It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence the Big Bang Theory Wrong - Quasars Don't Show Time Dilation

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I find this interesting, as like others i just think they came up with the big bang theory, as they got the idea from male ejaculation. Thats how they came up with the idea.

Interesting now people are coming up with theories against the big bang. Science is very closed minded alot of the time, and what the norm is, is very hard to break.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   


I'm pleased to see someone else on ATS is interested in new evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong.


You're not the only one... Check out my site:

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 




The thing is do we really know what quasars are
If we can prove other objects distance is related to the red-shift they show then there maybe another reason why quasars dont conform just my £0.02 worth.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Awesome find. Interestingly enough I have been thinking about this for last few days. The accelerated expansion for me does not make any sense. Galaxies form clusters. Clusters form Super Clusters. Clusters are kept together by gravitational pull - no expanding there - thousands of galaxies are bound.

Plus we have 'WMAP Cold Spot', Great Wall, Sloan Great Wall, Great Attractor and Dark Matter.

Big bang can bang me - I am not buying it.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Markz0r
 


As a practicing Christian who happens to be an environmental chemist (a rare entity I know), I see this whole theory which appears to be in an "honest scientific data is reviewed properly" approach, as plausible. I can handle anything that comes back in that type of scientific approach as a good explanation of what we are seeing with the powerful telescopes (thinking how bad the climatologist have been with hard scienctific data as a comparison). I still reserve the right to disagree if more detailed explanations are forth coming that could lead us down another path. To me the mysteries of the universe are ours to explore and attempt to comprehend. The puritanical types get lost on these subjects by not realizing it is not ours to decide what happened but to observe it and realize each person might see it different. I hope to be able to keep my mind open to honest data.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this story.


As always, we know everything and we know nothing.




peace.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I know this is a really silly point.

But is nobody else just blown away by this guys name and the fact he may be ending the theory of the big bang?




peace



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Markz0r
I hope religious fanatics and athiest activists alike don't look at this as any form of victory or defeat. Alot of people don't understand the concept of "theory", and it seems quite a few scientists have forgotten theories are ment to be tried, tested and broken.

It's good to see we're not sticking to the cookie cutter concepts.

S+F4u


Yes but in a way, it is a small victory. Scientist have yet to come up with a plausable answer to where the univers comes from or where we come from. Remember what scientist seem to want you to forget. Evolution is also a theory that has yet to be proven.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The thing is do we really know what quasars are
If we can prove other objects distance is related to the red-shift they show then there maybe another reason why quasars dont conform just my £0.02 worth.

That post is worth more than a measley £0.02, Rizla.

It hits directly on the crux of the argument.

From what I can tell, one would have to come up with a predictable frequency for quasars before you could make the claim from the OP.

Problem is, every single quasar is different.

So, I'm not gonna invest much belief in this new claim. At least, not until it's been properly peer reviewed and repeated by other observers.

Harte



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by russ212
Scientist have yet to come up with a plausable answer to where the univers comes from or where we come from. Remember what scientist seem to want you to forget. Evolution is also a theory that has yet to be proven.


There is no such thing as a theory that can be "proven."

A theory is a useful model that explains observed data and makes testable predictions.

Once measurement technology advances to the point of obtaining data that no longer match the theory, the theory is revamped or discarded.

If such advances in data collection do not happen, that does not mean the theory has been "proven." It only means that the theory has yet to be falsified.

The fate of every theory (like the fate of every species) is the dustbin of history.

Harte



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Wow...
just... Wow...

This has some seriously serious groundbreaking seriousness in here.

This could be something that Physicists should try to re-create. It could seriously help us study Time itself.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


Also, what was the environment like before the big bang you know what was the big bang created in????????? And if you understand where I am comming from who made the beginning mix for this big bag to occure??? Was it like a pre big bang big bang LMAO. Or was it simply created by ? for ?????




[edit on 4/16/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Light will travel at a constant speed regardless of the speed or direction of its source. An expanding universe would mean that space-time itself is inflating - Quasars are not necessarily moving through space. All we should expect to see is a change of frequency (red shift), not time dilation. No additional mass is being created that would generally affect Time.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

Well... that conversation can go to deep till it gives you a headache.

But am with you, science as you can see aint 100% true as you can tell, so imagination is the last option left for when asking questions on space.

I find death is the only secure way of knowing.

Hehe, i haven't forgot my meds, dont worry
.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
exact same topic has already been posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnyc55
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


I find death is the only secure way of knowing.

Hehe, i haven't forgot my meds, dont worry
.



