The Big Bang never happened

I guess a hydrogen atom would be an exception, since it would decay into a bare neutron.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted - 01 Jan 2006 : 11:42:30

---

The statement:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can someone explain to me what this has to do with the Ongoing Universe?

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

Well. it has to do with assumptions. Did energy come from the outside or the inside? The big bang assumes that all matter/energy was created at the time of the big bang. Therefore everything that follows acts as if the matter already exists. The big bang theory then is a theory of how all this matter got together eventually forming you and me...

However, there are many problems with this assumption, one of which is that matter could not have formed the Universe by itself. To resolve this problem, Inflationary theory is an attempt to create the entire Universe space before the big bang, and only then does the mathematics work out(better). That is after dark energy is factored in

The other assumption is that matter/energy comes from Inside space. Hal's abstract is about how atomic particles use this energy from Inside. Multiply that by a few trillion, and you have a center of a galaxy.

Exactly what we see.

Here is the crux of the problem.

<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">

Astronomers refuse to discuss it because it would throw a wrench in their theory. For example, black holes are found by looking for an outflow of matter. They explain this be claiming that the outflow is actually excess matter spun off from the accretion disk of the black hole. They have never seen an accretion disk, but it is the only possibility they can come up with. The other possibility, which they refuse to even consider, is that the so called black hole is producing matter/energy, and that the spirialing of the galaxy is caused by this outflowing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> laserstars.org/

<center>Cosmological Quasar Theory </center>

Emission lines are redshifted, the quasar is extragalactic.
Produce enourmous energy, can only be galaxies composed of a huge amounts of gas and/or stars.

Harbour black holes in their center, impossibly high energy density.
Velocities greater than 1000 times the speed of light (ignored by astronomers)

Radio lobes are the most enormous objects in the universe.

Superluminal jets.

Black holes are nothing more than theoretical objects required to explain the paradoxicaly large energy generation, confinement, and variability. If the quasars are assumed extragalactic there is no other way to explain the size of the radio lobes and the absolute luminosity. If we plot any of these derived theoretical quantities versus any raw observational parameter we always obtain a scatter diagram. There is no trend, the data has no correlation with onservational quantities. The redshift versus apparent magnitude is scatter diagram, and so is the largest angular size versus apparent magnitude, ditto for the spectra versus distance. In the cosmological quasar interpretation, none of the theoreticaly derived quantities mentioned above has any physical significance. On the other hand, if quasars are within within our galaxy, the situation changes completely:

laserstars.org/summary.html

<center>Emission line stars that emit laser light

Problem : Quasar Redshift</center>

When the spectrum of the star-like object 3C 273 was first observed in 1963, it was found to have one strong emission line and one medium/weak strength line. The problem was, however, that these lines were at wavelengths where no strong lines were expected from laboratory spectra. It has been a traditional assumption in astronomy that the intensities of lines in astronomical sources will be similar to those in the laboratory under ordinary excitation conditions. Schmidt assumed that these two lines were redshifted hydrogen-a and hydrogen-ß lines, and obtained a redshift of 0.157. Subsequently, when other such objects with broad emission lines were discovered (3C 48, 3C 191 etc) they were also labelled quasars and the spectra were similarly interpreted on the redshift hypothesis. In conjunction with Hubble's law it meant that quasars were very distant objects. This in turn led to the well known difficulties concerning their energy generation mechanism, optical variability, lack of correlation in the redshift-magnitude diagram, superluminal motion etc.

Solution : Laser Action

Theoretical and experimental investigations in physics in the next decade showed that when a high temperature plasma rapidly expands (for example, in vacuum) the resulting cooling leads to a population inversion in the lower levels of the atom, and this can lead to laser action. Also, it is well known that in certain types of stars (Wolf-Rayet, P Cygni); matter is ejected more or less continuously. This led Varshni to propose the following realistic model of a quasar: A quasar is a star in which the surface plasma is undergoing rapid radial expansion giving rise to population inversion and laser action in some of the atomic species. The assumption of the ejection of matter from quasars at high speed is supported from the fact that the widths of emission spectral lines observed in quasars are typically of the order of 2000 - 4000 km/sec. The ejected matter can form a nebulosity around the quasar or dissipate into space, depending on the rate of mass loss, how long the ejection has been going, the surroundings of the quasar etc. Laser action is enhanced if the hot plasma ploughs into this colder gas. Thus no redshifts are required to explain the strong emission lines. This model is called the plasma-laser star (PLAST) model.

