Big Bang Busted (Again)

[kmarinas86]

To make a competitive scientific theory, you must<br />Be Realistic (question, and demand verification for all the conditions assumed by other theories which are merely sufficent to resolve any issues about the problem you want your different theory to master)<br />Have a Procedure (your theory must be demonstrated in fine-tuned settings)<br />Make it Revisable (your theory must survive new data with relative ease)<br />Give it Integrity (one part of the theory must relate to the other part in a logical fashion)<br />Promote both Effect and Cause (describe and explain all verifiably observed phenomena relevant to the problem)<br />Make it Progressive (you should try to make it better than other theories on the categories listed above)<br />Make it Tentative (admit that it is <font color="yellow">re<b>visionary</b></font>

 

[jatslo]

bonzelite said "<font color="black">...variable light speed does not prove the big bang..."</font><br /><br />Your right! It does not, or at least not when Chaos is in charge, it does not. The Big Bang Theory should take some significant hits in the next few years as the astronomers start to realize that there are masses -(m)'s floating around at velocities -(v)'s that are greater than the speed of light -(c).<br />

 

[bonzelite]

To make a competitive scientific theory, you must <br />Be Realistic ---<br />---nope. big bang is highly unrealistic. it is unfathomable and negligent as a viable yardstick of all measurement and assumption of fact. do not say it is only a theory, because the scientific community assumes in all of it's tactics and planning and funding that it is fact. black holes are assumed to actually exist. dark matter is assumed to be truly there, as probes and satellites are designed, with millions of dollars of funding, to "detect" these things that are so matter of factly written about in journals and books and spread as fact. that very mode of behavior is unrealistic. <br /><br />Have a Procedure (your theory must be demonstrated in fine-tuned settings)<br /><br />--nope. just make it up. the universe must have been borne out of a singularity, like is proposed to exist in a black hole. a singularity in this context is similar to proposing there is extraterrestrial life. in favor of the former is that there is quantum mechanics and mathematics to construct entire theories on. whereas e.t. is nearly purely fantasy in a scientific context. you cannot really math your way to finding e.t. <br /><br />Make it Revisable (your theory must survive new data with relative ease)<br /><br />-----nope. the big bang theory is for all puposes unrevisable. new data that refutes it is not allowed equal weight or serious consideration. it is all dismissed. just like how a religious fanatic will dismiss any other view nearly instantly. modern science is exactly the same. <br /> <br />Give it Integrity (one part of the theory must relate to the other part in a logical fashion) <br />---ok. well, it has artistic and creative integrity. and is a cool thing to try and visualize. this primordial event of all creation. it is an awesome idea to explore. and now it is time to explore other ideas and dismount big bang from the pedastal. <br /><br />Promote both Effect and Cause (describe and explain all verifiably ob

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> Or are you arguing then that the Doppler effect doesn't even exist, and so every red-shift seen deriving from anywhere is utterly false information? </font><br /><br />I'm arguing that redshift is not always caused by recession. It may in some cases be gravitational in nature.<br /><br />Specifically, in the instance of quasars, their measured vast distance (as determined by their redshifts) may be incorrect, because their large redshifts are due to gravitational forces.<br /><br />If this is the case (that quasars are not actually billions of light years distant), then all calculations regarding their sizes and luminosities are errant.<br /><br />If redshift cannot reliably be considered a velocity indicator, then the "big bang's" fundamental premise is immediately called into question.

 

[dmjspace]

5stone10 said: <font color="yellow"> Arp does not declare that the Big Bang never occurred or that Hubble's Law is wrong. </font><br /><br />Where do you come up with this stuff? That's <b> exactly </b> what Arp is saying. It's on the first page of the web site I linked to:<br /><br /><i> ....the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined. </i><br /><br />This statement is in the second paragraph. Perhaps you felt you needed only one paragraph in order to make an accurate judgement of Arp's work? If so, I suggest you actually read his book "Seeing Red" and come back later to discuss it.

