever is causing redshift, I think its safe to say its not the expansion of space.

When I think about high redshift Quasars I am reminded of something I read pertaining to relativity some time ago that relates velocity to mass in a peculiar way.

High mass equal low velocity, and inversely, low mass equal high velocity but both objects could appear to be moving at the same speed. In other words how fast an object moves is equal to the observed velocity relative to its mass meaning velocity is not be the only factor in determining how fast something moves.

Speculating that Quasars are objects of extremely low mass and have very high redshifts that are moving around in the neighborhood of comparatively low redshift galaxies. Of coarse this is far beyond your original topic.

reply to post by Devino


It's not "far beyond my original topic".

The two are directly related.

In fact I posted several images showing quasar-galaxy connectedness.

I have more I can post as well, such as images of the Einstein cross that show movement, apparent brightness changes, and lack of distortion associated with "gravitational lenses". If the Einstein cross is not a gravitational lens, this too disproves redshift as a function of expanding space.

I could go on for days pointing out blatant falsifying proof that redshift is not a function of expanding space.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by mnemeth1]

hehe reading some posts on here is funny

some say OHH no wayyyy its all a dream? "lol" some say well yeah it did "science based"

what WAS the big bang?

or did it not / never was?

well lets work it out

if the big bang "aka the creation of our universe / reality" never in fact happend

how come you are here?

so what argument would you, or could you argue?

do you deny your own creation?, seems a bit silly does it not?

so what was the big bang then? well for a start it didnt got BANG.. bad choice of words "no sound in space" ; )

then we have well what created the universe, now we are talking about god

the is the real issue we have here

we was MADE by something.. asking WHY wont get you far now will it?

if i said to you.. and listen to this very close

I have a question can you tell me the answer? what would be your response ?

"i dunno" would be my first guess and do you know why that is?

because you are not the one asking the question are you

whatever made this thing we are in side of is a question so simple but epic



you cant ask a question a question because that would create what?

you got it... INFINITY

flip side? get one with being here and stop asking so many dumb questions that have no reason.

being here is what counts not WHO OR WHY made man or life...

pointless...

you will NEVER EVER find the start or end of it.. do you know?

YOU DID NOT MAKE IT....

have some humility..

reply to post by mnemeth1


I have read many articles from Dr. Halton Arp and I understand the close proximity of galaxies and Quasars with different RS values, no need for more, but I had assumed that the high RS objects were zooming away at their relative velocities. I didn't think of it until now that these objects could be moving at near the same speeds but the light the Quasars emit is moving at higher velocities (high RS) due to its low mass/gravity.

Maybe I am simply looking at the same thing in a different way but this appears like a big deal to me. Quasars are proto-galaxies that were ejected out from their parent galaxy and contain mostly very low mass subatomic particles. What light they do emit travels at very high velocities and we discern this as a high redshift.

I have done some reading about a theory similar to that but never-the-less I would consider this a new discovery and a big deal.

Originally posted by Devino
Quasars are proto-galaxies that were ejected out from their parent galaxy and contain mostly very low mass subatomic particles. What light they do emit travels at very high velocities and we discern this as a high redshift.

I thought all light traveled at the speed of light? You lost me with the comment about "What light they do emit travels at very high velocities"?

reply to post by Arbitrageur
I thought exactly the same until recently, but it is not so. Light travels at "c" only in low gravity vacuum environment. Traveling through denser matter like water, gas, glass, ... light looses speed, traveling through strong gravitational field likewise.

See this article about laboratory experiments in slowing light down.

Kind regards, M.

Originally posted by Manawydan
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I thought exactly the same until recently, but it is not so. Light travels at "c" only in low gravity vacuum environment. Traveling through denser matter like water, gas, glass, ... light looses speed, traveling through strong gravitational field likewise.

See this article about laboratory experiments in slowing light down.

Kind regards, M.

Thanks Manawydan.
Actually I typed a qualifier in my original post about the fact I know light appears to travel more slowly in some materials, to avoid getting a post like yours, but I deleted it before posting because then someone else would post that's really not what happens and they would be right. In materials the photons are absorbed and re-emitted so experiments will show the "speed of light" as slower, however that is the result of the photons being absorbed and re-emitted, not the result of light traveling slower than light, so you have to be careful how you interpret your experimental results. In the link you posted, I would have to read their research paper instead of the link article to be sure, but it sounds like what they are doing is extending the delay between absorption and re-emission of the photons, I'm not sure they have really slowed down light.

