Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#120 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:18 AM

My view about the Big Bang:

In the domain of powers 00= -1 and +1, then, a windy time generated dissymetries and the reality as we know it...

(The analysis of the variable -#R is a helper).

00= -1 and +1

The analyses of the variable -#R causes difficulties that made me admit that powers are symmetrical, so the nothing is totipotencial because of symmetry. 

The singular moment of reality is when 00= -1 and +1 and windy time (tension between past and future) did what we know...

(This may be just a feeling like to say:

symmetry recalls the mystery of the origins)...



#121 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2771 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:19 AM

00= -1 and +1

 

Wrong. 

 

But I see you are just another nutcase, so I'll stop here. 


Edited by exchemist, 14 September 2017 - 03:19 AM.


#122 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 02:51 AM

I recent finished a book that is a historical treatment of general relativity, The Perfect Theory, by Pedro G. Ferreira. From pages 211 - 212:
.

No one can deny general relativity's colossal successes throughout the twentieth century, but it is due for a fresh look. Science may benefit from accepting that general relativity is going the way of Newton's theory of gravity. Newton's theory is still alive and well; it remains useful for explaining the mechanics of ballistics on Earth, the motions of the planets, and even the evolution of galaxies. The theory breaks down only in more extreme situations. Where gravity is stronger, Einstein's general theory of relativity has proved more applicable and precise. It may be time to take a further step and look for the theory that surpasses general relativity at its own extremes.

The challenges of applying general relativity on very big or very small scales, or in situations with very strong or even very weak gravity, may be indicators that the theory breaks down in some circumstances. The problematic marriage of general relativity and quantum physics may be a sign that these two theories actually behave slightly differnently on the very small scales where they need to agree. General relativity's prediction that 96 percent of the universe is dark and exotic could just mean that our theory of gravity is breaking down. Now, almost a hundred years after Einstein first came up with his theory, may be a good time to reassess its true applicability.

History is full of attempts to modify general relativity. From almost the moment he published his theory, Einstein felt that general relativity was unfinished business, para of something bigger. Again and again, he tried and failed to embed general relativity in his grand unified theories. Arthur Eddington also spent the last decades of his life trying to come up with his own fundamental theory, a magical confluence of mathematics, numbers, and coincidences that could explain everything, from electromagnetism to spacetime. ...

.

If we're talking about subjective majority>informed minority.

Refer to Trump's election.


We should never rely on majority, "most people" accepting the Big Bang practically proves how wrong it is.

.
Preposterous.

Edited by scherado, 15 September 2017 - 02:55 AM.


#123 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 02:30 AM

...Exact question...

 

00= -1 and +1?

 

In the symmetry of powers, origins everywhere

and the time|wind that makes reality.



#124 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:26 AM

...Exact question...
 
00= -1 and +1?
 
In the symmetry of powers, origins everywhere
and the time|wind that makes reality.

.
Exact answer: the base in your expression (the 0) is not a quantity; (Super-duper hint for another thread!)

Edited by scherado, 18 September 2017 - 01:29 AM.


#125 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:15 AM

...Beginning...
 
0/0 = () a singularity?
 
In the power of the fraction, the sense
and the possible infinite ...


#126 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:24 AM

...Beginning...

0/0 = () a singularity?

In the power of the fraction, the sense
and the possible infinite ...

.
This: "0/0 = ()" is not a valid equation.

This is being discussed here in that thread.

#127 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 06:30 AM

Thanks

 

.
This: "0/0 = ()" is not a valid equation.

This is being discussed here in that thread.

Thanks



#128 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:28 AM

 
...Z...
 
In the power of the fraction, the sense
and the possibility of infinite ...


#129 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:10 AM

...Z...
 
In the power of the fraction, the sense
and the possibility of infinite ...

.
Please see my denouement in the "divide by zero" thread. Thanks.

(Schwing! Top of the page.)

Edited by scherado, 19 September 2017 - 02:11 AM.


#130 Crasto

Crasto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 03:36 PM

Can symmetry resemble the mystery of origins?



#131 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 04:07 PM

Why not?  It seems that banning due to the substance, or lack there of, is precisely the reason why A-wal should be banned.  The quality of being a jerk is subjective, but the fact that A-wal has repeatedly made assertions of fact that are unfounded is objective and in violation of the rules of this forum.  Why are you sorry for banning a serial liar?  Why isn't the banning because A-wal is a serial liar rather than that A-wal is what you perceive to be a jerk?

