Big Bang Blasted

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Coldcreation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what you say I agree with.

 

==================================================

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

 

=================================================

http://metaresearch.org/publications...rb06cp8.asp#T1

 

 

Quote:

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

 

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”

 

 

Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.

======================================================

 

As for Dark matter.

 

Most of the dark matter is found in compacted matter and for that reason it is had to see. Millions of compacted matter are distributed throught the milky way and a swam of them at and around the centre. Some people call these Black Holes, But! since Black holes are theoretical I'd rather use a reality name compacted matter or gegenerated matter or ultra dense plasma matter.

[modest]

Is that why you sign each of your posts with "My God, It's full of stars."?

That's a famous line from 2001, A Space Odyssey. Dave Bowman's last words I think. Reincarnated in the movie 2010:

 

http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/stars.wav

 

Before your time?

[modest]

So what period after that and how long did it last from the pea size to the

3000K temperature size? Is that your light expansion size?

 

There is NO math that can give you the answer to the current size of the BB. Show me the math.

How do you incorporate the current Hubble expansion per megaparsec in this calculation over an age of 14 billion years?

 

Mike C

 

You can find the math describing the epoch of recombination (and earlier) here:

 

http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2006/lnotes/ln6.pdf

 

Very well presented isn’t it?

[Mike C]

A good model based on good math and good science is supposed to lead to discoveries of new forces and new things. BBT has done just that with DE and DM. Why is this a problem? This is the very definition of good science and the exact opposite of dogma.

 

Dark Matter was discovered by Fritz Zwicky long before the BB was accepted. The BB'ers still have no answers for the DM.

The Dark Energy problem just adds to the Hubble expansion. So it does not give the BB any credibility. Totally irrelevant.

 

The BB is promoted as just the Expansion of Space. No explosion.

So that creates another problem? What is driving the expansion?

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mike

 

In actual fact, dark matter and dark energy are all theoretical. Have not been observed.

 

The compacted cores of matter most probably make up more than 65% of all matter. This is dark matter because we are unable to see it and yet can see its influence on the surrounding star bodies.

 

The other point is this.

 

What expansion are you talking about?

 

The universe is not actually expanding. It is clustering. People talk of expansion, but cannot show it. Unless you have actual observations.

 

Is the Milky Way expanding.

Is the local cluster of galaxies expanding.

Is the super cluster (that the local cluster of galaxies part of) expanding.

 

You will find that these objects are not expanding.

 

Go one more step

 

Are the super clusters expanding.

Again they are not.

 

So tell me what is expanding?

[Mike C]

Modest

This reply was in my PM file that Tormod sent me for not replying to you.

I was reprimanded again. I thought it would be sent to Tormod but was posted here on the present thread.

Mike C

 

Rather than answering all your questions individually, why don’t you read all my articles that I posted on this forum?

I posted several articles on this forum.

 

You are a supporter of the BBU.

Read my article on the Steady State Universe (SSU). It complies with ALL the laws of physics as well as the experiments and observations.

 

The BBU violates all these laws as I have explained in my post on the BBU.

 

Since the origin of the BB is a question mark, that means that it is NOTHING but cosmoGONY.

 

There are NO question marks in my SSU.

 

Mike C

Private Message: You have received an infraction at Science Forums

 

 

From Tormod quote:

You have received an infraction at Science Forums - 09-11-2007, 03:47 PM

________________________________________

Dear Mike C,

 

You have received an infraction at Science Forums.

 

Reason: Making/Refusal to Defend Unsupported Claims

-------

New nick but no change in behaviour. You were challenged by another member but chose to attack him rather than back up your own claims. This kind of activity will lead to a permanent ban.

 

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

 

Reply – I have replied below to most individual

questions.

The longer posts, I have given the locations at the

end of this letter.

-------

 

Original Post:

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189326

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by modest

The first thing I notice is that you have presented no model of the universe to compare with data and observation. Do you believe in a steady-state universe?

 

Reply – Yes, I wrote an article on the SSU. You can read it on page 5 of the forum signed by NEW SCIENCE

Or, I can post the whole article here.

 

quote

Has the universe always existed? If so, why isn’t it full of a bunch of dead stars?

 

Reply – It has a number of ‘neutron stars’ that will eventually evaporate as the neutrons decay.

 

quote

Is it isotropic and uniform? If so, are Einstein’s laws of GR wrong? If they are wrong, who’s laws of gravity are correct, Newton’s?

 

Reply – Yes, Yes, Yes.

Einsteins GR is based on Newtons gravity bending space.

However, gravity can be varied by ‘separated electric particles’ such as the Dark Matter problem that has enhanced gravity by 10x.

This is a problem for GR. No explanation.

 

quote

Is there a cosmological constant? If so, what is it?

