Big Bang Blasted

[Eduffy80911]

I recently finished this book by Lyndon Ashmore "Big Bang Blasted". He not only makes a very compelling case for redshift over great distances being the result of photons interacting with electrons in interstellar space (not velocity of recession), but also provides very informative and entertaining background information on the history of cosmological theory.

 

His research stemmed from his realization that the Hubble constant coincidentally = plancks constant time the radius/mass of an electron. Not just the number, but also the units of measure (Ashmore's Paradox).

 

Hubble himself stopped referring to his constant as a measure of velocity and insisted on calling it a measure of redshift (which it was). The relationship to velocity was not a measurement but an interpretation.

 

Ashmore's explanation and the math he backs it up with actually jive with experimental observation, unlike the expanding universe model which must be tweaked with nearly every new discovery to make the data match the theory (very bad science).

[infamous]

I recently finished this book by Lyndon Ashmore "Big Bang Blasted". He not only makes a very compelling case for redshift over great distances being the result of photons interacting with electrons in interstellar space (not velocity of recession), but also provides very informative and entertaining background information on the history of cosmological theory.

 

His research stemmed from his realization that the Hubble constant coincidentally = plancks constant time the radius/mass of an electron. Not just the number, but also the units of measure (Ashmore's Paradox).

 

Hubble himself stopped referring to his constant as a measure of velocity and insisted on calling it a measure of redshift (which it was). The relationship to velocity was not a measurement but an interpretation.

 

Ashmore's explanation and the math he backs it up with actually jive with experimental observation, unlike the expanding universe model which must be tweaked with nearly every new discovery to make the data match the theory (very bad science).

You may want to check out, Redshift Z which is also listed in this forum. Coldcreation, one of our illustrious members, has a theory very similiar to the one you've mentioned. You will likely find it interesting also...............................Infy

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Just more info on red shifts.

 

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

The Cosmological Redshift Reconsidered

 

 

The Redshift

redshift

 

Discovery of H2, in Space

Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

 

Redshift

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

[Pluto]

Hi

 

If redshift is in question.

 

What now with the Big Bang?

 

What model do we use as the standard model?

[ughaibu]

Model of what? Does the big-bang have any practical relevance?

[Mike C]

Hello All

 

Just more info on red shifts.

 

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

The Cosmological Redshift Reconsidered

 

 

The Redshift

redshift

 

Discovery of H2, in Space

Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

 

Redshift

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

 

I refuted the BBU years ago and replaced it with my 'Steady State Universe' that complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations relavant to the universe.

 

The BB is really a 'creation theory' because it must have started from 'ZERO TIME'. I do not belleve in 'creation out of nothing'.

 

NS

[Tormod]

I refuted the BBU years ago and replaced it with my 'Steady State Universe' that complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations relavant to the universe.

 

The BB is really a 'creation theory' because it must have started from 'ZERO TIME'. I do not belleve in 'creation out of nothing'.

 

NS

 

You keep saying this, but

 

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

 

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

 

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

[Mike C]

You keep saying this, but

 

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

 

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

 

Tor

Tracing the BB backward, the current start of the BB is at Planck time of 10^-44 seconds. What happened before this is unanswerable as yet. This is open to speculation.

Lemaitraes 'expansion of space and the universe was accepted but his idea of a 'primeval atom that was huge was ignored as the beginning.

So currently this pariod before Planck time is a question mark and that means 'nothing'.

 

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

 

If you are saying here that the solution of the matter quantities between the hydrogen and helium ratio is one prediction, I did not check this out thoroughly because this is not that important.

 

Regarding the CMBR prediction, there was previous work done that had established the space temperature with an intersteller space particle discovered by Andrew McKellar that was shown to have a radiating temperature of 2.3K. Thi was in 1940.

 

In about 1947, Gamows et al predictions for this temperature was estimated to be 5K that was later revised to be 10K. Apparently, unknowingly of McKellars work.

 

I refuted the CMBR redshift of 1000 as outrageously too high in comparison to the measured redshift of the Virgo Cluster that I posted here recently.

 

NS

[Tormod]

So currently this pariod before Planck time is a question mark and that means 'nothing'.

