The Big Bang never happened

Darn, I thought I was the only one who believed in white holes spewing out starstuff

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But to get down to the fundamental assumptions involved, I remember an Astrophysics lunch at Cal Tech about 30 years ago. Stephen Hawking sat across the table from several of us who were discussing observations of ejection of new galaxies from the compact nuclei of active galaxies. Nothing of this ever crept into Hawking’s assumptions about Black Holes. Only very recently has he abandoned his dictum that nothing comes out of Black Holes and famously now concedes that a ”little bit” does come out. Meanwhile, in the many intervening years, stunning new evidence has emerged on the White Hole propensities of nature. Its only failure I can see is not getting into the press releases.

Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik
85741 Garching
Germany<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The big bang theory is formed from several assumptions. An assumption is a mathematical tool and is essentially a statement taken as true without proof. Mathematics uses the assumption to enable a process. As such it predetermines what will happen.

Doppler cosmological redshift, expansion, and black holes have not been directly observed and confirmed. Hubble himself did not believe the redshift had a doppler component, believing instead that there was some other unknown reason for the redshift. There is no direct evidence linking redshift with Doppler effects. It is only being assumed to be indicative of Doppler effects, accomplished by adding "c" to the original equations.

Expansion can only exist if the Doppler redshift is actual. There is no direct evidence of expansion except for the assumption that redshift is showing us the expansion. Because it is expanding there is a redshift. Because there is a redshift we know it is expanding.

The reverse of expansion is the black hole. But a black hole had never been observed either. Actually, the black hole concept is an assumption based on the fact that no other theory they can think of would explain what we observe a black hole producing. And how do they observe a black hole? They observe a great outpouring or outflow of energy/matter. Outflow...And many different kinds of outflows, clouds, winds, geysers, plumes and of course jets. Some jets, based on their redshift, are so huge they exceed the speed of light...

The standard theory has no explanation for the outflow, because one of the assumptions is that matter is flowing inward. (Inflowing matter has not been observed either) So they must devise a way that matter-flowing-inward can create these vast jets of matter flowing-outward. The black hole is a clever way of turning things around. Matter flowing into the black hole, is met with a rediation pressure directed outward which limits how much matter is accepted by the black hle, the rest is cast back out. It is these outcasts that form the tremendous outflows of matter.

When Astronomers look at a black hole, what they observe is bright light. White light. Some astronomers say this is indicative of black holes. It is amazing this skill they have, being able to turn nothing into everything, everything into nothing and along with it, white light into black light.

It is amazing and it is downright scary that they can do this. It is now possible to create reality with mathematics, leaving everyone else depending on faith. Can we have faith in science?

Hi Tommy, Don't put any faith in science it is in a state of flux and nothing can be worse than faith in stuff like this. The blackhole is one example of how out of touch science can get. And its been going on for about a century now and still no end to it. They keep finding new ways to maintain the model. The BB and all the related BS will be replaced some time in the future but don't hold your breath. Why not work around the BS in science and go your own way? If you need a job and only have a PHD in science maybe you should look at bartending-the tips are good and the chat is great.

<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>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tapping Zero-Point Energy
by Moray B. King
The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
puzzled and then skeptical
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Skeptical too. Everybody is tempted to understand more, but often introduce absurd explanations.
There is no problem with the ZPE:
1- In the classical electromagnetism, it is impossible to absorb the fields emitted by small sources using small sources (remember: the absorption of a field is the addition of an opposite field, generating with dipoles the field opposite to the field emitted by a dipole requires an infinity of dipoles). Thus it remains a stochastic field, the ZPF.
2- Nernst computed the ZPE. It may be computed easily from thermodynamics.
3- The ZPF makes a thermodynamical bath. There is no isolated system in electrodynamics
4- Einstein (1917) introduced induced emission, and the laser experiments show that the spontaneous emission is an amplification of the ZPF (ZPF: field corresponding to the ZPE). All exchanges of energy between matter and EM field are amplifications or absorption of the ZPF, absorptions down to the ZPF (which is not well defined, because the value hf/2 (at 0K) of the ZPE in a mode is statistical).