 

Reply – No. Since space is flat in a SSU, there is no curvature of space. So, there is no need for a cosmological constant to prevent a collapse of the Universe as would happen in Einsteins ‘static universe.

 

quote

What caused CMBR. If it wasn’t hot, what caused the emission spectrum? If the universe is timeless, why isn’t CMBR being emitted now?

 

Reply – It is being emitted now, only it is not a remnant of the BB, but an ‘Equalized Temperature’ of all the particles in space that are reradiating heat from all the energy they get from the surrounding stars in the universe.

 

quote

So, let’s get to the details of your post:

 

I should start by saying that Halton Arp believes that high-redshift-quasars are local events. That didn’t seem so nutty before Hubble was launched, but with new, detailed observations – it’s all-out-nutty. Also, Hubble has now found very-faint, very-high-redshifted, very-distant galaxies without quasars.

But, to your point: redshifts are not a good judges of distance. Standard Cosmology knows this. One reason is that redshift can be caused by 3 different things (speed, expansion, and gravity) The examples Halton sites could have anomalous redshifts due to speed or gravity. We don’t know. We do know that 99.9% of the redshift data supports expansion. So, if I look at the 99.9% of the data an you look at the .1% and we have differing opinions then we need a tiebreaker. If only there was some way to compare redshift, distance, and expansion with something independent. Some new (and exact) way of looking at redshift that would be conclusive. Supernova 1a standard candle experiments! Yes, that’s right, they are a new and independent way of supporting the 99.9% of redshift data and expansion. And they have, so precisely that we know exactly how fast the universe is expanding. Flawless Victory

 

Reply – the redshift argument is probably the most important component of the current argument about the merits of the BBU and the SSU.

The ‘expansion of space’ (EoS) is based on the Dopplerian redshift observations in the late 1920’s.

However, Doppler here was refuted because it implied a repeat of the ‘geocentric theory’ of the universe with us in the center.

This HAD to go. So they accepted Lemaitraes ‘idea’ that was based on the Doppler observations and his ‘idea’ of an expanding space.

NO real evidence here since Doppler was refuted. So this is just a ‘subjective’ opinion.

 

My article on the ‘expansion of the light waves’ (EoLW), page 4, has much more evidence for its support.

 

quote

There is no point source of the initial expansion. That’s the whole point of the balloon or stretchy rope example. Things in the universe have a center. The universe does not. It never did. You are thinking of a universe expanding into something. – no. Math says that 1, 2, 3, 4 dimensional space can expand without a center. This is because every point in our universe is surrounded by the rest of the universe and thus ‘appears’ to be the center.

 

reply – 2 dimensional space is not 4 dimensional space.

As far as I know, Einsteins space is 3 dimensional (x, y, z) plus a moving point representing time(?). Is this the points you mentioned?

Besides, the BB started from a ‘time zero’ beginning. So this would have to be the central source.

 

Quote:

The big bang does not say the universe started from nothing. It makes no claim to say how the universe started or from what it came.

 

However fast or slow it happened does not change the source of the radiation. Maybe one source of the sky it happened 1,000 years before another source in the sky. This would not change the blackbody spectrum. Indeed it did not, because we detect it.

 

 

 

 

Pevious quote by MC

Rather than answering all your questions individually, why don’t you read all my articles that I posted on this forum?

I posted several articles on this forum as New Science.

Look for that signature.

 

Solar Flares, p 2

Open Letter, p 2

BB Erroneous, p 2(?) moved

Grand Unified Theory, p 2

CMBR As Evidence, p 3

Cmbr, p 3

MDM, p 3

Creation of Photons, p 4

Hubble Constant, p 4

Expansion of Light Waves, p 4 (important)

Steady State Universe, p 4 (important)

 

Quote to Modest

You are a supporter of the BBU.

Read my article on the Steady State Universe (SSU). It complies with ALL the laws of physics as well as the experiments and observations.

 

The BBU violates all these laws as I have explained in my post on the BBU.

 

 

 

________________________________________

[Mike C]

You can find the math describing the epoch of recombination (and earlier) here:

 

http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2006/lnotes/ln6.pdf

 

Very well presented isn’t it?

 

Sorry Modest but I do not have Adobe PDF.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Hello Mike

 

In actual fact, dark matter and dark energy are all theoretical. Have not been observed.

 

The compacted cores of matter most probably make up more than 65% of all matter. This is dark matter because we are unable to see it and yet can see its influence on the surrounding star bodies.

 

Dark Matter does NOT exist. But the cause of its existance can be seen.

In the clusters of galaxies are central regions that exhibit 'xray' radiation.

I consider this proof that these are free electrons being blasted out of the surrounding galaxies that leave the galaxies slightly with positive charges.

