The Big Bang never happened

I understand what they are attempting to do.

But! if the universe has always been and will aways remain in a never ending recycle.

I cannot understand why scientists want to create a theory that creates all matter.(Than again I do understand because I was one of those scientists)

Is it hard for man to think that the universe has always being here.

Applying the process of recycle solves all problems.

You do not have to create maths to fit the solution to the problem.



Have a nice day

Harry

Good question Harry, they will write books about that very question.

When my car's head gasket blew out a couple week ago, I spent the first threee days in shock, denial and I can't believe this is happening to me. To make the long story short, eventually I took it apart, the heads weren't warped, polished the gasket surfaces, and put it back together. It started right up!

What is interesting is what I did during those first three days I was in denial. I acted as if there was nothing at all wrong. But this was not something I could talk my way out of...

Why do scientists support the big bang theory?

First of all if one reads the original writings carefully, the scientists actually creating the theory admit it is only a theory. Hubble knew that he was arbitrarily adding "C" to his equation and said so to his dying day. The rest of the scientists are making an assumption, and they know it too, that Hubble was stating a fact of observation.

I have a friend who is a scientist who believes in the Big Bang because "it is generally accepted and fits my needs." So we have a situation where the authors admitthe big bang is only a theory, but everyone else believes it is a fact.

Here is the problem -- then they turn around and explain everything in terms of that "fact".

For example, astronomers observe an outflow of matter/energy from the center of some galaxies. That there is an outflow is a fact. Scientists are supposed to explain what is happening, in order to explain why there is huge amounts of matter/energy moving outward from a galaxy when the standard theory would have it that the matter should be moving inward, they have invented the only explanation they could come up with - an invisible star -- the Black hole. (talk about smoke and mirrors...)

So, according to them we have matter moving outward, and it looks white, caused by matter moving inward, and it looks invisible. They admit that they have never seen an accretion disk, and they concede that the black hole is only their way of explaining it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, astronomers proclaim that whenever they find a tremendous outflow of matter they have found a Black hole.

Why do they do that?

In Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm shift occurs when the old theory is replaced with the new theory. But instead of a slow but steady journey toward truth, science advances in revolutionary jumps. This is because the scientists of authority hold on to the prevailing view.

Why do they do that?

Time is running short I got to get back to real work. Kuhn also observes that the old is not replaced until a replacement is available. THe problem with the alternative cosmology is tha tit is fragmented, and has no central idea.

I submit that the central idea of the alternative theory to the standard theory is be described by the direction of matter flow in a galaxy. THe standard theory says that matter is flowing inward from space, the alternative theory says that matter is flowing outward into space.

Now, what do we see?

I would like to repeat this for emphasis...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"In Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm shift occurs when the old theory is replaced with the new theory. But instead of a slow but steady journey toward truth, science advances in revolutionary jumps. This is because the scientists of authority hold on to the prevailing view.

Why do they do that?

Time is running short I got to get back to real work. Kuhn also observes that the old is not replaced until a replacement is available. The problem with the alternative cosmology is that it is fragmented, and has no central idea.

I submit that the central idea of the alternative theory to the standard theory is to be described by the direction of matter flow in a galaxy. The standard theory says that matter is flowing inward from space, the alternative theory says that matter is flowing outward into space." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Reflaections:

Keep in mind that there are places we cannot know, what came before the so called beginning for example. But look at what some scientists have done here. Perhaps they know too that what came before T = 0 cannot be known, BUT, some of them make an assumption anyhow, the assumption of nothing. Before everything, there was nothing.

Well, doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out that there is the other assumption that can be made just as fast - the assumption that empty space is FULL.

The big bang theory assumes that there was nothing in the beginning, and from this nothing came everything. It has a difficult time explaining how this happens.

The alternative assumption is that the beginning was FULL of energy,
and still is, INSIDE space - hyperspace as some choose to call it.

The standard assumption is that matter streams inward toward the center of the galaxy...

