Jump to content
Science Forums

Big Bang, Erroneous?

Mike C

Recommended Posts



The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered. They (BB’ers) claim it is a chance alignment but I will cite three examples that absolutely confirm Arp's hypothesis

The first and most important example is:

NGC 7603. Refer to Sky & Telescope's April, 1983 issue on page 307.

These S&T images are positive photos and are better views than Arps images that are negatives in his book .

The next most important is AM 2054-2210.

The third example is AM 0328-222. Notice in this last example that the smaller galaxy appears to have passed through the larger galaxy and taken a good portion of its stars with it.

The first two examples which includes both the larger and smaller galaxies, are 100% conclusive as being at the same distance. The smaller galaxies (quasars) are revolving around the

larger galaxies in a transverse motion to our line of sight.

I consider the above evidence to be sufficient enough to refute the expansion of space since it is presented as the cause of the redshift.


What then is the cause of the observed redshifts? It is the light waves themselves that are expanding. The clue? The radiating temperatures of the quasars that are much higher than and the companion galaxies indicate that the energy levels within the photon pulses are the cause of the different expansion!


The next reason that is also very important is that we are portrayed as being in the center of

the Universe and they say that we would be in the center regardless of where we would be in this Universe The reason for this is the equal expansion of the redshift in all directions from one point of view that would obviously make us appear to be in the center.

They use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis.

This is a false analogy. Three dimensional cubic space can not be compared to two dimensional space. You will notice that all three dimensional bodies have a single point source of gravity. This is the center of those three dimensional bodies. Since our current Universe is a three dimensional structure, the only possible center to this Universe can only be the point source of the initial expansion.

However, the ‘expansion of the light waves (EoLW) would create the same illusion that the BB’ers use for the EoS, so this would eliminate the idea that the universe is expanding and can actually be a flat universe with no expansion or contraction. A Steady State Universe?


The third reason which is also important is that the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter' are violated by the big bang concept that the Universe started from an undefined quantity of mass or energy that is inadequately defined. It would appear that the big bang started from zero time (nothing) or an infinitely dense point source of mass that has no physical dimension?


The fourth reason is that the CMBR is the ‘clincher’ evidence for the proof of the BBU. It is shown that it is a ‘perfect’ BB radiation remnant with a redshift of 1000.

The recombination of the particles is the zero point source of this redshift in the beginning.

Firstly, it cannot be a perfect BBR because there would have to be some ‘plasma’ radiation mixed in with this matter radiation to negate a perfect BBR. The particles could not ‘suddenly‘ and completely transform from a plasma to a matter form of radiation.

Secondly, the redshift of 1000 is ludicrous because if we divide the age of this universe that is 14 billion years old by 1000, we get a redshift of ‘one’ for every 14 ‘million’ years of age.

If we take this age and use it as a distance indicator as ‘light years’ (LY) and apply it to the Virgo Galaxy Cluster, we would get a redshift of 3+ by dividing 54 million LYs by 14 million.

However, we know that the redshift of this cluster is a fractional redshift of ONE, while the observed redshifts of the VC are .0035 (several galaxies) or .004 (M87), the central giant elliptical in this cluster.


I am sorry if some material here may seem repetitious but I had to consolidate it into a complete article.




I needed to insert the 'ONE' for clarification in the second last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To All


If you will notice, I supply reasons for my refutes.


1 - Arps Redshift Anomalies

2 - Doppler observations replaced with Lemaitraes subjective ideas.

3 - The origin of the universe from nothing.

4 - the CMBR redshift of 1000 that does not seem as probable.


There are other unanswered questions, as well.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously, the staff on Hypo, thinks in unison which i do not oppose. IMO; much of what NS, reflects here in opinion, is common knowledge to the staff from other forums which i do find disgusting when it influences where influence can now be used.


as for SSU, or any theory opposing BBT, the subjective view that only one is possible under the current explanation make its an alternative would seem premature at best. there are thousands of articles in opposition to BB, by many folks with all the science backgrounds each here feels is a prerequisite for an opinion.


as for BBT, it was really the MBR which seems to have given legs to the theory. each of you are aware of the other possible explanations for a source and i feel sure you realize this explanation along with the singularity or cause for questionable expansion are doubted to many people, frankly the new to science folks which is my reason for even bothering on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of people complaining that because they dont have a background in science they dont have a valid opinion.. Yes Im doing an astrophysics degree and its going to take me 4 years - can four years of hard study be matched by what you find in wikipedia articles?


Im not saying you dont have an opinion - by all means you do and we have no probs listening and discussion them with you. The fact still remains, a whole lot of guys smarter than us have decided that for the moment BBT is the best bet - not correct, but the best fit model to what we see. So for the moment any theory other than BBT will be considered alternate.


Its not a bad thing to have a forum for alternate theories, it just helps clean things up a little.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I come accross a bit harsh, but try and see it from our point of view.