This central electron cloud is then being 'tugged' on by the surrounding galaxies to enhance the effects of gravity.

 

The other point is this.

 

What expansion are you talking about?

 

The universe is not actually expanding. It is clustering. People talk of expansion, but cannot show it. Unless you have actual observations.

 

Is the Milky Way expanding.

Is the local cluster of galaxies expanding.

Is the super cluster (that the local cluster of galaxies part of) expanding.

 

You will find that these objects are not expanding.

 

Go one more step

 

Are the super clusters expanding.

Again they are not.

 

So tell me what is expanding?

 

What you have cited here is another example of the BB's ludicrous nature.

Yes, they say that the expansion of space is only between the gravitational structures and not within. Believable?

 

Mike C

[LaurieAG]

The BB is promoted as just the Expansion of Space. No explosion. So that creates another problem? What is driving the expansion?

Mike C

 

Hello Mike,

 

If the pre BB universe is a minute but very dense area of matter surrounded by a perfect vacuum (probably infinite in size with a temp close to 0 Kelvin with no interference from matter/energy) then the mass would spread out and appear to be expanding but the universe itself wouldn't unless you explicitly tied the size of the universe to the areas with proximity to mass i.e. you declare a finite universe.

 

The terminology used is misleading. If you put a herd of cattle on an unfenced plain and the cattle spread out, is the herd expanding? If one cow is born when another one dies would you call this expansion or steady state? If all of the cows on the plain die leaving you with no cows, has your universe disappeared?

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

The term dark matter, just implies matter that we cannot see. As for its existence, yep it exists because we cannot see it.

 

The problem with the term dark matter lends itself to be defined by many and therfore we tend to get diffeent meanings and so on.

 

Hello Laurie.

 

I'm trying to understand your point.

 

The universe is a term that defines all and infinity. So all or infinity cannot expand. But! the parts within can go through their compaction and expansion. But! not at the same time.

 

Observations show us different types of stars, galaxies clusters of stars and galaxies and so on at varies stages of formation.

 

They all tend to cluster. Not expand.

 

Its funny that most people have jumped on the ban wagon without noticing the driver.

[Mike C]

Hello Mike,

 

If the pre BB universe is a minute but very dense area of matter surrounded by a perfect vacuum (probably infinite in size with a temp close to 0 Kelvin with no interference from matter/energy) then the mass would spread out and appear to be expanding but the universe itself wouldn't unless you explicitly tied the size of the universe to the areas with proximity to mass i.e. you declare a finite universe.

 

The terminology used is misleading. If you put a herd of cattle on an unfenced plain and the cattle spread out, is the herd expanding? If one cow is born when another one dies would you call this expansion or steady state? If all of the cows on the plain die leaving you with no cows, has your universe disappeared?

 

You have a very vivid imagintion.

Georges Lemaitrae also had a start up universe that was a giant primeval atom as the beginning of his universe.

The BB'ers adopted his expanding space/universe but refused to accept his primval atom.

 

The current start of the BB begins with the Planck time of 1.7 x 10^-43 seconds.

Going further back in time has no answer, since the clock stops at that point.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

you said

 

The current start of the BB begins with the Planck time of 1.7 x 10^-43 seconds.

Going further back in time has no answer, since the clock stops at that point.

 

Think about the reality of what you just said.

 

Do you rally understand the Big Bang theory and that, theoretically did not start at one point but many points throughout the universe at the same time.

 

The clock never stops.

[Mike C]

Hello MikeC

 

you said

 

 

 

Think about the reality of what you just said.

 

Do you rally understand the Big Bang theory and that, theoretically did not start at one point but many points throughout the universe at the same time.

 

The clock never stops.

 

Pluto

I just wrote that with a sense of humor.

 

The truth is that I do NOT believe the BBU is real.

To me, it sounds like science fiction just as most all religions are.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

So what do you think?

[Mike C]

Hello MikeC

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

So what do you think?

 

Well, I have been posting my thoughts on this subject for some time.

Examples:

 

A viable SSU that complies with all the Laws of Physics, Experiments and Observations.

 

A replacement for the 'expansion of space' with the 'Expansion of the Light W's' and the science for it's justification.

 

The major reasons for the falsification of the BBU.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

Good to see that you have both feet on the ground.

 

What do you think of the recycling universe?

[Mike C]

Hello MikeC

 

Good to see that you have both feet on the ground.

 

What do you think of the recycling universe?

 

Well, if you are thinking of an 'expanding and contracting' universe, then forget it. In this type of universe, you would need a 'rubber' space.

 

However, we know that galaxies and stars 'recycle'. This is true in a SSU.

Also, in my SSU, photons also recycle since they expand to infinite lengths and oblivion and are reborn with the 'new' star creations.

 

Mike C