The alternative assumption is that matter is streaming outward from the center of the galaxy.

The standard theory is that matter came from the big bang many years ago.

The alternative theory is that matter comes from the Inside of space all the time.

References:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the late 1950’s when the prestigious Armenian astronomer,
Viktor Ambarzumian was president of the International
Astronomical Union he said that just looking at pictures
convinced him that new galaxies were ejected out of
old. Even now astronomers refuse to discuss it, saying that
big galaxies cannot come out of other big galaxies <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now, what do we see?

<center> </center>

Smile,I fully agree with you.

Matter is recycled either through objects such as Neutrons stars, Star bodies that have grown to such an extent that matter is sucked in and the atomic structure is broken down to neutrons that are able to be compacted and even further maybe broken down to quaks: and active blackholes creating the jet streams that we see.

The reforming of elements within the stars by fusion upto Iron and Tin is amazing with the heavier elements formed from Supernovae.

The question is what matter is ejected from Jet streams from BlackHoles and Neutron Stars.

There is an Idea that Cores of stars are ejected from large active balckholes. It would be interesting to study the jet streams.

Now I'm going to bed. My Brain is half here and there.





Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The following article by David Bradley is a summary report of a meeting on the subject of active galaxies and quasi-stellar objects held recently at the Royal Society. For information on RS meetings please visit their website - www.royalsoc.ac.uk

---

Galactic impact and universal truths
Astronomers recognized almost fifty years ago that stars have an enormous impact on the space around them, affecting the space in between and synthesizing the heavy elements from which planets are made. Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are known to release vast amounts of energy sometimes outshining all the other stars in a galaxy combined but their role in affecting their surroundings is only now being discovered.

AGN release vast amounts of energy, but unlike their non-active counterparts a large proportion of this energy is not emitted by the familiar components of galaxies, the stars, dust, and interstellar gas. Instead, the energy emerges across the electromagnetic spectrum from the infrared to the gamma ray and comes from the core of the galaxy. Such galaxies are usually referred to as AGN because the majority appear to be powered by their central region. AGN often spit out jets of matter that stretch thousands of light years into space and provide the power supply for other astronomical species such as radio galaxies and radio-loud quasars.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>Big Bang, Black Holes, and Common Sense



David Pratt</center>

<font size="3">B</font id="size3">lack holes are all the rage in orthodox cosmology. Supermassive black holes are believed to dwell at the centre of many galaxies, and when sufficiently massive stars die, they supposedly undergo gravitational collapse and implode into black holes. Astronomer Fred Hoyle described the black-hole mania, along with big-bang cosmology in general, as ‘a form of religious fundamentalism’.

In recent years, what might be called a black-hole establishment has arisen, composed of individuals who talk to each other in positive language, as if black holes were as certain of existence as tomorrow’s sunrise. Yet there is not a scintilla of observational evidence to support their position. What there certainly is evidence of are highly condensed aggregates of matter producing very strong gravitational fields. There is a great volume of evidence of violent activity associated with such aggregates, but the evidence is all of outbursts, never of the continuous infalling motion that would lead to the formation of a black hole.

By definition, no one has ever seen a black hole; they are theoretical entities. The basic idea behind a black hole – that gravity can become infinite and compress a large volume of matter to an infinitesimal point (or ‘singularity’) – is irrational and illogical; nothing finite can ever become infinitely large or small, for these are mathematical abstractions. The concept of black holes is derived from the mathematical manipulations of general relativity theory, which ‘explains’ gravity as a warping or distortion of space around material bodies – an idea that De Purucker, like many scientists, dismisses as a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.

Some scientists argue that electrostatic forces would prevent stars from undergoing any significant gravitational collapse. There is even good reason to question the fundamental assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass.