Something else to think about, is gravity really slowing down light? Or is it bending the space-time the light is traveling through?

In any case I still want to know what Devino meant by saying that "What light they do emit travels at very high velocities and we discern this as a high redshift." Is "very high velocities" meant to mean faster than the speed of light?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Devino
Quasars are proto-galaxies that were ejected out from their parent galaxy and contain mostly very low mass subatomic particles. What light they do emit travels at very high velocities and we discern this as a high redshift.

I thought all light traveled at the speed of light? You lost me with the comment about "What light they do emit travels at very high velocities"?

Yeah, this is something that has taken me a long time to wrap my mind around so I don't know if this will make sense and I'm unsure as to its overall accuracy and relevance. I try to use terms accurately as per their definitions like acceleration, velocity and speed so as to not add confusion.

According to relativity light travels at 'c' as witnessed by an observer from that inertial frame of reference. The same light will be observed traveling at the same velocity 'c' according to any number of observers each from different inertial frames of references all moving in different directions, velocities and/or accelerations. The light's source and the observers velocities/accelerations do not add or subtract to the velocity of light so 'c' remains constant.

This only makes sense to me if light has a myriad of potential velocities but only one velocity will be seen by each observer from that inertial frame of reference thus making it a constant. After thinking about the Doppler effect of light it appears that an observer can also determine the velocity of the light's source. If this is the case then light has two discernible velocities that can be measured from each inertial frame of reference, the original velocity from the source (v^0) and the observed velocity (c).

I underlined "inertial frame of reference" because this term is specific in its meaning with relativity. There are no points which are truly at rest, everything is in motion, things only appear to be at rest. So your personal "inertial frame of reference" means the point at which you are moving at a velocity (v) in the direction (x) and accelerating at a rate of (a), and no two will ever be the same.

The velocity of light (c) is used to measure time as well as distance and both of these are effected by acceleration, gravity being considered an acceleration, but this effect can only be noticed by an outside observer (comparative differential). Inside of our 'gravity well' time and distance appear normal but outside of it we see large differences in the Doppler effect of light and distance distortions due to different accelerations and time should also be distorted. Earth's 'gravity well' is effected by the Sun and the Sun's 'gravity well' is effected by our galaxy.

Perhaps the center of the Milky Way effect all the stars within this galaxy creating a galactic 'gravity well'. For the most part velocities, distance and time within our galaxy would appear normal as observed from inside the Milky Way but this changes when we look at other galaxies.

I agree that the redshift of light from another galaxy does relate to its velocity but I was asserting that the total mass of that galaxy (its 'gravity well') will also effect the amount of redshift. To put it differently, gravitational acceleration effects the observed 'redshift' similar to velocity so if the total mass of a galaxy is added to its distance and redshift then maybe a more accurate Universal model can be made.

So when galaxies with a somewhat similar total mass are observed their redshifts will also appear similar but with galaxies that have a far greater total mass the redshift will be smaller or maybe even appear as a blueshift. Galaxies with an extremely low total mass, like quasi-stellar objects, will have a very high redshift accordingly.

Of coarse this is a speculation based on a theory about Quasars being proto-galaxies that were ejected out of the center of large older galaxies during some strange event. It might be similar to fission, particle ionization or the process of how some moons are created from a parent planet.

Subatomic particles accelerating at extremely high rates would gain mass (inertial mass) and over time slow down as their mass increases. It could be argued that the acceleration doesn't decrease but the velocity does. I believe this fits with relativity except for explaining what the accelerating force is.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... it sounds like what they are doing is extending the delay between absorption and re-emission of the photons, I'm not sure they have really slowed down light.

Oh, I stand corrected than. My apologies.

The article states that they were able to "stop light" inside a specifically prepared super-cooled medium, so I think you are absolutely correct in your assumption about re-emission.

Kind regards, M.

Originally posted by Devino
Yeah, this is something that has taken me a long time to wrap my mind around so I don't know if this will make sense and I'm unsure as to its overall accuracy and relevance. I try to use terms accurately as per their definitions like acceleration, velocity and speed so as to not add confusion.

According to relativity light travels at 'c' as witnessed by an observer from that inertial frame of reference. The same light will be observed traveling at the same velocity 'c' according to any number of observers each from different inertial frames of references all moving in different directions, velocities and/or accelerations. The light's source and the observers velocities/accelerations do not add or subtract to the velocity of light so 'c' remains constant.