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

Copied from

www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<center>Science and Ideology

The Big Bang </center>

Although The BBT (Big Bang Theory) can claim to be the dominant cosmology right now, many increasingly regard it as little more than ideology. There are no lack of web resources devoted to its demise, so, rather than going over too much old ground, some of its more controversial claims are summarised below. "Plasma is for everyone." Anthony Peratt

The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background)

Big Bang supporters are fond of claiming CMB radiation as conclusive evidence for their theory, but these claims begin to look somewhat revisionist in the light of the following facts.

The background temperature of space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, based on a universe without expansion, and prior to the discovery of the CMB. Their predictions were far more accurate than models based on the Big Bang.

In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered the CMB using a small horn antenna. This discovery was quickly seized upon by Big Bang supporters and they were later awarded the Nobel Prize! Prior to it's discovery they hadn't written any papers as they weren't looking for it!

Here is an excellent paper (PDF) about the history of The CMB

redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

"It is important to understand that while a theory may permit observations, those observations do not necessarily verify the theory." Anon

Light element abundances

Light element abundances were not correctly predicted by the Big Bang, contrary to popular myth. They are yet another example of retrodictions or retro-fitting.

The Red shift controversy

No discussion of the BBT seems complete without mentioning Halton Arp, who was an outstanding pupil of Edwin Hubble. His book, The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, details many Redshift anomalies.

Redshift refers to the fact that light is shifted into the red (longer wavelength) end of the spectrum when it is emitted from a source which is moving away from the observer. This is known as the Doppler effect. Arp has discovered a number of astronomical objects that seem to be interacting or related in some way, and yet have very different red shifts. This calls into doubt the Doppler interpretation, and therefore the very idea that the universe is expanding. Big Bangers simply choose to close their eyes to this blasphemy.

Arp is often described as the modern day Galileo because he was denied observational time at a number of US observatories, and moved to work at The Max Planck institute in Germany.

www.haltonarp.com Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo


The 'Fingers of God'

If redshift is a measure of distance, as astronomers claim, this gives rise to a peculiar problem. When the galaxies outside our own are plotted, they all appear to point directly at the earth. Copernicus, of course, knew that the Earth was not the centre of everything, but the redshift-as-distance interpretation effectively takes us back to the dogma of the early church. The 'Fingers of God' problem, therefore, provides further proof that the doppler interpretation favoured by Big Bangers is wrong. The universe is not expanding. Unfortunately, Big Bangers also tend to display a religious devotion to their theory, and prefer to ignore this problem.
"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion." Hannes Alfven

The Hubble Constant

Edwin Hubble, 1889-1953, is famous for confirming the existence of galaxies outside the Milky Way, and the constant of proportionality between the 'apparent' recessional velocity of galaxies and their distance is called Hubble's constant, although some have described it as the least constant of all constants, and refer to it as the Hubble 'Mostly Constant'.

Hubble himself didn't agree that Red shifts were Doppler (see his book 'The Observational Approach to Cosmology'), but his warnings went unheeded. He pointed out several difficulties with this interpretation, not the least of which involved complex problems in relation to photons. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with the necessary brightness correction, and also believed that a more simple -- and therefore preferable -- non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation.


Dark Matter and Dark Energy

The BBT relies on the existence of non-baryonic or Dark Matter to resolve glaring contradictions with observation. Yet data has accumulated that dark matter is not so much invisible as non-existent. Despite almost 25 years of extensive searching, it is yet to be found, and the same goes for its partner in crime, Dark Energy.

