The Big Bang never happened

<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 />Jibber, Jibber, Jibber... <b>Since EVERYTHING is better than BB it comes as no surprise to us that PC might also be better than BB. Yawn.</b>

But is PC better than MM? An attempt to show that it is would be welcome. Please consider giving it a try.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Interesting that you say "EVERYTHING" is better than BB. The thing that I find interesting is that many people, such as yourself, don't really seem to fully understand the BB yet they are QUICK to criticise. What I have found with the BB is that the overall model is extremely accurate but the details are not complete defined or not defined properly. The same is true to with the MM. An example would be; Physics is the observation and study of the physical, accordingly the MM is based on this premise. Now, lets have a MM expert give a physical example of something "INFINITE". No, "The Universe" is not a valid example because you cannot prove it. As a matter of fact, "INFINTE" is NOT a physical property at all and therefore should not be used in a model that describes the physical. So you see, unless you can better define your meaning of "Infinite" then the MM has the same type of flaws. The more you understand the better, the better you understand the more you know.


Patrick[]

Hello

Can someone explain to me what MM is and where do I find info.

Tommy your info is on track.

As for the universe being infinite. What else could it be.

You can define an object as finite when you can see its ends.

Any model such as the Big Bang and the Recyclic should be tested from every angle. We need to chip away at the BLOCK until we see its true form.

Tommy is proactive and I can see his heart and mind wants to know what the "Real Thing" is made up.


Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since EVERYTHING is better than BB it comes as no surprise to us that PC might also be better than BB. Yawn.

But is PC better than MM? An attempt to show that it is would be welcome. Please consider giving it a try.

LB

---

(Patrick)
Interesting that you say "EVERYTHING" is better than BB. The thing that I find interesting is that many people, such as yourself, don't really seem to fully understand the BB yet they are QUICK to criticise. What I have found with the BB is that the overall model is extremely accurate but the details are not complete defined or not defined properly. The same is true to with the MM. An example would be; Physics is the observation and study of the physical, accordingly the MM is based on this premise. Now, lets have a MM expert give a physical example of something "INFINITE". No, "The Universe" is not a valid example because you cannot prove it. As a matter of fact, "INFINTE" is NOT a physical property at all and therefore should not be used in a model that describes the physical. So you see, unless you can better define your meaning of "Infinite" then the MM has the same type of flaws. The more you understand the better, the better you understand the more you know.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Accurate?

First of all, it is becoming known in the scientific culture that a single domain or field of study is not adequate to explain the whole picture. There is a need for multidisciplinary and multiple perspectual science. Cosmology is no different. This is most evident when considering the physical aspects of the Universe. The Big Bangers focus only on gravity, and attempt to explain everything in terms of gravity.

But it is well known that EMF also plays a role in the organization of matter. Plasma is nothing more than electricity without wires, and it is the physical component which affects EMF for example, in the Sun. I don't consider plasma as a particular kind of alternative theory, the end theory will include plasma and gravity as appropriate.

But not so well known to even electrical engineers is the source of electromagetism. This is because the mathematical equations used to describe electromagnetism assume no source is necessary. They are able to create a mathematical formulation which does not include the sustaining energies of the electromagnetic field. The magnetic field induces the electric field which induces the magnetic field which induces the electric field and on and on. They assume that because they can do that mathematically, the physics is likewise. What they really have done is created a mathematical perpetual motion machine.

When Oliver Heaviside simplified Maxwell's original equations, he removed the twenty quaternions which Maxwell meant to describe this source. Heaviside thought this was too complicated and too mystical, so the twenty quaternions were forever removed. When they removed them, they removed the connection between EMF and the sustaining source.

So Einstein went along with the prevailing view, having no need for space to be anything other than nothing, formulated his views
to accord with the view that space is empty. It is at this point that the big bang came along, and of course, it too assumed that absolute space was empty, a nothing. So that is where the big bang is coming from, everything just appeared.

The point is that since nothing has no role in produceing energy, the big bang produced ALL energy/matter. The rest of the story is how they believe this energy/matter formed the Universe.

Now Patrick, I don't know what you are doing here, you state, correct me if I am wrong, that you have found the big bang to be extremely accurate. That is a false assumption/conclusion. Certainly you are aware that the original big bang as an explosion of matter has been falsified. The replacement theory of Inflation is not testable, and there happen to be 21 different versions anyhow. The equations which describe the cooling down period and subsequent structuring do not produce an accurate picture of what we observe, and the conclusion that space is expanding, which is responsible for your theory, was disputed by Hubble himself who claimed to his death that there is no expansion. There is no evidence that redshift is a distance/velocity determinant. There is evidence that redshift is not a distance/velocity determinant. No expansion, no Inflation, no big bang.


Infinite is a mathematical term. It means "more than we can say."

The more you come to understand, the more you understand you don't know.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Competition actually is a trait of losers. It is also a trait of winners and of also-rans. Cooperation can also be described this way. We move forward by applying a varying mixture of the two to any given problem.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


If competition is an actual natural principle,where, in the human body, does competition take place even once? Only a cancer or disease creates competition. Competition is a dis-ease. Meanwhile the human body, indeed all living things, operate by "co-operation." Even the dood supply, where life eats life is the ultimate co-operation. Competition would be wanton killing. It is not very smart to kill off all your food supply...



What does this have to do with the beginning of the Universe? Competition is not a valid scientific basis for theories. The theory which will "win"
is the theory which models reality most accurately, and the point I wish to make is that reality utilizes all aspects of existence, so too will the theory. Eventually.

Researchers in other domains have found that the fundamental operating principle of the Universe can be described conceptually by the organismic system idea. In 1980 t'Hooft, a physicist, wrote about the general form of all the theories of the four forces, suggesting that this general form might be a skeleton key.

The skeleton key is described conceptually by a minimal system, defined by Bertalanffy as "elements in standing relationship." What is different about this new science is the ontological basis of being. Whereas conventional theory has the object as primary, systemics has the relationship as primary. For example, with only a few letters, significant concepts can be discussed. The key is the relationships among the letters.

In pragmatic terms, the ontological orientation of the new science has as its basis a process. This kind of system/process has an emergent feature, from which new processes are enabled. One way to talk about a system in more specific terms is to consider the interplay of positive and negative charges.

Apply all this to our star, the Sun, and it can be seen that there is more to it than just the gravity holding it together. Our Sun is a star, and galaxies are made of Suns. In a simple way a galaxy is a super-Sun.

It is a great mystery to me how anyone with any knowledge of science can actually come to the conclusion that gravity is the only force at work in the Universe. When gravity is the only force, plasma's are called gases. and outflows are caused by inflows.

Interestingly, no one has any plausible idea what gravity is. Wait, I remember reading about it here - about pushing forces and esylium or something like that. Never been able to find anything about that either.

Maybe MM is just what it says "meta-modeling" Beyond the models. Maybe MM is a process of modeling as opposed to being a particular model itself. If that is so, then the meta-model will be one that incorporates all of the appropriate models.

Tommy said

"I am telling you this story, because we can see the same trick on a cosmological scale - in our Sun. Our Sun has produced an anomaly. The temperature of the coronosphere is hotter than the photosphere. The atmosphere of the Sun is hotter than the surface. This is in violation of the second law and is inexplicable in terms of the standard theory."

Similarly
If you were in an ice Block the temp would be zero.
If the temp external was below 100 Deg you would still be zero.

The temp within the photosphere is contained: the temp within the cronosphere is not.

---

On the subject of PLASMA

We have the electric spark, the flow of electrons, fire, and so on.
Light itself is a plasma and you can added more to the list.

---

What is the plasma within the inner core of the sun? Not The Core but the INNER?

What is the plasma on the outer core?

What is the plasma in the varies layers of the sun?

What is the plasma of a brown dwarf star?

What is the plasma of a white dwarf star?

What is the plasma of a neutron star?

What is the plasma within a Blackhole?

What is the Plasma of the ejected material from a black hole?

All the above with respect to atomic structure and density.

---

Can some one help me with the above




Thank You and a Very Happy New Year.

Harry

<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>
Interestingly, no one has any plausible idea what gravity is.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Newton wrote he did not make hypothesis...
Science looks for laws of the nature, but knows that there are limits for our knowledge although this knowledge increases.
The main rule of science is being coherent:
1- All consequences of well verified science must be taken into account. In its foundation BB postulates that the origin of the observed redshifts is Doppler or expansion and ignores the light-matter interactions widely studied by the laser specialists.
2- If new scientific laws appears necessary, a balance of the hypothesis and the results must be done.