 

So? The BB theory offers no explanation for this, and does not claim to. That doesn't mean it's false.

[Pluto]

HI

 

Tomod you said

 

You keep saying this, but

 

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

 

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

 

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

 

Both are theories.

 

Any theory backed by evidence or good science is backed by me.

 

So far in my opinion the BBT is at a loss. It is not well documented and not tested as far as science method is concerned and I have read most papers supporting the BBT and its sad to say, modern science has let down the people of the world.

I do not need to name the papers there are so many. The so called evidence is based on " Make the model fit" and if it does not fit than make up "ad hoc" ideas and make it fit. Powerful supporters of the BBT led most scientists down the wrong path. This path is very difficult to alter because of the momentum and mass of information supporting the BBT and I should not forget the money supporting and the political support of the BBT.

 

If you do have evidence and tests please post them.

 

OK:

 

Some people call up the steady state as a strong theory.

I'd like to here their side of it.

 

My ideas are based on recycling of matter to energy and vis versa. I will expand on this as we move along.

[Mike C]

My ideas are based on recycling of matter to energy and vis versa. I will expand on this as we move along.

 

Pluto. I appreciate your support for refuting the BBU, but your statement above seems to comply to Einsteins mass/energu formula.

This formula has no credibility because mass does NOT convert into energy and vice versa.

 

Energy is created by FORCES and does not involve mass in any way except with the 'intrinsic' forces that matter contains and are dual in nature.

 

The magnetic' forces that result from the electron transitions, are the main sources of creating the 'photon' pulses radiated by the stars. These light pulses constitute about 90+% of all the energies in the Universe.

 

These magnetic forces also are the forces that tranform the hydrogen into the more complex nuclei from deuterons to alpha (helium nuclei) particles and upward.

 

NS

[CraigD]

This formula [[math]E=mc^2[/math]] has no credibility because mass does NOT convert into energy and vice versa.

New Science, you have made this claim many times at hypography, but repetition and the offering of “theories” in which you declare the widely accepted and experimentally verified equivalence of mass and energy irrelevant and unreal do not constitute proof. Can you offer any experimental evidence – not personal speculation – to support your claim? If you cannot, and persist in making it or other inadequately supported claim, you’re violating hypography’s rules, and will likely begin receiving 9780 for doing so. :Exclamati

Energy is created by FORCES and does not involve mass in any way except with the 'intrinsic' forces that matter contains and are dual in nature.

The classical definitions of force and energy are

• [math]\mbox{Acceleration} = \Delta \mbox{Distance} / \Delta \mbox{Time}[/math]
• [math]\mbox{Force} = \mbox{Mass} \cdot \mbox{Acceleration}[/math]
• [math]\mbox{Work} = \Delta \mbox{Energy} = \mbox{Force} \cdot \Delta \mbox{Distance}[/math]

Without the fundamental properties of distance, time, and mass, the properties of work and energy, can’t be defined within the formalism of classical mechanics. There is, to my knowledge, no scientific physics formalism more fundamental than classical mechanics. Classical mechanics assumes no model of matter, such as an atomic model, so is applicable to many possible classical and quantum mechanical theories.

[Mike C]

New Science, you have made this claim many times at hypography, but repetition and the offering of “theories” in which you declare the widely accepted and experimentally verified equivalence of mass and energy irrelevant and unreal do not constitute proof. Can you offer any experimental evidence – not personal speculation – to support your claim? If you cannot, and persist in making it or other inadequately supported claim, you’re violating hypography’s rules, and will likely begin receiving 9780 for doing so. :Exclamati The classical definitions of force and energy are

• [math]\mbox{Acceleration} = \Delta \mbox{Distance} / \Delta \mbox{Time}[/math]
• [math]\mbox{Force} = \mbox{Mass} \cdot \mbox{Acceleration}[/math]
• [math]\mbox{Work} = \Delta \mbox{Energy} = \mbox{Force} \cdot \Delta \mbox{Distance}[/math]

Without the fundamental properties of distance, time, and mass, the properties of work and energy, can’t be defined within the formalism of classical mechanics. There is, to my knowledge, no scientific physics formalism more fundamental than classical mechanics. Classical mechanics assumes no model of matter, such as an atomic model, so is applicable to many possible classical and quantum mechanical theories.