Theorists say that nothing that penetrates the outer boundary, or ‘event horizon’, of a black hole can ever escape – not even light. And they assign some curious properties to the event horizon: it is simultaneously stationary and yet flying outwards at the speed of light! And within the event horizon, ‘spacetime’ supposedly becomes so ‘distorted’ that space becomes time and time becomes space!

Hoyle’s description of big-bang theorizing as a ‘fruitless churning of mathematical symbols’ seems very appropriate here, and it’s easy to see why some scientists dismiss black holes as pure science fiction.

A damaging blow was dealt to the black-hole theory by a study published in 1995, based on Hubble Space Telescope observations of 15 quasars. 11 of them were found to have no surrounding material that could fall into any hypothesized black holes, yet they were somehow producing intense radio emissions.16 More recent observations have continued to cause embarrassment to the black-hole establishment. Galaxies M87 and NGC 6605 are emitting jets of material and are supposed to have supermassive black holes at their centres. The jets were thought to be fed by a doughnut-shaped dust cloud around the M87 black hole and an accretion disc of attracted matter around the NGC 6605 black hole – but no trace of either can be found.

Significantly, matter is nearly always seen moving away from galactic nuclei, instead of towards them as the black-hole theory requires. This is also true of our own galaxy, and the radiation coming from its centre does not match that expected to come from a black hole. Several scientists have concluded that the centres of active galaxies are regions of matter creation rather than matter destruction. In this connection, both Arp and Hoyle quote Sir James Jeans, who in the late 1920s suggested that ‘the centers of the nebulae [galaxies] are of the nature of “singular points,” at which matter is poured into our universe from some other, and entirely extraneous, spatial dimension’.

G. de Purucker, too, quotes this statement and says that it would be more accurate to speak of other ‘worlds’ or ‘planes’ rather than another ‘dimension’; after all, if this extra ‘dimension’ is more than just a blank abstraction it would itself have to have three dimensions. He compares the concept of ‘singular points’ to the theosophical concept of ‘laya centres’, or ‘dissolving centres’. These are ‘channels’ through which energy-substances pass from one plane to a higher or lower plane – a graphic way of referring to the processes of materialization and etherealization. A laya centre is sometimes described as the relatively homogeneous state of matter corresponding to the highest degree of one plane and the lowest degree of the plane above. Every point of space is in a sense a laya centre. Additionally, every entity – every atom, every seed, every human being, and every celestial body – has a laya centre at its core, for every physical form is animated from within outwards.

The nucleus of our own galaxy is relatively quiescent at present compared with certain other spiral galaxies; about one in six are currently passing through an active, explosive phase. At the same time, galactic nuclei exert a strong attraction on surrounding matter. However, the idea that matter can disappear from our plane by being sucked into a ‘cosmic plughole’ and crushed to an infinitesimal point is not a serious proposition! It is worth noting that, according to theosophy, the originally ethereal globe of a newly-formed planet, for example, condenses and contracts during the first half of its life-cycle, and then re-etherealizes during the second half as its cohesive and attractive forces weaken.

And when Brahmâ ‘contracts’ and withdraws its vitalizing energies, planets and stars die and disintegrate and their matter becomes scattered and dispersed; stars end their lives in an explosion, not an implosion.

Other key ingredients of the big-bang universe are ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. Big bangers used to claim that up to 99% of the mass of the universe was composed of dark matter. There are undoubtedly ‘dark’, nonluminous concentrations of ordinary physical matter in our universe, but the vast majority of dark matter is said to consist of exotic, never-detected physical particles which, unlike all other known physical matter, neither emit nor absorb light. This theory was partly based on the apparently excessive speed of certain galactic motions, but this observational evidence is founded on several questionable assumptions (including the redshift-equals-velocity myth). However, the main reason for postulating the existence of so much dark matter was purely theoretical – the big bang would not work without it, and most dark matter had to have unusual properties otherwise it would upset other aspects of the big-bang model.

The existence of exotic dark matter therefore ‘rests on belief and not on any hard evidence’; it was literally invented."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">