 

[kmarinas86]

To explain the redshift at the edge of the universe, which gets exponentially greater for even relatively small changes of distance, as being a gravitational redshift, you must propose black holes with a schwarzschild radius ranging anywhere from half a billion to 10 billion light years at the edge of our observable universe. That is the only feasible way of explaining the redshift in universe without defying general relativity or dealing with a big bang. And no ekpyrotic nonsense either. No 11 dimensions nor any parallel universes. No "before the big bang". Such a proposal can prove to be feasible with just simple algebraic equations borrowed from relativity. The speed limit is assumed to apply only for light and matter as we know it. Tachyons and other such particles may exist without contradicting the successes of relativity. The nature of negatively curved space may be the source of Hubble's correlation. Combined with the gravitational redshift of super large quasars the weight of trillions of galaxies at the edge of the observed universe, and you have a new theory to explain what we see.

 

[bonzelite]

"I'm arguing that redshift is not always caused by recession. It may in some cases be gravitational in nature. <br /><br />Specifically, in the instance of quasars, their measured vast distance (as determined by their redshifts) may be incorrect, because their large redshifts are due to gravitational forces. <br /><br />If this is the case (that quasars are not actually billions of light years distant), then all calculations regarding their sizes and luminosities are errant. "<br /><br />dmjspace, thank you. as well, redshift may also be age-related, ie, arp observed quantized redshift values in objects literally next to each other, each with entirely different, vastly different, redshifts. mind you, the actual age is not determined, but relative age between objects can be. <br /><br />if redshift/gravity must predicate "black holes with a schwartzchild radii of .....billions and billions..." then that, to me, only makes another strong case against black holes existing.

 

[kmarinas86]

All rules are of thumb are philisophical assumptions.<br />Theories are rules of thumb. They are philosophical assumptions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Some basic philosophical assumptions are necessary, because conclusions can't be<br />made until you have something to make them with...<br /><br />However, this was not always an advantage, because philosophical assumptions are<br />always debatable from an empirical point of view (Kuhn, 1962)...<br /><br />These concealed and unexamined, 'off-the-peg' special philosophical assumptions are, by definition, dogmas, usually expressed in the view that philosophy is a purely academic subject with little or no relevance to the much more practical concerns of the physics community...<br /><br />Significant philosophical assumptions are implicit in the criteria for the validity<br />of patents ­ and these are in want of philosophical analysis...<br /><br />For clearly some antecedent philosophical assumptions are more defensible than<br />others, and some are entirely indefensible...<br /><br />Many fields also struggle with this issue of engaging philosophical questions,<br />and within some disciplines philosophical assumptions are less explicit...<br /><br />Abstract [en] : This dissertation investigates the extent to which<br />philosophical assumptions are inherited when we learn language...<br /><br />These values and philosophical assumptions are then translated into the various<br />aspects of the educational process such as specified educational outcomes...<br /><br />All sorts of philosophical assumptions are adopted by sociologists, together with<br />equally diverse theories about things intermediate between metaphysical ...</font><br /><br />A theory is a philisophical assumption, a rule of thumb. Is any statement we say any more believable than a theory or a rule of thumb?<br /><br />Facts of language are.<br /><br />The only "facts" are "facts" of language. Such as 1+1=2. A yellow car is yellow.<br /><br />These circular def

 

[dmjspace]

bonzelite said: <font color="yellow"> dmjspace, thank you. as well, redshift may also be age-related, ie, arp observed quantized redshift values in objects literally next to each other, each with entirely different, vastly different, redshifts. mind you, the actual age is not determined, but relative age between objects can be. </font><br /><br />Indeed. If there was a way to objectively measure distance for such bodies, we would not be having this conversation. The problem is that we think we have that objective measure: redshift. Arp shows this is an assumption we should not have made, or at least not clung to for so long.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> if redshift/gravity must predicate "black holes with a schwartzchild radii of .....billions and billions..." then that, to me, only makes another strong case against black holes existing. </font><br /><br />I like the way you think. Singularities are a logical impossibility. So, too, is the idea that space and time arose out of nothing. If redshift doesn't always indicate recession, we aren't stuck with having to believe "eight impossible things before breakfast."