 

The first two definitions above apply to the Newtoniqn formula for the measure of gravitational force.

Two experiments have established a 'constant' for this force.

Work is a procuct of the EM forces or any other forces.

 

The proton and the electron were evaluated through experiments that had nothing to do with quantum physics.

 

This is my opinion of classical physics.

 

Quantum physics as Planck describes it is that it transforms light into a 'pulse' rather than a 'continuous wave' as it was assumed to be originally.

 

This is my understanding of the two branches of physics. Thank you.

 

NS

[Pluto]

Hi!!!!

 

My thoughts about matter to energy and energy to matter.

 

Comes from normal matter to degereated matter to normal matter.

 

We see this in star formation and compacted matter such as neutron and quark stars and the theoretical preon stars and the black holes that are home to extreme compact matter that has forces that prevent EMR from escaping.

 

The question is how does energy form matter?

[Tormod]

So far in my opinion the BBT is at a loss. It is not well documented and not tested as far as science method is concerned

 

...really? Then what do the scientists that study the Big Bang *do*? Just hang around? (I happen to know a few of them).

 

and I have read most papers supporting the BBT

 

You have read *most* papers? Astonishing! I'd say that would be many thousands of papers from hundreds of institutes. Can you name one institute in particular which tends to "support" the BB theory without using the scientific method in their work?

 

and its sad to say, modern science has let down the people of the world.

 

I thought we were discussing Big Bang, not modern science in general. It is at any rate a rather pointless argument to make.

[Mike C]

Hi!!!!

The question is how does energy form matter?

 

Ha ha. That is a million dollar question.

 

My understanding of physics and its basic components are:

 

Matter is 'substance' that we can see and feel except, of course. the atomic components that are too small to see BUT can be detected by experiments and have been evaluated with definite properties.

 

Forces intrinsic to this matter have been proven to exist.

 

Energy, by my definition is motion and/or change that time is based on and required as a means of measurement. So, if there is no matter, there is no means of measuring time and motion cannot be converted to matter since then - what is in motion or changing if there is no matter present?

In other words, you cannot convert energy into matter except for one very important process and that is the biological life forms like the plants that convert light into a material growth with the proper environmental sources available like water and carbon elements.

 

To sum it all up than, IMO, is that you cannot convert energy into .matter

 

NS

[Buffy]

Energy, by my definition is motion and/or change that time is based on and required as a means of measurement. So, if there is no matter, there is no means of measuring time and motion cannot be converted to matter since then - what is in motion or changing if there is no matter present?

Unfortunately your conclusion is only true if your premise is, and your odd definition of energy--which is shared by no one I can find--contemtuously trivializes it to the point of irrelevance, when it is one of the most important aspects of the Universe. Why you do this, I do not know, but your "opinions" really get in the way of understanding.

In other words, you cannot convert energy into matter except for one very important process and that is the biological life forms like the plants that convert light into a material growth with the proper environmental sources available like water and carbon elements.

 

To sum it all up than, IMO, is that you cannot convert energy into .matter

That's um, quite self-contradictory!

 

So if biological life forms can do it, how do they do it? Either Einstein was right and its coming from the energy that those life forms absorb, or there's some entirely unknown process in the Universe that magically and spontaneously generates matter.

 

Now, of course there are lots of examples of energy being turned into matter: its done all the time in particle accellerators like the Stanford Linear Accellerator, FermiLab and CERN, and you can read a simple synopsis of it here. Its really quite simple: when you slam particles together at a high enough energy, more than the original amount of particles come out.

 

The fundamental problem with converting energy to matter is that if you just look at Einstein's equation, it takes a LOT of energy to create a small amount of matter, for the same reason that a tiny lump of matter can produce enough energy to level a city.

 

Its notable of course that in the case of biological processes, most of the matter that is "created" is really transformed from other matter, with energy being the fuel, so its not a tremendously useful example of such a conversion.

 

Just the facts, ma'am,

Buffy