Things are never black and white, but we still try to draw a line,



the title of the thread "BB, Erroneous" and i suspect an effort to argue its authority. how can arguing an accepted scientific theory be classified *alternative*, whether or not an alternative is offered, in this case NOT...


grats on your educational effort, taking a course and learning a subject may not be the same...NS claims a 20 years effort to understand certain scientific views. what you learn in four years may or may not equal his 20. i will tell you IMO, if you later apply for a position in the US science community, indicating the desire to disprove many accepted principles, you will not get the job...


as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view. not just in science, but on many issues. if i ran a forum, even with my contrary nature, i would expect the moderators/administrators to feel as i do, which is understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view. not just in science, but on many issues.

Or, it could just be that the staff is an intelligent bunch that sees clearly the faults in the premises of others, and work consistently to correct false information.


It's not like they are claiming that the clouds are full of dancing purple unicorns or anything. You seem to argue the point that, when a poster says 1+1=3, and they correct them to say that 1+1=2, they are falling prey to some sort of numb group think comradery, and that's rather silly.


The funny thing really is that most staff wouldn't say 1+1=2. They'd say, based on this and confirmed by that, the common understanding is 1+1=2. Can you support somehow how you arrived at your conclusion that 1+1=3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you need to look at the arguments. they are the same and just as ambiguous or with less substance. "source", "what proof" and the host of rebuttals you see. i would add that its not likely the staff normally would agree so enthusiastically, if no one else were privy to a discussion. that is under normal circumstances reading between the lines i see very different personalities.


i prefer to argue on issues of a subject rather than the total. so on BBT and the singularity, lets try the said temperatures of space itself. its suggested that matter or particles formed as space which was also formed cooled to less than 10 billion degree kelvin. no one seems to guess how long space was over 10 billion K, or how much over it was to have cooled. its said the current temperature of space is about 3 degree K or just above AZ or where molecular action cannot take place. please just give me a guess; how long would it take for something 10 to 20 billion degrees to cool to 3, while all that is formed, disintegrated, reformed the number of suggested times to get what is in our known universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered.

Jackson, you suggested that there was a uniformity of mind set within Hypogrpahy staff. I sugest this is not so. I am a mere minor moderator, yet I certainly have grave suspicions about the reality of the Big Bang. These misgivings arise from philosophical considerations, not scientific, therefore I rarely mention these reservations at all.


Nevertheless they exist and I welcome any evidence that might substantiate alternative views such as those of Arp. However, what is important is evidence, not my (or anyone elses) opinion of what I would like to see as evidence.


NewScience made much of the anomalous redshifts, claiming these quite invalidated Big Bang theory. This recent research offers a simple explanation for these anomalous shifts and demonstrates, again, that taking absolute positions in science lies somewhere along an axis that runs from unwise to downright foolish.


Zhang, T. X. Electric Redshift and Quasars The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 636, Issue 2, pp. L61-L64. 01/2006


A new redshift mechanism-the electric redshift-is proposed, in accord with the five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies Einsteinian general relativity and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory. It is shown that a dense, massive, and charged object can significantly shift a light ray that is emitted from the object's surface toward the red as compared with the gravitational redshift. A compact, electrically charged object with density and mass comparable to those of a neutron star can impart a redshift as great as quasars have. Therefore, if quasars are dense, massive, and electrically charged objects, their large redshifts do not imply that all quasars are extremely distant; thus, the luminosity of quasars and their association with low-redshift galaxies can be understood. This interpretation does not conflict with big bang cosmology, because the electric redshifts are negligible for normal stars, galaxies, and large-scale matter, which are not dense and electrically charged.


Source: Content Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eclogite; admittedly *staff* was loosely used in my discussion. i will suggest if you check out NS first three or four threads and the response to a new member and by whom, you will see a consistency. this however is not the point of my argument nor do i have a problem with the staff. frankly its at levels you don't see on many forums with well educated people in differing fields.


also, i am not defending NS or his methods to make a point. debating requires some moderation of conviction when trying to influence an outcome. both NS and many of the staff, lacks this talent...IMO.


the so called red shifts, in my mind are flawed in explanation by just what received as distant light. this gets into speeds of objects from source to receiving, the created illusions of interference of space itself and the nature of energy when emitted from an object. i rarely try to argue the point. i would not argue your abstract. however IMO and by what i have said above, from a distance of 10 to 14.2 BLY away is a composite of 186,200 differing sources over a period of one second. this is very hard to explain on a written forum, just barely explainable with a chalk boards and a few hours. but the individual photon, wave or what have you, simply are never from the same distant source. even from our sun, the energy received on one spot of the planet are constantly from a different spot on the sun as we and the sun, rotate and orbit. then add the distance and the trillions of sources giving an appearance of a light you can develop a scenario catering to any theory you want.


the point of my post, BBT or SSU are both accepted view of the universal existence, each having problems and each variation of the theory itself. which is the alternative is dependent which is accepted by the author, on this issue like no other. i do admit and have a few thousand times BBT is the current accepted theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...