 

[bonzelite]

dmjspace wrote: <br /><br />"indeed. If there was a way to objectively measure distance for such bodies, we would not be having this conversation. The problem is that we think we have that objective measure: redshift. Arp shows this is an assumption we should not have made, or at least not clung to for so long."<br /><br />bonzelite replies: <br /><br />yes. again, dmjspace, thank you for corroborating this premise. there is indeed a doppler presence in the redshift value. but this is only ONE component of it, and not even the major one. yet everyone is in this lockstep sleep-walk about this. and they go on ahead and allow EVERY major science journal and periodical to ASSUME that is it ABSOLUTELY true that we are looking at a "highly redshifted 300 billion light year distant radio emission galaxy, with a central black hole of 400 million solar masses." and we have to just accept that? with so much contemporary evidence that it is not only untrue, but absolutely ridiculous? <br /><br />"eight impossible things before breakfast." --INDEED. <br /> <br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">I like the way you [bonzelite] think. Singularities are a logical impossibility.</font><br /><br />I will say this, I don't believe in singularities. But I do believe in black holes without singularities, in the same way I believe in white dwarfs and neutron stars.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">So, too, is the idea that space and time arose out of nothing.</font><br /><br />Agreed!

 

[kmarinas86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact<br /><font color="yellow">A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts.</font><br /><br />That sounds like a theory. Theories can be summarized as a statement of an event or condition which can be proved or disproved. If it can be disproved by some higher intelligence, it follows that it is tentative. But according to authoritarian uses of the term, facts are not supposed to be tentative. It is theories which are supposed to be tentative.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Facts (plural observation) do not prove a model is correct. One (singular) observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.</font><br /><br />That is because theory implies the facts, not the other way around. The fact, the honest observation, which does not distort what/when/where things happen, is a necessary condition, and it needs to be implied by something (the question why?). The theories are sufficient conditions (different answers for "why?"), but one need not be true.<br /><br />The more meanings a word has, the more subjective it is. Words such as "the", "that", "of", "garbage can", and "airplane" are objective while words such as "Big Bang", "God", "Love", and "Hot" are subjective. Words such as "fact" and "theory" are also subjective, because they have mutiple meanings. When an objective word is being used in slang, it becomes subjective. Phrases such as "Yo garbage can, what's up?" and "Let's do the airplane" will distort the meaning of the words, and if it gains any acceptance (without displacing entirely the original meaning), the objectivity of the word is lost, and it becomes subjective. Words such as "the", "of", and "at" will always be objective as long as pop culture does not distort their name by institutin

 

[yevaud]

<i>Singularities are a logical impossibility.</i><br /><br />But of course. In point of fact, the term "Singularity" (a generally misunderstood word) means (in Physics), "Where our understanding of physics breaks down." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

kmarinas86: "I will say this, I don't believe in singularities. But I do believe in black holes without singularities, in the same way I believe in white dwarfs and neutron stars."<br /><br />then expound on this. give me your model. and we can discuss it. <br />

 

[yevaud]

I think K has mistaken the terms Black Hole and Singularity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Singularity... A point of infinite density? Either that, or the TV was lying.<br /><br />Both black holes and the big bang have singularities, so I'm told.

 

[jatslo]

...Doubtful that infinite density is required. I think I know how to bend light now, so thank you for getting me to thinking about it, kmarinas86. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

kmarinas86 is fully loaded and prepared to do battle. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Yes, that's true, but not quite what I meant.<br /><br />"Black Hole" is a popularized word *for* a Singularity. They're one and the same thing. That's what I meant by you were mistaking the two terms.<br /><br />Quote civilians Unquote say "Black Hole" all of the time. Unless they're speaking to a mass audience or untrained individuals, Physicists say "Singularity."<br /><br />As far as the Big Bang possessing a singularity, that's one way of looking at the original monobloc that existed prior to the Big Bang.<br /><br />Other than that, your info. is quite interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

