The Big Bang never happened

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tommy said
"What I am saying is that matter is being supplied by an energy through the INSIDE of space, and if we think in terms of dimensions, it would be regarded as the Fifth dimension. The Fifth Dimension is INSIDE the Fourth Dimension."

---

Perhaps you should consider that "PURE ENERGY" is the "O"riginal dimension and all other dimensions come from it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I already use a concept of PURE ENERGY which I defne as energy not doing anything. Hal Puthoff didn't like this because a pure energy which does not do anything cannot be detected. But what I would like to point out is that PURE ENERGY cannot be any something or else it couldn't be everything. What we have to look at I think is the interface between the outside and the inside. And I think that is what the ZPE is - an interface between energy and Pure energy, in the case of the ZPE specifically the electromagnetic forces.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>Tommy Mandel's Excerptation

Big Bang never happened v2.0

Sat Dec 24, 2005 23:05

205.188.117.65</center>




The following is a excerptation/summation of observtional evidence counter to the standard Big Bang theory selected from writings of authors presenting the alternative "Generic" view of cosmology.


The citations are elaborated at www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm


The authors of these statements are :

Tom Van Flandern,
André Koch Torres Assis,
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves,
Eric J. Lerner,
Paul Ballard,
Halton Arp,
Cocke W.J.,
Devito C.L Pitucco ,
G. Burbidge ,
W.M. Napier,
M.B. Bell,
S.P. Comeau,
W.G.Tifft,
Barry Setterfield,
Allan Sandage,
Sten Odenwald ,
Rick Fienberg ,
Mark Stewart,



They write...

"Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. Since its discovery nearly 65 years ago, the cosmological redshift has endured as one of the most persuasive 'proofs' that our universe is expanding.

Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. The terms 'recession velocity' and 'expansion velocity' were quickly brought into service by astronomers at the telescope, and by popularizers, to describe the physical basis for the redshift.

In a letter by Hubble to the Dutch cosmologist Willem De Sitter in 1931, he stated his concerns about these velocities by saying "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority." In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

"...Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession.




Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars. By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity.

William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram.


In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove (Tifft's observation of) redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it.

By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;

the redshift is not a continuous variable as expected from the standard doppler interpretation..."

We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow.

Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.



The first quasar was discovered by Allan Sandage and Thomas Matthews, an optical and a radio astronomer working in collaboration, in 1963. Then, to great surprise, Martin Schmidt found that the initially puzzling lines were those of familiar elements but shifted far to the right. Why, when the highest redshifted galaxies had a maximum redshift of 20 to 40 percent of the velocity of light, did these stellar-looking objects suddenly appear with redshifts of 80 to 90 percent?

According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recesson velocity.

Rather than regard these quasars as being at lesser distances so as to give them quite modest expansion velocities, conventional theorists attempted to incorporate the redshift effect into their existing beliefs.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.

As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Can galaxies, like atoms and mole cules, posses quantized states? And do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES; and then all of astronomy and our entire view of the universe and its history would have to be reformulated.

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

In this paper we show that other models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had predicted this temperature prior to Gamow. Moreover, we show that Gamow's own predictions were worse than these previous ones.

With respect to the CMBR, the only point which is "certain", is that we detect "some radiation" at 3 K in the night Sky. Most astrophysicists believe that it is the strongly redshifted Planck radiation emitted by the Big Bang.
However, we know that the universe is not empty. Not only are there stars and Galaxies, but there is also (certainly) a large amount of gas (molecular hydrogen) filling the space, with a thickness of billion of light years around us. The temperature of that gas (hydrogen) has been measured (using a different method). It was measured (i.e. by G. Herzberg a Noble Laureate) that that hydrogen is at 3K.
-
It is impossible for that hydrogen in space not-to-emit the Planck spectrum. All matter in the universe must emit the Planck spectrum.
Therefore if the Big Bang really emits the Planck spectrum, there must then exist two different Planck spectra. (the one emitted by Hydrogen in the universe and the one due to the Big Bang). However only one Planck spectrum is observed. We must conclude that the Big Bang model fails, because the 3K radiation must be attributed to Hydrogen, since hydrogen has been well observed by many different methods.

The 3K radiation (and the absence of any other Planck spectrum) proves the steady state model of the universe.


Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If my writing seems to overide any others. Its not my intention.

Evidence and backed up observations are the driving force behind any model.

I try not to invent theories that need imaginary ideas to back up the model.

Past cosmologists have placed evidence and observations that have miss led us into formulating models that have no foundations.

