The Big Bang never happened

More
18 years 9 months ago #14600 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
When I was a first-year grad student in Math here at Iowa State Univ., I reworked the math in Prof. Zwicky's "Tired Light" (that's not what Zwicky called it) article. One of the sharpest profs in our department checked my math, and I gave a talk about it to the state chapter of the Mathematical Assoc. of America.

Zwicky assumed that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light, in the frame of reference of the photon, but is infinite, in the frame of reference of the universe. He didn't solve an integral, which I solved using a change of variable. I made a physical assumption, that the force of gravity drops off with distance the same as does the frequency of light.

Under those assumptions, I calculated a mean density for the universe, exactly twice the Einstein-deSitter density. The Einstein density assumes that the kinetic energy of the expanding universe equals its potential energy. Double that density, and you get twice the kinetic energy but four times the gravitational potential energy. That's the virial theorem's prediction. In the Zwicky model, the redshift would quantify a sort of pseudo-kinetic energy. That's all I have to offer on the subject.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #14610 by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Tommy said
"Perhaps my own interpretation of the big bang theory is not correct. I thought that they are saying that the Universe collasped from pure radiation, and that gravity took over and further collected ALL the matter into quantum fluctuative clumps we call a galaxy. In a sense matter collapsed into the stars."
Matter will collapse into stars into Black Holes.Knowing that matter has 4 forms including plasma.
TRommy said
"I think that if gravity were such a powerful force, it would simply attract all matter into one big blob. I look at a globular galaxy, and I don't see that happening. Remember, all I need is one exception...
I do not see this cosmic gravitation happening.
The question is why doen't the universe go to one point.
The reason that it the universe is endless and objects are territorial. They will form a matrix evenly distributed in some form of equillibrium.
The Black Hole is a conjecture. It has not been directly observed. What has been observed is a anomalous outflowing of matter/energy, and in order to explain this outflow, a black hole has been hypothesized as the source of this outflow on the basis that no other source could be imagined *by them).
Black Holes are not a conjecture as so to speak.
We can estimate their mass by the effects they have on the surrounding objects not just the galaxy they controll but the cluster of galaxies they may influence and sometimes other clusters.
We know that Black Holes have an event horizon which leads to think that matter has collapsed. For this to occur the forces are so great not even light could escape such inflence by gravity and electromagnetic forces.

Tommy said
"The BB theory is grounded in matter suspended in a space. Therefore, they are constrained to create a matter explanation for the outflow, and ingeniously devised the black hole along with its accretion disk as capable of getting the job done. And since ALL matter is assumed to have been created at the time of the Big Bang, the matter must be coming from outside. But the matter coming from inside to the outside, the outflow, well, that is, they say, redirected matter. Matter that wasn't allowed into the black hole. "
The idea that the Big Bang had something to do with it has gone out of the equation.
Tommy said

"But if the assumption is changed so that there is an energy INSIDE,
that this energy comes all the way outside as a AGN outflow would be of no surprise. We would expect the Universe to look the way it does look.
Tommy said
"
Here is my reasoning. I acknowledge that in the BB theory, a universal expansion of space occurs, and after the espansion occured, radiation filled all of space. And from this radiation matter formed. Therefore all matter was formed at this beginning time.

What this is saying, at least to me, is that "matter" was not subject to the laws of physics during the time of Inflation, thus the impossibility of matter expanding instantaneously is avoided by removing the imopossibility constraint. "


Forget about the Big Bang it puts people off the track.
There is no Big Bang and there is no expansion of the universe.
The laws applied before and are still being applied.
Tommy said
"Contrarily, I say that the principle of equivalence applies in the sense that when matter is moving in relation to other matter, it does not matter if it is the matter that is moving or the space the matter is in that is moving. Thus the laws of matter apply to matter regardless of how it is being moved. It doesn't wash with me that matter can be measurabley accelerating to the speed of light because it is space that is accelerating (expanding)"


Space cannot accelerate. Its only matter that can do that. Gravity and light may lose its force over distance but not its speed unless influenced by other matter.

quote:
Matter is consistently being formed from active galactic centres ejecting and from exploding stars and during the life of a star.



Well let's be a bit more specific about what you and I mean by matter.
To me matter is an electron and an proton (I don't know what the neutrino does) (which by the way are the constituents of the state of matter called "plasma"), and it is these ingredients which are then mixed in various ways to make up the atomic elements. The simplest form is atomic hydrogen made of one electron and one proton interacting as a whole "atom.". This is matter. All other forms of matter are but different arrangements of these elementary parts. Plasma is matter too. A star is a ball of plasma, electrons and protons.


quote:
There is no 5th dimension and there is no santa clause.


Tommy said
"Harry, the Fifth dimension is not a speculation (theory) someone had, it is something that has been found through experimentation. Casimir found this anomalous energy when he placed two polished plates together, They stuck together. This is now well known and is called the Casimir Effect. But even more famous is Bell's Theorem and the subsequently experiments by Alan Aspect. In short, the two photons remain stuck together even when we separate them. Furthermore they act as if stuck togehter instantaneously. This is where "non-locality" comes from. Non-locality is accepted by physicists as fact. But not so well known is synchronicity, which is something that has to happen to you. And then there is the Phantom DNA. Gariaev of the Russian Acedemy of Science was able to measure and record the magnetic fields of a DNA molecule. They used laser light and mirror effects. As astounding as that may seem, what is extraordinary is that when they remove the DNA from the chamvber and recalibrate it, they found that the magnetic fields remained in place. And then there is the matter of electron and magnetic moments and does the electron get its energy from? And how does the mag wave excite the elect wave which excites the mag wave which excites and so on forever? Maxwell called it the Fourth dimension after Riemann's conception of it.

