Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tom</i>
<br />How does this (redshift anomaly) change the standard interpretation of the expansion of the Universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is incompatible with the standard interpretation, which is why it is ignored by the mainstream.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Standard explanation of the Big Bang has it that all matter came from a small point. The matter emerged and was flung (moved) outwards.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, that is completely wrong. It is a popular myth that survives because it takes too much time and effort to explain what the Big Bang really is. But it is <i>not</i> any kind of explosion into pre-existing space. It has no center and no edge. Instead, the Big Bang is an explosion OF space, not an explosion INTO space. Since the very beginning, all matter and galaxies remain pretty much in place in their local space except for small local motions. The reason that galaxies get farther apart is not because of motion of galaxies through space, but because more empty space is continually being created between them. The whole universe is a 3D analog of an expanding balloon surface with dimes taped to it. All the dimes (representing galaxies) are getting farther apart from all the others even though none of them is moving, and there is no center and no edge to the balloon surface.

Love it or leave it, but that's the real Big Bang. [:0] -|Tom|-

quote:

Originally posted by Tom

How does this (redshift anomaly) change the standard interpretation of the expansion of the Universe?

---

(Tom)
It is incompatible with the standard interpretation, which is why it is ignored by the mainstream.

(Tommy)
Exactly! I have reached that same conclusion.

---

quote:
The Standard explanation of the Big Bang has it that all matter came from a small point. The matter emerged and was flung (moved) outwards.

---

(Tom)
No, that is completely wrong. It is a popular myth that survives because it takes too much time and effort to explain what the Big Bang really is.

(Tommy)
Whose fault is that? I took your interpretation into account. I can picture the same thing with space and matter moving outward. However, the standard interpretation does not take into account, I think, the ZPE or quantum vacumm or hyperspace or whatever you call it. I believe it has been demonstrated that this hyperspace has a non-local quality to it. At any rate it is not subject to analysis by ordinary physical measurements so it can be argued that the INSIDE of space does not follow physical rules. If there were a sudden expansion of whatever, the ground, being full to start with, would be instantaneously everywhere. It wouldn't have to go anywhere because it is everywhere to start with. So in this interpretation, space does not have to expand. Either way you put it, you are telling me that everything just happened to happen from nothing. You see, the initial assumption that mainstream is making is that it all came from nothing and built up from there. No wonder it is hard for them to explain. But even my tiny mind would have no problem explaining how a full No-Thing became everything. It boils down to a Whole which differentiates into parts, and the parts then seek to come back to Wholeness. Mainstream wants to start with the parts, and then figure out how they become a Whole, uhhh, they will get around to that, right?

What is this "mainstream science" stuff? Since when is science a popularity contest? There is nothing in the philosphy of science that says the majority rules. In fact it could bve argued that the history of science is a history of proving the mainstream wrong. Basing science on authority is not doing good science. Wasn't a rejection of that idea how science got started in the first place?

(can you change my user name to Tommy so we don't get confused? Thanks)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />(can you change my user name to Tommy so we don't get confused?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Done.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I took your interpretation into account.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's not my interpretation. It is standard BB cosmology. You have to learn it before you are qualified to critique it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is this "mainstream science" stuff?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Meta Research, the host of this Message Board, is all about replacement science. So we refer to the standard paradigms as "mainstream science". See the "Cosmology" tab on our Home page for reprints of some published articles disputing the Big Bang. -|Tom|-

quote:
I took your (matter <u>and</u> space expansion) interpretation into account.
<hr noshade size="1">
It's not my interpretation. It is standard BB cosmology. You have to learn it before you are qualified to critique it.

---

OK. Let's pretend I am in third grade. I sit down at my desk, and listen to the teacher. The teacher is giving us a rundown on "science" at a very superficial level. She tells us about the Universe, and how big it is. She says that it is so big, if everything I could see in the sky were as small a piece of dust, and what we can see, the bits of dust, were placed end to end to form a line, the Universe would reach all the way to my house. That's a long way! Danielle sitting next to me raises her hand and asks,

"Was the Universe a baby?"

How would you answer to the third graders of the world? And it is really sad that I have to add,

"please tell the truth"

Bobby raises his hand and asks,

"The teacher said that science is the truth, don't you remember? My dad said that lies cover the truth up,so if science is about the truth, then it can't lie, get it?"

Danielle, deep in thought, asks again, "If the Universe was a baby, where's Mommy and Daddy?"

<hr noshade size="1">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />How would you answer to the third graders of the world?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why are you raising that question here? Relatively few participants on this Message Board, most of whom are familiar with Meta Science, give the Big Bang any credence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And it is really sad that I have to add, "please tell the truth" ... lies cover the truth up<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals.

Communication between mature adults, at least about intellectual matters, is supposed to maintain respect for the opinions of others, even though you may realize that in the real world people have interests that sometimes compete with their interest in pure truth. They may have been raised with religious beliefs. They may have a job in the field and their income depends on support for certain paradigms. They may need to curry favor with other influential people.

But you can save your breath and energy unless you just enjoy tilting at windmills. The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life. -|Tom|-

Tommy, The redshift you refer to above is the Lyman Alpha Forest lines is it not? The lines are being modeled as a redshift being caused by molecular clouds that are in the IGM between here and the source of the redshift. Earth does not have to be at the center of the universe for this model to work because the universe is much bigger than what part of it can be observed.