I feel you what is known as death or the lose of the flesh will allow one to understand their surroundings when the time is right better. As far as your meds good you havent forgot them lol.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Great!! Big bang never seemed correct to me. When quantum defines most if not all things then the big bang just seems to linear to me or to orderly. Maybe I'm wrong. Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frakkerface

Originally posted by rizla

I've looked around the net. For the moment, most scientists are denying it, either saying the researcher is a crackpot, or his paper is crackpot.



haha what a surprise. How very scientific of them


Thanks for the post btw, very interesting.


Do you hold an advanced degree in astrophysics? Otherwise you have no way of judging if the paper says 1+1=3.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I'm not sure I am really qualified, or for that matter fully capable, to put forth a valid theory on such a subject so bear with me.

Recently, I read an article in which the author sepeculated about the presents of "a different universe being within each black hole."
In school I was taught that neither matter nor energy can be created or distroyed, but are interchangable. This is said to be supported by
string theory, as everything is made up of the same basic material. The difference in this material is said to be determined by the length
and vibrational frequencies of these strings. This may or may not be exactly right, but it is a short explaination of my preceptions.

Could it be possible for the quazars which we can see are connected,"by worm holes", to black holes which we can't see. My contention
being, if this be so, the matter whch is pulled into a black hole is torn apart by gravity and reduced to their basic strings. These strings
then pass thru the connecting worm hole and exit through a quazar into either a different part of the same universe or into a different one.
Within this context a new universe could be established by the interactions of these basic strings if the quazars through which they exit are
located with a small vacinity. If this interaction were of seemingly spontanious, it could be thought to be very similar to a big bang.

Of course, I will leave it to those of more learning and experience in this field to decide just what time and space perameters would be involved
and/or required for this theory to obtain any possible validity.

O K, I am well aware of the many possible failings of this theory, so ATS members have a go at it. Tell me just how wrong I am, but remember at least I am offering an alternative view.

While previewing this reply I noticed it does not appear as it was written. Oh well.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I agree that this observation is important and interesting. It appears to be inconsistent with the big bang theory and mainstream cosmological theory in general. However, it's not definitively the nail in the coffin, because it can be explained in a way that is consistent with the big bang and mainstream theory:



So what's going on? Hawkins classes possible explanations as "wacky" or "not so wacky". The wacky ideas include the possibility that the universe is not expanding, or that quasars are not at the distances indicated by the red shifts of their light - an idea that has previously been discredited.

Among the not-so-wacky theories is the idea that the brightness variations are not caused by the quasars themselves but by the gravitational distortion of bodies about the mass of a star floating between Earth and the quasars.

Full article
Related article



In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering time-scales from 50 d to 28 yr. Data from high- and low-redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.

Journal Article

I still consider myself in agreement with the mainstream theories, for the most part, but this quasar problem is a serious problem. I become more skeptical of the mainstream theories the more they add these little tricks like gravitational micro-lensing which were not part of the original theory, but which were added in order to account for anomalous observations after the fact. The fact of the matter is that red-shift was predicted for quasars by the accepted theories . It was not observed, and so an explanation that is consistent with the accepted theories was made up and added after the fact in order to explain what we're seeing with quasars.

One of the few key halmarks of bad theories and irrational paradigms are that they can be(and are) easily modified to account for anomalous data. It's a bad sign for big bang cosmology that they have to tweak things in order to account for unexpected observations. It does not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong, but we should become very suspicious when they change their story to fit the evidence.


Edit to add: I see that a lot of you express your satisfaction with this new evidence and you say that all along you've had a sneaking suspicion that the big bang theory is wrong. I disagree with that position. There is some good evidence for the big bang. I think that before the quasar problems, it's pretty clear that the big bang was the best interpretation of the evidence. Observations like redshift(everything moving away) and cosmic background radiation had to be explained, and the big bang was a very good explanation.

We must remember that there is absolutely no reason to think that the origins of the universe will turn out to be satisfying to our intuition. The fact that the theories don't "seem" right, that they sound wierd or counter-intuitive is not the basis for an argument against them. Our intuition and our sense of how things "ought" to be or what "seems" reasonable are all based on our normal day to day experience at human time-scales and human sizes. Our intuition is very good at making sense of the world in which we live, but it's really not up to the task of making sense of the origins of the universe or the fundamental nature of reality. That's why quantum mechanics and cosmology are so wierd: they are at scales so different from the ones that we live at that our sensibilities break down when confronted with the facts of these scales of reality. Do not let your intuition guide your cosmology.

[edit on 4/16/10 by OnceReturned]



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join