This only makes sense to me if light has a myriad of potential velocities but only one velocity will be seen by each observer from that inertial frame of reference thus making it a constant. After thinking about the Doppler effect of light it appears that an observer can also determine the velocity of the light's source. If this is the case then light has two discernible velocities that can be measured from each inertial frame of reference, the original velocity from the source (v^0) and the observed velocity (c).

You were doing well your first two paragraphs, saying "The same light will be observed traveling at the same velocity 'c' according to any number of observers each from different "inertial frames of references" which is correct, but then you appeared to contradict that in the third paragraph with your statement "If this is the case then light has two discernible velocities that can be measured from each inertial frame of reference, the original velocity from the source (v^0) and the observed velocity (c)" which is incorrect, refer to your first statement, you were right the first time. when you see light from two sources, one of which is moving away from you faster than the other, both travel at speed "c" but the one moving away has its wavelengths stretched out due to the doppler effect, or "redshifted". Don't worry, it's hard for all of us to wrap our brains around because it's non-intuitive.

Now back to rotation in the big bang model:

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

What you have basically said, is a slightly different version of saying not all of those points fall in a straight line.

Maybe I misunderstood your intended meaning, I was making a point that there are different uses for the Doppler effect of light like determining the direction a galaxy is rotating. One side of the galaxy will have a slight redshift and the other a slight blueshift comparatively but this should not be confused with its use as proof for an expanding Universe.

A couple of points here, have you ever watched any explosions of something being blown up, filmed with a high speed camera? My first observation is you will note that some objects leaving the explosion already have some rotational motion for a number of reasons, including non-uniform acceleration of various masses in the explosion, among other reasons. I'll beat you to it in pointing out this analogy isn't perfect but let's move on to an example in space.

Imagine a big bang type explosion, with matter radially ejected in all directions. Now look at 2 adjacent masses, very close to each other but with slightly different velocities and slightly different trajectories.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03874826222a.png[/atsimg]

(See diagram, m2 has a slightly higher velocity, represented by the orange arrow, than m1). Their initial trajectories will be straight lines with no rotation as you suggest, however due to gravitational attraction, those two masses will attempt to move closer to each other, and in doing so, if the velocities and trajectories aren't too much different, they can become gravitationally captured by each other and rotate about each other (or their common center of gravity if you prefer). I hope this shows how rotational motion does not seem to be inherently inconsistent with the big bang model.

I'm not saying this in any way confirms the big bang theory, it doesn't. What it does do, I hope, is respond intelligently to your assertion that "The big bang model does not explain the origin of rotation or orbital motions". I wouldn't go so far as to say that this example "explains" rotational motions, however it illustrates how such rotational motions would be consistent with the big bang model.

reply to post by Manawydan


Well, you may not need to stand at attention at once. The article brings up entanglement, and that is a scary new buzzword I see everywhere nowdays. I thought I used to understand it, now I am not sure anymore either.

I can see the absorption and reemission in a classical sense by visualizing the atoms as little spheres. Charges appear as dimples or pimples swimming on the surface at a high velocity continually searching for pick ups or drop offs to maintain equilibrium.

That is bunk though. The wave and the atom would have to be somehow connected throughout the lattice.

edit for shtoopid BBcode ruining my post

[edit on 7/14/2009 by Matyas]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...you appeared to contradict that in the third paragraph with your statement "If this is the case then light has two discernible velocities that can be measured from each inertial frame of reference...

This was the same thing I thought when I first learned about Hubble's law, it was contradicting 'c'. Light can only travel so fast so how can variations in velocity be observed? Then I thought about how a radar gun uses the Doppler effect of a radio wave to measure the speed and direction of a car by comparing the return wave with the original. Isn't this the ability to discern two different velocities from the same EM wave? One velocity is the speed the wave is traveling 'c' and the other velocity is the speed its source was traveling (galaxy or star) when it emitted the EM wave, hence Hubble's Law.

A friend once asked me if the Doppler effect shifted Gamma rays towards the visible end of the spectrum would this make it visible and what happens if the EM waves shift outside the scope of the spectrum. I can only assume that limitations exist only in our ability to observe and if a wave could shift beyond this ability it will still exist we just won't know it.

