Is the current big bang model wrong?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wisp</i>
<br />A model showing galaxies being moved away from each other on a ballon's surface is a good analogy.

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

Nope. My model is 4-D. 3 of space (x,y, z) and one of time (t).

I see the 4 Ds when I look up. The planets move, the earth turns, the comets pass by. And if the galaxy redshifts represents radial motion, then the universe expands.

Yep, that’s 4 Ds of “spacetime”, or “space and time”, or “space’n’time”, or “timespace”, or what ever you want to call it, and we are on the INSIDE of the universe looking toward the outside. That balloon nonsense is something Eddington invented in his 1933 book designed for the general public, to try to conceal what appeared to be our “central” viewing position. I’ve got his book and he said the general public was supposed to think of us being in the rubber skin of the balloon. That’s ridiculous.

Here’s where the “balloon” model originated, in Eddington’s book:

<b>“For a model of the universe let us represent spherical space by a rubber balloon. Our three dimensions of length, breadth and thickness ought to lie in the skin of the balloon; but there is only room for two, so the model will have to sacrifice one of them. This does not matter very seriously. Imagine the galaxies to be embedded in the rubber. Now let the balloon be steadily inflated. That’s the expanding universe.”</b>

That is stupid and it was obviously a model designed for a naive general public.

I don’t think we are in the center at all. We are only in the center of our sphere of visibility, but that nonsense about the balloon surface is wrong.

In the balloon model:

All the galaxies get bigger as the balloon expands, the galaxies expand along with “space”.

All the galaxies are flat and curved in two dimensions like an inverted dinner plate.

All galaxies move apart at the same rate.

All the galaxies are the same age.

Light curves as it moves from galaxy to galaxy, and if it goes far enough, it returns to its point of origin.

The viewer is out in 3-D space looking at the surface of an expanding sphere.

The third D of our universal space is left out of the galaxies and the universe.

All beings in the galaxies would have to be flat and could not have round eyes.

The center of the balloon is inside the 3-D balloon, but all the galaxies are on the 2-D skin of the balloon.

Our universe does not look like the expanding 2-D surface of a balloon.

Our galaxies are not dots of black ink made on the spherical surface of a white rubber balloon.


Real Observation from our vantage point:

We are not on a curved “surface” of the universe looking “around”, we are at some point inside it looking out in three directions, not looking around it in just two directions.

There is no evidence the galaxies are “expanding”.

There is no evidence that the galaxies are flat or are shaped like dinner plates. The galaxies are 3-D just like the universe is, just like we are.

We have round eyes, not flat ones.

We see a 3-D universe, with the galaxies moving away from each other in 3-D space, not in “curved” 2-D space.

There is no evidence that all light beams are curved or that they always return to their point of origin.

The galaxies are points or blobs of glowing light. They aren’t dots made on rubber with a black magic marker.

"All beings in the galaxies would have to be flat and could not have round eyes"
Yeay, so thats where all the cartoons live.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PheoniX_VII</i>
<br />"All beings in the galaxies would have to be flat and could not have round eyes"
Yeay, so thats where all the cartoons live.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



Yes, alas, I’m afraid that “relativity” has been just a joke on the public. A big Grand Hoax, invented by some clever cartoonists.

Here is the origin of the surface of the balloon model of our universe:

Part 1 of “FLATLAND”, 1884 edition, by “A. Square” (Edwin Abbott):

<b>“1. Of the Nature of Flatland

I CALL our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.

Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows - only hard and with luminous edges - and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen. Alas, a few years ago, I should have said "my universe": but now my mind has been opened to higher views of things.

In such a country, you will perceive at once that it is impossible that there should be anything of what you call a "solid" kind; but I dare say you will suppose that we could at least distinguish by sight the Triangles, Squares, and other figures, moving about as I have described them. On the contrary, we could see nothing of the kind, not at least so as to distinguish one figure from another. Nothing was visible, nor could be visible, to us, except Straight Lines; and the necessity of this I will speedily demonstrate.” </b>

www.geom.umn.edu/%7Ebanchoff/Flatland/

********

Now look at Mr. Einstein’s version of it from 1916:

Excerpts from Chapter XXXI of “Relativity, the Special and General Theory”, 1916 edition, by A. Einstein:

<b>“In the first place, we imagine an existence in two-dimensional space. Flat beings with flat implements, and in particular flat rigid measuring-rods, are free to move in a plane. For them nothing exists outside of this plane: that which they observe to happen to themselves and to their flat ‘things’ is the all-inclusive reality of their plane....... Let us consider now a second two-dimensional existence, but this time on a spherical surface instead of on a plane. The flat beings with their measuring-rods and other objects fit exactly on this surface and they are unable to leave it...... The great charm resulting from this consideration lies in the recognition of the fact that the universe of these beings is finite and yet has no limits.”</b>

www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einst...0s/relative/ch31.htm

David

I agree with you - your concept of space and time being 4-dimensions is correct. I see that you do not accept Einstein's view of 3-dimensional spacetime (neither do I).

The other odd thing about the spacetime balloon model is that as it expands the galaxies stay the same size! Otherwise atoms, rulers, etc would expand making expansion impossible to detect.

My views on the BB model are similar to yours, but I believe that ether fills space. The reason that the galaxies appear to be speeding up as they move apart is because of expansion in the ether.



wisp

- particles of nothingness

www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020928/fob1.asp

Check that link out. The best thing is the small comment at the bottom..
<i>"Letters:

The research in this article doesn't "confirm" the Big Bang theory at all. It simply confirms that scientists will jump to conclusions about observed conditions if it suits their own desire to prove a major theory"</i>

Its just too true

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wisp</i>
<br />
My views on the BB model are similar to yours, but I believe that ether fills space. The reason that the galaxies appear to be speeding up as they move apart is because of expansion in the ether.
wisp

- particles of nothingness
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Do you mean that you think the galaxies are not separating but the ether is “expanding”? And that’s what produces the redshifts of the distant galaxies?