Michio Kaku Jumps on the Anti-Big Bang Bandwagon

Dec 27, 2022
Visit site
Michio Kaku Breaks Silence On James Webb Telescope’s Shocking New Image!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBMRGYKvuHk&t=219s

Things are going to change, no?

"There is much resentment among a section of astronomers and astrophysicists globally over science journals and websites rejecting their research questioning the Big Bang theory. The theory suggests that the universe, as we know it, was born out of a massive explosion from a microscopic, but highly dense point in a vacuum—called ‘Singularity’—about 13.8 billion years ago. From the 1960s onwards, some astronomers and astrophysicists have questioned the credibility of the Big Bang theory and the expanding universe model. Their research, based on scientific reasoning, suggests that the universe is not expanding...The opposition to anti-Big Bang theorists is through rejections of their papers. At least 24 astronomers and astrophysicists from 10 countries, including reputed astrophysicist Jayant V Narlikar of Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Prof Sisir Roy, and Prof Amitabha Ghosh of Indian National Science Academy (INSA)—protested the censorship of papers critical of the Big Bang hypothesis by the Cornell University’s open pre-print website arXiv. Such censorship only obstructs science. This is reminiscent of the Church’s opposition to the heliocentric theory and the treatment meted out to Copernicus and Galileo in the 15th and 17th centuries, respectively, for suggesting that the Earth goes around the Sun and not vice-versa." https://www.newindianexpress.com/op...ntists-censor-big-bang-naysayers-2489044.html
Nov 29, 2022
Visit site
You can’t have a bang without energy! Antihydrogen fusion converting antihelium to aether is dark matter producing dark energy or aether field in the design of the fusion or Fibonacci Spiral creating the expansion of the universe. Einstein was a shill to hide Nikola Tesla
Dec 27, 2022
Visit site
The Big Bang cosmology is doomed. The James Webb telescope's images are too drastic, the public has become too sensitive - it would be naïve to start tweaking the theory again. Dr. Becky and the other money makers will have to shift their allegiances a little bit.

But then how can the Hubble redshift be explained in a nonexpanding universe? Let us ask Hubble himself:

"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an expanding spacetime geometry...any photon gradually loses its energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe." Wilfred H. Sorrell, Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law, Astrophysics and Space Science, Sep 2009 http://paperity.org/p/19837385/misconceptions-about-the-hubble-recession-law

Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one." https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,757145,00.html

So there is not much choice. Either the euphemism, "any photon gradually loses its energy", or the plain truth, any photon gradually loses its SPEED. The idea that vacuum slows down light has been largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The analogous idea - that the cosmological (Hubble) redshift might be due to slow speed of light - is blocked by crimestop::

"...in some quantum-gravity models, the speed of photons in gamma rays would be affected by the grainy nature of spacetime..." https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/255

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Anti-Big Bang wagon

So funny.

Science is and always will be open for discussion.

How we find the answers through science methods is the issue.

To form a singularity, as in classical Black hole. is impossible.

Compact Objects have a property called:
Chiral Super-Symmetry that develops dipolar electro-magnetic vector field that eject matter from the core of the compact object. Compaction can range from 10^5 to 10^35 and not to infinity and beyond.

The Big Bang is a theory, without foundation evidence, to hold the theory up.
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe


Latest posts