It can be shown that electromagnetic forces are several orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational forces, especially in certain types of plasma, and also that electromagnetic forces can have a longer range. On the largest scales, evidence that plasmas exhibit external forces on physical objects such as galaxies is the same as that which has lead standard model researchers to postulate dark matter and dark energy.
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfven

Religious Origins

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth devised to explain creation:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams


General Relativity

Albert Einstein favoured some form of Steady State model of the universe, but there was a problem. His famous theory, General Relativity, didn't seem to work out for an SS universe. A catholic priest and mathematician came to his rescue (see above), but Einstein had reservations (see quote, right).
"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein

The Conservation of Energy

The BBT violates one of the best-tested laws of physics -- the conservation of energy and matter, since it produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To ignore this basic law would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

BB supporters dance around this issue by claiming that the initial rapid expansion (or explosion, or whatever they like to call it from one moment to the next) created the laws of physics which we now observe. A classic case of circular reasoning, no less.


Black Holes tear logic apart

Astronomers require invisible, super-compressed matter at the centre of galaxies because without Black Holes gravitational equations fail to account for the observed movement and compact energetic activity. But charged plasma achieves such effects routinely without recourse to abstract mathematical theorems.

Plasma experiments, backed by computer simulations, are changing the picture of space. Plasma scientists can now replicate the evolution of galactic structures both experimentally and in computer simulations without resorting to this popular and problematic fiction.

Black holes, of course, are one of the most celebrated predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory suggests that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, will collapse under its own gravity to a single point.

Einstein, however, didn't believe in black holes, although some argue that he failed to clearly articlute his reasons why.
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell

Nebular Hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, the planets and stars eventually accreted from the giant dust cloud produced by the Big Bang. It is also assumed that the planets have occupied more-or-less steady and unchanging orbits ever since, and that gravity and inertia are the sole agents responsible. There is no direct evidence or observation to support these conclusions, however. They remain no more than guesswork, albeit guesswork that has solidified into doctrine.

Additional Resources

Eric Lerner is a Plasma Cosmologist noted for his criticism of the Big Bang. He wrote 'The Big Bang Never Happened', which can be ordered online from the link below. He is currently Executive Director of the Focus Fusion Society, and President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in New Jersey.

www.bigbangneverhappened.org

"The observers come in now with the belief that we live in a Big Bang Universe, and therefore their ways of understanding are tailored to that... They don't come in with the possibility that there are alternatives... There is a complete lack of balance in the way observational programs and funding are conducted..." Geoffrey Burbridge, Theoretical Astrophysicist


In the eye of the beholder

Fred Hoyle was the first to use the term 'Big Bang'. He did so disparagingly, but by way of irony it stuck. The term turned out to have a simple and memorable elegance.

Einstein was a religious man, and after meeting the catholic priest and mathematician Georges Lemaitre in 1933 he said: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

So it seems that the big bang does have some merit after all. Artistic merit.
"What men really want is not knowledge but certainty." Bertrand Russell



<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"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />I guess a hydrogen atom would be an exception, since it would decay into a bare neutron.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Larry

We know that a hydrogen atom is stable. The only way it can "disappear" is if two hydrogen atoms fuse to form deuterium. We know that an electron is repulsive. This is why I think Linus Pauling had it exactly backwards when he claimed that electrons pair together to form chemical bonds. I say chemical bonds form where the electrons ain't.

A suddenly released neutron decays into a proton and an electron. If a proton and an electron come together to form a neutron, is that decay or assembly? We know that a neutron is electrically neutral. Therefore, by implication, its electron is sealed off or encapsulated.
When a neutron is released, it does not sit there. Instead it has a high velocity. It has no problem entering a nucleus and causing fission. By implication, the behavior of "repulsive electroness" cannot be on the forward side or end of a neutron. It must be on the rearward end. Is the neutron releasing high temperature, high concentration Elysium from its rear end?

In large, electromagnetic accelerators, they have succeeded in raising the velocity of protons high enough to cause them to hit and break apart nuclei. Are they, in fact, creating high velocity neutrons?

The above is what leads me to the speculation that the proton is asymmetric in behavior and shape.

A neutron star may be nothing more than a monstrous atomic nucleus, almost entirely made of fused protons which would, in turn, form polydeuterium.

For the gravitational flux, do we need anything more than the graviton? For the light carrying medium, do we need anything more than the elyson? In "solid" matter, do we need anything more than the proton?

Gregg Wilson