I am not a liar. Anyone who claims that the big bang is supported by evidence on the other hand either is a liar or just too lazy or inept to think for themselves.

 

There's only two pieces of 'evidence' I know of for the big bang (if I've missed something please let me know). One is red-shift is is actually strong evidence against the big bang model because if the red-shift is being caused by the transit then that makes a very definite prediction, that red-shift is (generally) proportional to distance and that's exactly what was found but it was too late, the big bang model had already been accepted. Distance proportional red-shift doesn't disprove an expanding universe but it certain was predicted by it and it was an explicit prediction of no expansion.

 

The other one is the cosmic background microwave radiation that could be coming from anywhere because there's no way to measure distance. Even if it is from deep space, some microwave radiation that isn't even distributed how the big bang model says it should be certainly isn't evidence of a primordial explosion from nothing at a moment of creation that's insane. I'm not even sure if the microwave radiation was predicted or shoehorned in as ad hoc evidence, because it was found purely by accident. I would have thought people would've been looking for it if it was a legit big bag prediction.

 

I've been called a liar, a dickhead, an arsehole, a cnut and told I need my teeth knocked down my throat, those last four all by the same member and I get banned for a year for quoting Monty Python And The Holy Grail. :)


Edited by A-wal, 23 March 2018 - 07:07 PM.


#132 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 05:59 PM

Also the amount of red-shift would mean that distant objects are moving away faster than the speed of light. It's very silly to claim that there's any distinction between the space between two objects increasing and the two objects moving away from each other. That's the same thing!



#133 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 01 December 2018 - 10:44 PM

Stop ignoring it,this theory has been further validated,Martínez-Lombilla and her team saw galaxies are expanding Observing similar galaxies could provide clues to our own rate of inflation. By Amber Jorgenson | Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 [​IMG] A team of researchers looked at NCG 4565, a galaxy similar in size and structure to our own, to estimate the Milky Way’s rate of expansion. Ken Crawford Hundreds of billions of stars make up the barred spiral galaxy that we call home. The Milky Way’s 100,000 light-year diameter houses stars of different masses, luminosities, and ages, with new stars constantly being added to the mix. Star formation isn’t showing signs of slowing down, and this includes births at the outer edges of the galaxy. Could these young stars forming near the galactic edge be expanding the size of the Milky Way? A team of researchers, led by Ph.D. candidate Cristina Martínez-Lombilla of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Spain, presented research supporting this idea at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science on April 3. Older, lower-mass stars are abundant near the galaxy’s center and in the halo that looms around the Milky Way’s disk, while younger stars form within the disk itself (the spiral arms). Because some of these hotbeds for star formation lie near the disk’s edge, the researchers set out to study how these new additions could impact the Milky Way’s dimensions. However, the issue with studying the expansion of the Milky Way is our location — a comprehensive viewpoint is difficult to obtain when you’re within the object of observation. To get a clearer perspective, the researchers studied nearby spiral galaxies with similar properties to our own. In particular, they set their sights on NGC 4565, a galaxy with a 100,000 light-year diameter estimated to be between 30 and 50 million light-years from Earth. Martínez-Lombilla and her team used a combination of space- and ground-based telescopes to observe star activity on the outer edges of NCG 4565’s disk. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey telescope allowed them to collect optical data, while the Spitzer and GALEX space telescopes gathered near-infrared and near-UV data, enabling them to see the motions and colors of the distant stars. They measured the light emitted from these areas to determine the types of stars present, which were mainly young blue stars, and also measured their movement within the region to determine how long it takes them to start traveling outward. Their calculations show that, based on star motions, galaxies similar to the Milky Way are expanding by about 1,640 feet (500 meters) per second. “The Milky Way is pretty big already. But our work shows that at least the visible part of it is slowly increasing in size, as stars form on the galactic outskirts. It won’t be quick, but if you could come back and look in 3 billion years’ time the galaxy would be about 5 percent bigger than it is today,” said Martínez-Lombilla in a press release. Looking even further down the line, the Milky Way’s borders are expected to change significantly during its anticipated collision with the Andromeda Galaxy. But that won’t likely occur for another 4 billion years, so until then, we can continue to observe galaxies similar to our own to obtain even more detailed and definitive data about the Milky Way’s immediate future.