Harry

I can see part of the problem. I tried yesterday to find a good explanation of the big bang, came across comments by a guy named chris. He certainly sold me! These guys got good writers. So I went back to the web this morning to find chris, I didn't. But I found this comment below which does a pretty good job of selling itself. Notice how deftly they got rid of EMF. The significance of this article is that it tells us the story of the big bang theory very well. Thomas Kuhn reminds us in his book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" a paradigm shift has to have somewhere to shift to. We are going to have to write a better story. We are going to have to write to the scientists who are the only ones having a vote in the matter.

Another problem area is not the scientist, like he says, only some have a vote in it, but I think everyone else. Including my eight year old grandaughter. What do they say/believe? You see, the story does not filter down the way it was formulated. The formulations derive from assumptions, but when my granddaughter hears it, it is a fact to her. The assumptions are twisted around, like the assumption of redshift. The redshift twist turns the assumption around until it becomes the basis of a new prediction, expansion for example. They certainly have done a good job formulating their theory. I came across this introduction so it will have to do.

Copyright (C) 1997 Dr. Sten Odenwald

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Scientists keep hammering on the Big Bang theory like it is some kind of divine truth. It's only a theory, so why not give it up and find something else that fits the data better?

Whoah...Just a minute there!!! Who says that 'scientists' are treating the Big Bang theory like it is a divine truth? First of all, the only scientists who have any vote in the matter are physicists and astronomers. Only they devote a sizeable fraction of their time, professional skills and reputations towards making the necessary observations, and refining theories of the physical world. Everyone else is a sideliner, or back seat driver, totally irrelevant to articulating what is, or what is not, Big Bang Theory. So, if some other 'scientist' like a biologist, a chemist, or a botanist, tells you that any astronomical theory is hooey, just remember that they are not competent to make that judgement. Would you want a archeologist to represent you in court? I don't care what credentials they might have. If they haven't worked in the field of physics and astronomy, published their ideas in refereed journals, and put their time into defending their ideas using established methods of observation and mathematical logic, they are not competent to voice either a favorable or unfavorable vote on cosmology.

Astronomers and physicists are certainly not treating Big Bang cosmology like a religious Truth. Why should they? Could you imagine how famous an astronomer would be if he/she found irrefutable proof that a major prediction ( or assumption) in Big Bang cosmology is not supported by observation? A search through the refereed scientific literature reveals dozens of variants on Big Bang cosmology, and a goodly number of anti-Big Bang theories. The central problem with virtually all of these carefully-crafted 'alternate' cosmologies is that they begin by making assertions like "Given that Einstein's theory of General Relativity is wrong" or "Given that atoms and light gain mass over the course of billions of years...", or even <b>"Let's suppose that gravity is not the dominant force in the universe, but electromagnetism is". </b>Those who are trying to formulate radical departures from Big Bang theory almost always have to go to enormous extremes to craft their models. At the present time, no one has yet created a competing cosmology to Big Bang theory that: 1) Is consistent with all available observational data to at least the same extent that Big Bang Theory is; 2) Doesn't ask us to violate previously-established laws of physics that have been corroborated by independent investigations; 3) Is developed by individuals who have a proven track record in developing new ideas that work.

Scientific progress is not a free-for-all where all ideas are equally credible, and all theories deserve equal weight and respect. Science is not a democratic process. If a theory isn't supported by the preponderance of the data, it doesn't matter how many Nobel Lauriats support it. The theory is a bad theory in need of revision, expansion, or outright rejection. The testing of a theory is not, however, like some court of law where a single contrary piece of evidence is all it takes to destroy the prosecution's case. This is the part that the general public and philosophers of science don't fully understand. No observation is etched in stone. Experimenters make mistakes in their labs, and at the telescope, in a variety of different ways from calibration errors to simple computational errors. It is not a good idea to throw out a theory that has worked well in the past just because a single new piece of information does not corroborate the theory. Instead, astronomers test a theory by asking it to make predictions for a number of different situations that ought to be covered by the theory. We then test all of these predictions in a number of independent ways, and by many different observers. If the process takes 50 years, who cares?

As for the Big Bang Theory, it is NOT only a theory, it's the ONLY theory we have right now that has shown time and time again that it meshes beautifully with seemingly unrelated observations. Did you know, for example, that Big Bang theory provides a logical connection between 1) the expansion rate of the universe, 2) the abundance of Lithium in the universe, and 3) the number of families of neutrinos? The current difficulty with the age problem between globular cluster stars, and the expansion age of the universe ( the stars seem older than the universe), is as much an annoyance for the folks that determine the ages of stars, as it is for Big Bang Theory. We don't yet know which area is at fault: Stellar Evolution theory, or Big Bang cosmology. Both areas of inquiry are fraught with problems in converting a set of observations into a quantity like age. The list of data and observations that are knit by Big Bang theory into a logically self-consistent story of our universe, is not just impressive, but awesome, and is second only to Darwin's 'theory' of evolution in its scope and beauty.

For some reason, perhaps fostered by the 'lets give equal time to every idea' philosophy in news reporting, many of you might believe that there are lots of data that already refute the Big Bang Theory, and that scientists are just being narrow-minded and stubborn about getting rid of the theory and starting over. As we all know, news stories sometimes get reported this way. Even though 99 percent of the vote favors one idea, a reporter will write about the majority view and that 1% fringe, giving equal space to both views. This makes it look like the ideas are shared nearly 50/50 between the two groups. The situation in astronomy with respect to Big Bang Theory is that there are some discrepant predictions that don't seem to match up with observation. The age problem is a key, and pretty major, problem.

A glance at the literature shows there are plenty of astronomers who are actively engaged in disproving Big Bang theory by going out there to their telescopes on an almost nightly basis, and making the necessary tedious observations. Dr. Geller and Dr. Huchra at the Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge Massachusetts have been mapping the locations of thousands of galaxies during the last 15 years, and their exciting work suggests that our portion of the universe is a lot lumpier than Big Bang theory would like to see. On the other hand, they have only mapped less than 1% of the visible universe, and it is hard to disprove a theory when you only have 1% of the necessary data!! The COBE observations, on the other hand, are fully supportive of Big Bang cosmology, augmented perhaps by an inflationary phase in its early history.

The bottom line is that Big Bang is not massively broken, and the observations we need to come to some better judgment about its details are still a decade or two away. What is Dark Matter? Is there a non-zero Cosmological Constant? Hubble Space Telescope's careful analysis of the motions of one or two galaxies is NOT sufficient evidence to demonstrate a problem with Big Bang theory. <b>Many more galaxies will have to be studied to make certain that our little 1% corner of the universe isn't some deviant region sitting on top of a much larger distribution of matter ( or dark matter!) which is behaving in a way consistent with Big Bang theory.</b> The testing of a theory is not like the testing of guilt or innocence in a court of law. Every observation is fraught with error and uncertainty, and only by comparing a variety of predictions against a host of seemingly unrelated data can a true test be performed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To be found at www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

Note: Wouldn't that be interesting, our little corner is by itself creating a big bang situation...our galaxy is the big bang...

It is said light itself can be sucked into a black hole. What about the light just at the cusp? Does light "Dopple" around the perimeter of a BH?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Messiah Posted - 14 Feb 2006 : 16:10:58

---

It is said light itself can be sucked into a black hole. What about the light just at the cusp? Does light "Dopple" around the perimeter of a BH? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They are saying that matter gets sucked into the black hole, I am not sure about light itself. Surely the photons that strike it never come back out. They explain it this way - in addition to the supposed inflow of matter, there is an outward radiation pressure. Thus the rate of inflow is counteracted by radiation forceing the matter outward. This all takes place in the accretion disk. Astronomers have never seen an accretion disk either.

There is a problem. Astronomers observe a tremendous OUTFLOW of matter/energy. Yes, I said it correctly, astronomers see matter coming from a black hole. Indeed, some say that whenever a outflow of matter is seen coming from the center of a galaxy, there is a black hole there.

The concept of a Black Hole is just a guess. Astronemers have never seen a black hole. But they admit that they do not have any other way of explainiing the observed outflows. This is how they figure it.

Matter is sucked into the Black hole's accretion disk, but radiation allows only so much in. It is the excess or rejected inflowing matter that is redirected back outward in the form of jets, plumes, winds, geysers, clouds and sometimes new stars.

Got that?

If you go to source papers, they admit freely that they cannot think of any mechanism which would account for the OUTFLOW. So it could only be a Neutron star, originally called an invisible star, which has an accretion disk which is deflecting the inflow into outflow.

They admit that they know of no mechanism which would produce matter in the center of a galaxy.

A black hole is their educated guess.

Seems to me that the big bang gang is basing their theory on the mathematics of General Relativity. Doing so, they are constrained by that principle and its assumptions. For one, General Relativity does not take into account electromagnetics, and thus the big bang theory also does not take into account electromagnetics.

I would not call that "educated."