I had to change the image, so here's the same post again:<br /><br />_______________________________________<br /><br /><font color="yellow">then expound on this. give me your model. and we can discuss it.</font><br /><br />Here is the whole shebang shebang from my previous posts.<br /><br />_______________________________________<br /><br />Gravity slows down the speed of light, physically:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_effect<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In General relativity, the Shapiro effect, or <b>gravitational time delay</b>, is one of the four classic solar system tests of general relativity. It says that a radar beam (or light beam) which passes near a massive object as it travels from some observer's location to a target and returns to the observer, takes slightly longer to make the round trip (as measured by the observer) than it would if the object were not present.<br /><br />More generally, the "travel time" of any signal moving at the <b>local speed of light</b> can be affected by the gravitational field in regions of spacetime through which it travels. In general relativity (and in most other gravitation theories), the <b>local speed of light</b> is a constant of nature, but the time delay effect implies that the effective <b>global speed of light</b> is path-dependent.<br /><br />The time delay effect was first noticed in 1964, by Irwin I. Shapiro. Shapiro proposed an observational test of his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury, and measure the round trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 milliseconds, well within the limitations of 1960s era technology.<br /><br />The first test, using the MIT Haystack radar antenna, was successful, matching the p</font>

 

[jatslo]

Well, like I said infinite density is not required, or so I think. <br /><br />BEFORE<br /><br />1). c = 186,000 miles per second<br /><br />AFTER<br /><br />1). c _i = c > 186,000 miles per sec<br /><br />2). c _v = c greater than or equal to 186,000 miles per second<br /><br />3). c = c _v + c _i<br /><br />c is 186,000 miles per second, so a .00001 second pulse is 1.86 miles long. For example, if I blasted a .00001 second laser pulse down a four-mile long straight tube, the entire 1.86 mile beam is moving at 186,000 miles-per-second, but it takes .00001 seconds for the entire length to get absorbed by my receiver at the end of the tunnel.<br /><br />c _L = 1.86-miles in length<br /><br />For example, c _L = c _v + c _i, so if c _v = 186,000 miles per second, and c _i = 0 miles per second then the total length of visible light is 1.86-miles. On the flip side, if c _v = 186,000 miles per second, and c _i = infinite miles per second then we have a total length that is invisible, which may or may not be detectable, because of length contraction. Now it would take infinite energy to make the total 1.86-mile beam to disappear. Or would it?

 

[kmarinas86]

Let me break this "thing" down.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Well, like I said infinite density is not required, or so I think. <br /><br />BEFORE <br /><br />1). c = 186,000 miles per second</font><br /><br />Correct.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">AFTER <br /><br />1). c _i = c > 186,000 miles per sec</font><br /><br />Under what conditions?<br />What does the letter i stand for?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">2). c _v = c greater than or equal to 186,000 miles per second <br /><br />3). c = c _v + c _i</font><br /><br />Why addition?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">c is 186,000 miles per second, so a .00001 second pulse is 1.86 miles long. For example, if I blasted a .00001 second laser pulse down a four-mile long straight tube, the entire 1.86 mile beam is moving at 186,000 miles-per-second, but it takes .00001 seconds for the entire length to get absorbed by my receiver at the end of the tunnel.</font><br /><br />Correct. I wouldn't call light a "length", since photons are not lines.<br /><br />What is the significance of the "four-miles" used here?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">c _L = 1.86-miles in length <br /><br />For example, c _L = c _v + c _i, so if c _v = 186,000 miles per second, and c _i = 0 miles per second then the total length of visible light is 1.86-miles.</font><br /><br />Correct.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">On the flip side, if c _v = 186,000 miles per second, and c _i = infinite miles per second</font><br /><br /> />> ???<br /><br /><font color="yellow">then we have a total length that is invisible</font><br /><br />invisible />> ???<br /><br /><font color="yellow">which may or may not be detectable, because of length contraction.</font><br /><br />Photons do not exceed the speed of light, but tachyons might (verification "pending").<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Now it would</font>

 

[kmarinas86]

Mutiverse Theory<br />No Big Bang<br />Infinity in Space.<br />Infinity in Time.<br />We are Finity, attracted by affinity, and Infinity smaller and larger than the infinitely large and small.<br />Matter and Energy always existed.<br />The speed of time was never zero.<br />The speed of time is always fluxing, but never backwards.<br />The forms may have a finite shelf life, but the essence lives on.<br /><br />http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=kmarinas86&tab=weblogs&uid=220940900

 

[jatslo]

oh, i is invisible, v is visible, l is length, c is light<br /><br />I made a lot of typos. I am distracted at the moment.

 

[jatslo]

I got a better idea, why don't you try to understand WTF I'm talking about before you start attacking my abilities in math, because I do have skills in math.