Like you said, there is no Santa Clause."
================================================================
Prove to me the 5th dimension not the music group.
================================================================

quote:
The pure energy that you are speaking of is high density plasma
which forms part of the recycling process.

Tommy said

"Not in my mind. What you are talking about is matter. Plasma is a form of matter. Squish it together and it still is matter. What I am talking about is that this matter is actually an atomic process, and thus by definition is an open system. Matter is not a speck of some sort of inert stuff, it is interacting movement of potentials. Matter is energy doing something. For matter to exist as it does as a closed system in classical theory is essentially acting as a perpetual motion machine. The classical view of matter is impossible. What I am saying is that matter is being supplied by an energy through the INSIDE of space, and if we think in terms of dimensions, it would be regarded as the Fifth dimension. "
Inside of space, is hoo haa.
The model of the universe that does not need hoo haa and more hoo haa is the Recyclic Model. Its down to earth and expalins all that we find as being part of the recycling process.
Tommy said
"However, as has been pointed out, visualizing the Fifth dimension is impossible, and while many many names have been given to this impossible to see concept, I have come to see it as the INSIDE of empty space. Nick Herbert puts it this way -- "Beneath phenomena, the world is a seamless whole."
What you see in emty space is hoo haa
Tommy said
"As far a recycling, again, you are talking about the integrative system one aspect of which is recursive feedback which can be called recyclic. Don't forget that this process forms new wholes and has emergent properties which cannot be gleaned from the cyclic parts and that the mode of inquiry is of the interconnections. Especially don't forget that because it is the relationships that are primary, ALL the members of the cast have a part in the play."
Please explain what you mean.

Tommy said

"The thing about crop circles and the plasma balls of light, is that they are intelligent. And the UFO's which have been sighted over the years always seems to be described as balls of light. Plasma balls of light."
This is Hoo Haa

Tommy said
"So it may very well be that these inexplicable balls of light most probably balls of plasma current flows (Plasma current is both magnetic and electrostatic) are but micro stars. Miniature versions of what a plasma ball looks like. Expand it to something the size of our Sun, and that is what a cosmic ball of plasma looks like."
What are you trying to say?
Tommy said
"I am not going to fall into the trap of naming the INSIDE for the simple reason is that whatever name I choose, limits are imposed by definition. And when these limits are exposed then the whole idea is brought into question.

But I can talk about what it does. When Bell formulated his famous Bell's Theorem, it wasn't until Alan Aspect conducted the experiment that "non-locality" was observed. Aspect's experiment involved two photons, ejected from a single crystal, the spin of which could be accurately measured. They found that the photons, although separated in space, remained as if still a single entity. The technical term is phase entanglement. Experiments have shown that there is a deeper level than just matter in space. The experiment shows that the photons act as if they are interconnected by a single entity."
I'm trying to understand what you point is?


Harry

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #17106 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Harry, you can't just say "There is no fifth dimension" or "there is a black hole" without presenting your evidence to support your opinions. And what does Santa Claus have to do with anything? Is that your idea of scientific evidence?
Show me your evidence that is no fifth dimension, I am not alllowed to present mine. Show me any evidence that black holes actually exist. I am not allowed to present mine. Did you read what I wrote?

A deep inquiry into modern cosmology shows that a special viewpoint is being promoted and the opposing viewpoint is being surpressed. It is becoming clear that this forum is no different, and will eventually suffer that same fate of the black bang. You talk about "there was no big bang" and then you talk about all the assumptions of a big bang" And I have no idea where you got the idea that space doesn't not expand in the big bang theory. It indicates to me that you do not have an adequate grasp of existing knowledge.

Sometimes it looks to me like it is cloaked big bangers who are in charge of this forum, for example, outside of the excerpts I have posted, I can find only one line talking about quantized redshift. Quantized redshift is direct proof there is no expansion. It should be written up all over the place.

Maybe I am in the wrong forum

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #14613 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All observed characteristics of quasars are customarily interpreted using the standard Big Bang model and the assumption that their redshifts are primarily due to the expansion of the universe. These same characteristics can also be interpreted using alternative models in which quasar redshifts are not cosmological. In the table below, the quality of these two interpretations is compared. We see that, although both interpretations are possible, Occam's Razor cuts sharply in favor of the nearby quasar interpretation. The consequences of continuing to ignore this in journal articles, at meetings, in grant awards, in experiment and instrument design, in telescope allocation, in textbooks, and in the classroom, are to inhibit meaningful progress in the field on many fronts. This is true regardless of which hypothesis is more nearly correct, since ignoring useful, viable hypotheses or discordant data teaches unscientific behavior.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16994 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b><center>This is true regardless of which hypothesis is more nearly correct, since ignoring useful, viable hypotheses or discordant data teaches unscientific behavior.</center></b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #14616 by Patrick
Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tommy said
"What I am saying is that matter is being supplied by an energy through the INSIDE of space, and if we think in terms of dimensions, it would be regarded as the Fifth dimension. <u><b>The Fifth Dimension is INSIDE the Fourth Dimension.</b></u>"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Perhaps you should consider that "PURE ENERGY" is the "O"riginal dimension and all other dimensions come from it. Very similar to mathematics, you start with a clean slate, "0", the original dimension. Next you add your first dimention, the empty set.(AKA space) Next is {all positive numbers}=(matter), {all negative numbers}=(time) and so on.

Now when you say that the "1st" and "2nd" dimensions stemmed from the "0"riginal dimension it begins to make more sense, just like mathematics does.

I'm telling you, I have this Sh.it figured out! I am a very smart person.

Patrick[:)]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.326 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum