Big Bang Busted (Again)

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

Get to work you slackers. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

gammarayburst · Nov 17, 2005

Here is a good question. If light is effected by magnetic fields then why are we using light as a means of measurement? Light going past a magnetic field bends no mater how strong. We could one day find out that our Universe is smaller than we think and with less stars too. We could be seeing the same star in a million places at once. I don't know, if I am wrong, and light goes around the magnetic field and returns on it's same path then someone should look into using magnetic fields as a means of cloaking. Otherwise, the idea of using light to measure long distances is wrong. This was actually told to me by a physics professor about 8 years ago. He told me the red shift theory fell flat on its face but for some reason it is still used, go figure.

gammarayburst · Nov 17, 2005

Quote from jatslo: "Well, I can break the big bang theory easy. Stevehw33, thinks the big bang is a current event, because of time dilation; however, he will not concede to the possibility that matter can exceed the speed of light in an instant, so either way look at it: stevehw33 does not have a case PERIOD Your reference to "suicide bombers" was extreme, so be mindful that it is." Matter can exceed the speed of light. But only if it has it's own magnetic field, otherwise it would slow down quickly as noted with particle accelerator experiments. I never read anywhere that matter could travel in an instant. But the magnetic interaction between two alike particles has been found to be an instant. Read about the EPR experiment.

siriusmre · Nov 17, 2005

I agree. I have also come to believe that redshift as distance is a load of bunk. Even Hubble himself doubted that redshift was a function of distance. As for light being used to measure distances, perhaps it is valid in our galaxy or in our immediate galactic neighborhood, but it breaks down when we try to apply it all over the universe because light travels at different speeds in different regions of space. I would direct your attention to the Fingers of God phenomenon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Nov 17, 2005

The reason matter is burning up is, due to friction and viscosity in a impure artificial vacuum. Newton said, "Instant", and Einstein said, "186,000 miles per second". If (EM) is instant, then (G) is too; however, instant (G) requires lots of (EM), and you need dense matter to pack the (EM) gravity punch. I, of course, do not need matter for my flying saucer; I only require energy. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Oh, matter will move in an instant, but you need to either push the fabric in space-time (space-time ether), away as your moving, or remove the ether, as in a vacuum. Gravity will propagate faster naturally in very dense environments, but it does not require density. Light propagates faster in less dense environments, and forget the (S) and (W). Anode and cathode is all we need. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

gammarayburst · Nov 17, 2005

No ionic wind either! Afterall, what is gravity but a large static charge. So if it has a charge then a duplicate charge with the same polarity and strength would repel, ie: anode and cathode? Am I right?

jatslo · Nov 17, 2005

Almost right. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Gravity is real. I would imagine that it would be difficult to push two Earth masses together via their North Poles, but gravity is byproduct of electromagnetism, whereas (EM) is stronger.

jatslo · Nov 17, 2005

If you take the best of both world's, then you will nail it. Gravity is harmonic.

Saiph · Nov 17, 2005

first: Light isn't affected by magnetic fields. magnetic fields exert forces only on charged particles. Light itself isn't charged...and so it isn't affected. Second: Matter cannot exceed C in the sense of traveling through space at speeds greater than 3x10^8 m/s. However, if the space is expanding matter can be carried at relative speeds faster than C. A similar way of saying it is: I cannot run faster than 30 miles an hour. However, if I am on a moving platform (say a train) I can be carried away faster than 30 miles an hour. Now, that's an analogy, just to get across what I'm saying. take an object, and make it stationary. both you and it observe no motion through space. Now, cause space to expand. The object, fixed in space, is now carried away as the actual space between you and it extends. "motion" due to this component can exceed "C". Third: It has not been shown that magnetic interactions are instantaneous. Actually, they've been proved to move at C as the magnetic force carrier is a photon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Nov 17, 2005

(M = F/a) breaks down in both quantum and deep space; there is an ether. Think of the ether as charged dust that prevents instantaneous motion, due to viscosity. The ether is a medium conduit, in which light is limited to 186,000 miles per second, but these limitations relax as you drift further from our Sun. Essentially, you could fart in the outer-limits to make break neck speeds; however, your neck won't break.

harmonicaman · Nov 17, 2005

Mainstream scientific thought still accepts BB theory as the most likely origin of our universe. Ether theories, electric universe, and even dark energy theories (to name three) aren't very widely accepted; but things would change if we discover solid evidence supporting their conclusions. Science is all about growing and changing, as we learn more about our universe, but for me the BB theory is still very firmly entrenched as the correct way to view our origin...

bonzelite · Nov 18, 2005

i know it cannot necessarily be "disproven," but the big bang idea is almost ridiculous to me. and i don't understand the fascination with it. every atom and particle contained within an infinite density state? you got to be kidding me. if such a state existed, when exploded, it would simply be an exploded state of infinite density. so, in essence, it wouldn't really have changed it's state. i don't understand why this is so elusive an idea.

gammarayburst · Nov 18, 2005

Saiph, Oh, light is affected, if light is not affected by magnetic fields then how does a tv work? Swipe a magnet close to your computer monitor and see what happens. The magnet is not producing gravity but it is producing a magnetic field. Also, gamma ray bursts have been seen coming from the poles of black holes. Would this mean that there is less gravity at the poles than at the black stars equator? Or would it mean that the magnetic field is allowing the light and other frequencies to escape because it is 90° to the magnetic field lines? Wouldn't that prove that light is affected by magnetic fields? Second, do you believe an explosion in space could send matter speeding faster than the speed of light? And, if your planet is stationary then what would cause the space to expand sending it near light speed as seen at the edge of our Universe. Is the magnetic fields of everything pushing everything apart? Push and pull effect of matter? The expansion of this Universe is noted "by light, red shift" and the best explanation was to theorize about a Big Bang. Now that this theory is questioned as to why the Universe is expanding then what is causing it to expand? Also if matter cannot exceed 30 mph in space then tell me how fast is the Earth traveling around the Sun?

chew_on_this · Nov 18, 2005

if light is not affected by magnetic fields then how does a tv work? Swipe a magnet close to your computer monitor and see what happens. The magnet is affecting the electron beam, not light.

gammarayburst · Nov 18, 2005

Does harmonic mean sound, vibration, frequency, matter, energy or all?

gammarayburst · Nov 18, 2005

The beam is the path that the electron/light takes so it does affect light.

gammarayburst · Nov 18, 2005

Thanks, I enjoyed reading your link, Fingers of God.

yevaud · Nov 18, 2005

The "Fingers of God" are all fine and well, but there's a subtle sleight of hand in the document. Very well. So looking at recessional velocities versus distance provides an elongated shape. However, this deftly avoids noting that this will be the case in *all* directions, no matter where you look. In short, the document is making a "distinction without a difference." Meaning, so what? You can isolate something from any data set, and it may well appear anomolous. That is, until you look at in context with the whole. In this case, the argument is made that this is anomolous, yet it really isn't. Recessional velocities increase with distance. That's known. Isolating a small segment and stating it therefore violates what *is* known violates basic scientific methods. Careful with those kind of visual proofs. As John Archibald Wheeler said about Margaret Geller and John Huchra's discovery of the "great wall" and "great void" in their galactic survey, "be careful about patterns. The human eye is a great deceiver, and see's patterns in everything." Btw, SiriusMrE - hey! You're a Townie, just across the river from me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

siriusmre · Nov 18, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"...[G]amma ray bursts have been seen coming from the poles of black holes. Would this mean that there is less gravity at the poles than at the black stars equator? Or would it mean that the magnetic field is allowing the light and other frequencies to escape because it is 90° to the magnetic field lines? Wouldn't that prove that light is affected by magnetic fields?<hr /></blockquote> Yes, but I would ask, "Why are there magnetic fields out there?" And because I know that nature abhors inefficiency, I ask, "What's the EASIEST way we know of to create magnetic fields and EM emissions?" I mean, how does your dentist create x-rays? She uses electric currents, not a huge mass. Electricity is capable of producing the full EM spectrum. I am just taking issue with the blind assumption that the gamma ray bursts (or any other kind of EM emissions) are coming from a "black hole." If you mean that GRBs have been observed coming from the centers of galaxies along their spin axes, then OK; but I am not convinced that those emissions are coming from "black holes," because I think that there is something else going on there other than lots of mass. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"The expansion of this Universe is noted 'by light, red shift' and the best explanation was to theorize about a Big Bang. Now that this theory is questioned as to why the Universe is expanding then what is causing it to expand?"<hr /></blockquote> A "big bang" may have been the best explanation at one point in the development of astronomy and cosmology, but I don't think that it is anymore. Is the universe expanding? If redshift is intrinsic to the objects that we see and does not correspond to their distance or speed, then how can we say difinitively that the universe is expanding? Yevaud: Sup, homie!? I'm not sure that I see your point, though. I do not think that the author <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Nov 18, 2005

"The beam is the path that the electron/light takes so it does affect light." Sorry, but that's not correct. The beam you speak of is a beam of electrons, not photons. The photons are not produced until the electron beam strikes the phosphorescent screen. How Television Works <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

siriusmre · Nov 18, 2005

harmonicaman: "but things would change if we discover solid evidence supporting their conclusions." Did you take a close look at Deep Impact this summer? The following is pretty compelling. Deep Impact--The Smoking Guns?: "The single most dramatic prediction of the electric comet model is this: on close inspection an active comet nucleus will reveal the electrical arcs that progressively etch away the surface and accelerate material into space. From the electrical vantage point, Tempel 1 is a 'low voltage comet,' but the etching process appears to be sufficiently active to make our case." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Nov 18, 2005

Without the redshift-equals-distance distortion, a new picture of galaxy clusters and the universe itself is revealed. The age of the universe is no longer known, because we no longer have a constant expansion to backtrack to a bang. The size is also unknown. Most quasars and some galaxies that we see are closer than we thought they were, because they have been distorted by the Fingers of God. You see, the author of the treatise takes the distance versus redshifting, applies it to a slice of the universe - in this case saying that the distortion in shape *must* mean something is wrong - and then uses it to state that everything about the concept of recessional velocity is wrong. But if you can look in any direction, and see broadly the same thing - the principle of commonality, after all - then in what way is the entire concept of redshifting/distance incorrect? That's my beef. They isolated one tiny portion of the entire picture, and then use it to metaphorically leap to "aha. Hubble was *wrong*" Btw, student at one of the Diploma mills over there? Or actual local? Just curious. Aren't too many SDC'ers here from the local area. A fact of which, given all of the Colleges here surprises the hell out of me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Nov 18, 2005

A TV works by sending out a stream of electrons towards a screen covered in a phosphorecent chemical (produces light when excited). Electro-magnets in the TV then rapidly oscillate to sweep the beams across the screen, and down the screen. When the electron hits the screen, the specifically colored pixel lights up. Light is not involved in making the image on the screen. Light is produced by the electrons hitting the screen, and then the light leaves the screen and goes to your eyes. Black holes and polar jets: Gamma rays come from the poles of BH's, because that is one of the only regions matter that almost enters the black hole can escape before it's fate is sealed. It congregates at the poles due to conservation of momentum (which helps get that extra speed to pull free just outside the event horizon) and the magnetic field which funnels matter there. The gamma rays are generated at the pole. The reason they tend to go in the same direction, is due to how the light is created. Most of the particles are all going the same direction, all scattering in the same direction. Look up compton scattering. An explosion in space making things go faster than C? no. An explosion of space? Yes. What causes spacial expansion? Lots, and lots of released energy during the BB. GR has been used to describe how dumping lots of energy into spacetime causes it to shift, and can cause it to expand. Also, that 30mph figure of mine, was explicitly part of an analogy to help convey what my words meant. It wasn't taken to be litterally. Did I say matter couldn't exceed 30mph? No... I said I couldn't run faster than that, as a way of illustrating a physical speed limit you'd be more familiar with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siriusmre · Nov 18, 2005

Yevaud: "But if you can look in any direction, and see broadly the same thing - the principle of commonality, after all - then in what way is the entire concept of redshifting/distance incorrect?" Come on! How is it incorrect? So, it doesn't strike you as odd that we see these elongated shapes pointing at us from all directions? Just because we see it all over does not mean that we are interpreting it correctly. That's like saying that because my glasses are smudged and dirty or the wrong prescription and I look all around me and see the same type of visual distortion in all directions means that all is well. If we clean our metaphorical lenses or trash the outdated redshift-equals-distance "glasses" and get a new pair, we might be able to see things with a whole new clarity. To me, current orthodox astronomy is like Mr. Magoo. I'm an actual local... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Nov 18, 2005

I'm an actual local... Thank God. I was beginning to think there were maybe 30 of us left in the entire area. It's like this - how is the relationship between increasing recessional velocity versus distance somehow an indicator that the entire concept is wrong? This is the part of the document that utterly mystifies me. They're stating that because we see that elongated relationship, therefore Hubble is dead wrong. Huh? Now how did they come to *that* conclusion? What are they trying to say then? That if it was a strict linear relationship (instead of increasing with distance) therefore it would be ok? That's my problem with what's said there. They took a simple and well-known observational fact and twisted it into a full-blown "wrong wrong wrong." And I fail to see how they did so, or what logic is used to determine this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Big Bang Busted (Again)

jatslo

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

jatslo

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

gammarayburst

Guest

yevaud

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page