Originally posted by Manawydan

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... it sounds like what they are doing is extending the delay between absorption and re-emission of the photons, I'm not sure they have really slowed down light.

Oh, I stand corrected than. My apologies.

The article states that they were able to "stop light" inside a specifically prepared super-cooled medium, so I think you are absolutely correct in your assumption about re-emission.

Kind regards, M.

This describes how light passes through a transparent medium like the glass windows in your house. Light waves contact the outside of a glass surface transferring its energy into the glass. The wave propagates through the glass and then transfers its energy to the space that's inside your house. Absorption^re-emission is another way of saying compression^rarefaction that describes how all waves propagate through all mediums including the vacuum of space.

The current model's description of EM particle-wave duality is a futile attempt to bypass the need for a propagating medium in space. Even though four mediums are recognized, solid-liquid-gas and plasma, the fourth one is replaced for an impossible scenario that requires energy to be in two places and serving two functions at the same time.

EM waves will not travel through space without a medium for propagation, the very idea of space as nothingness or an absolute void is a true definition for anti-gnosticism which is, in itself, contradicting. The concept of something that is absent of energy and knowledge is the belief in the existence of non-existence.

The fact that we can see sunlight and stars is evidence for the existence of a medium in space. There is no need to make up new names like dark energy, dark matter or cosmic microwave background, it has already been named thousands of years ago. It is as though the word Aether is considered profane to the religion of science.

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...you appeared to contradict that in the third paragraph with your statement "If this is the case then light has two discernible velocities that can be measured from each inertial frame of reference...

This was the same thing I thought when I first learned about Hubble's law, it was contradicting 'c'. Light can only travel so fast so how can variations in velocity be observed? Then I thought about how a radar gun uses the Doppler effect of a radio wave to measure the speed and direction of a car by comparing the return wave with the original. Isn't this the ability to discern two different velocities from the same EM wave? One velocity is the speed the wave is traveling 'c' and the other velocity is the speed its source was traveling (galaxy or star) when it emitted the EM wave, hence Hubble's Law.

Sorry but you need to research this some more. The different redshifts are indicative of different velocities, but the different velocities are of the different MASSES emitting the light, that's where you are confused. The light does not have different velocities, only different redshifts. The light travels at the same velocity regardless of the redshift.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Sorry but you need to research this some more. The different redshifts are indicative of different velocities, but the different velocities are of the different MASSES emitting the light, that's where you are confused.

I believe I have a good understanding of relativity but I am confused by this statement, "the different velocities are of the different MASSES emitting the light". By "different MASSES" do you mean the amount of matter and density or different celestial objects?

Like I have said before I try to be very careful in the words that I use and I did not indicate that light has two velocities or speed of travel but that two velocities can be discerned from one source of light. The question is how much information can be derived from a single source of light. We can discern a lot of information from sunlight reflecting off of things around us that create images of plants, mountains and clouds but what about light from distant objects. If we can only discern the speed which that source of light is moving at than the Doppler effect is a hoax and 'H' (the Hubble) does not exist. But this is not true, the redshift of light is the ability to discern a velocity other than the speed of travel for light.

The articles that I have read about the Hubble constant ('H') relate redshift directly to velocity (Km/Sec) of that object and if this is wrong I would hope you can correct my error or at least link to a source that could help correct it. To reply that "I need to research more" is meaningless and I question which of us needs this advice. Many of your posts contain words and terms that are used incorrectly creating ambiguity in your meaning and up until now I thought I have been able to understand your point. I have enjoyed my time spent here reading and replying as it has caused me to research more and think about this stuff in different ways but I need a little more help than claiming I am wrong and need more research.

[edit on 7/14/2009 by Devino]

I made a quality image in photo shoop to help anyone who was having trouble with the omni directionality of starlight.

It shows the farther a planet is away from a star the wider the cone of the starlight will be and the more spread out the photons will be.

Kind of like that laser account number from the Bourne Identity he had in his hip. If you shine a laser eventually the farther away it is aimed the less readable the Bourne account number is.

Or like a flashlight. If you aim a flashlight into the woods it will light up the close stuff but the farther away you aim it the less it will light stuff up. That is because less photons will be landing in the smaller area to light stuff up. The photons are still there they are just spreading out.

Here is my work of art that I made.

As much as I would like to refute the Big Bang it seems like a pretty good reason for the Microwave Background Radiation.

Can your theory present a better explanation for it's existence OP?