Nothing more to say about the ZPE.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Everybody is tempted to understand more, but often introduce absurd explanations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yeah, like they do with the Heaviside equations - the magnetic field gives rise to the electrostatic field which gives rise to the magnetic field as if that were all there is to it.

I think it is absurd to say,
as science tells us,
that a photon/electron/proton/neutron/neutrino
is a ball of energy somehow formed
which has the ability to not only interact
with eachother
but also has the ability
to sustain its internal energy
forever
or at least 1x10^36 years
Ditto EMFs.

You are not telling me anything when you say that it is possible to describe the ZPE with mathematical equations
which when erased no longer exist, and therefore what they were equations of also no longer exists.


As a matter of fact, the entire materialistic scenerio is absurd.

First they start at a place when there was no place. At a time before there was time, which they explain cannot be explained because there was nothing to explain before T=0, and from this imaginary point squirted not only an entire Universe, but one, judging by flatness, bigger than the Universe, faster than the time it took to write this period. And took all matter with it, presumbably before it was subject to the laws of motion, oh they didn't exist at that time,,,and then stopped the inflation which they don't even try to explain away. But at least they got all matter all over the place quickly, which they couldn't do fast enough when the big bang meant what it says. Now, this matter, which just got off the faster than light vehicle STOPS and clumps together , still not subject to the laws of motion, and squishes together and that is the end of it. So how come we don't see this collecting going on? How come the only thing we do see is matter being thrown out?

I guess it is coming from that field that isn't there anymore when there is something there.
I can do that too --
Zero is less than a number, such that whenever a number exists, there is no zero. But if we take any number and add zero after it, 1 becomes 10. Let's say that 10 is something ten times more than 1. We have added zero and gotten ten times bigger.
Sorry, but just like looking behind a magician cape, once mathematics is seen for what it does, the mystery is gone.

To begin with mathematics is tautological. By design what goes in is what comes out. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to depend on it. Mathematics is unable to deal with one of the first principles -- emergence. As in (1,0)R=10 What is "R"?

Secondly, mathematics is a symbol system. It re-presents reality, it is not the reality itself.

Thirdly, when Maxwell's quaternions were removed from his equations because it was simpler without them, the universe didn't stop growing -- we stopped.

But not all of us. Some of us decided to find out for ourselves what was happening. Well, there is a lot more happening than most of think. And a little bit less than too many think. More than you can imagine and less than you can think. Some know what I mean, others wouldn't believe me if I said it outright.

I appreciate your instruction JMB, and everyone else actually, especially Tom. I want to understand for mysekf what is happening, and many times there is someone to help me on my way.

I don't want to argue the ZPE with you, in a sense I sense you are right, but only in the sense that the ZPE is considered a classical field. The problem is attaching "singular" names to "Universals" The Aether is not a specific something like a kind of electromagnetic field, it is more general than that. This poses a problem for the scientist who by definition is forced to look for something specific. But see what happens when it is made specific? Suddenly there are limits of what can be done and what can't be done.

I am not talking about the classical ZPE of ZPF that you are describing. I am not even talking about the source of the ZPE, I am talking about something that I can't talk about except in specific terms and when I do that I am not talking about what I was talking about, anymore.

I wrote Puthoff about what you said. Interestingly he didn't come back with pages of formulas, instead he came back with this --

"Reality of the ZPE for potential application is discussed with regard to a program involving collaboration between our Institute, Lockheed Martin, and other universities - - see attached, just presented at the February mtg of STAIF (Space Technology Applications International Forum)."
Hal


Now, again, if we can do it, betcha that nature knew how to do it right from the git go. There is a way to move energy "to space" by means other than "in space".

But let us go back to classical science. Let's talk about light. THe speed of light. According to Special Relativity, the speed of light is always the same. I think what they are saying is that once light leaves a moving body, the speed of light becomes a constant independant of the speed of the moving source, right? Think about this, if light were particles of some sort, even balls of energy, doesn't it seem like their speed would depend somewhat on the speed of their source? But if light were something else, like waves in a sea, then the speed of light would depend on the sea. So isn't it true that the constant speed of light means that it is in some kind of "light sea?"