Wxman

Gee. Wonder what side of the discussion your on.

Been in the weather field for over 40 years. A few observations: 1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW. The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example. 2. Prof Mann's (Penn State) Hockey stick is a perfect example of model "blow-up". Current 10-Day forecast models (U.S. GFS, the European and Canadian) will sometimes blow-up by day 5 or 6. The sub grid point energy is aliaised resulting in feedback problems within the model....i.e. it "blows up" showing unrealistic outcomes like Hurricance strength low pressure systems in the center of the U.S. The hockey stick is a classic feedback blow-up, especially since the model is run out to 2050, and should be ignored. 3. The fact we've had little or no warming over the last 15 years, near record sea ice in the Artic this year, near record low sloar max and many other non-AGW outcomes further undermines the "augument is over" hurbris. The definition keeps changing Man-Made GW, AGW, Climate change. What are they going to call it if we enter a global cooling period (Global cooling is a result of Global warming). 4. Make no mistake, this is a politcal/social agenda looking for scientific support. First clue is the astute climate expert Uncle Al receiving a Nobel prize; second clue is involvement by the U.N. Hollywood, and the far left. All scientists who support GW; if you recieve grant money to prove GW, please sit down. If your a scientist who support GW due to political/social reasons, please sit down. If any are left, please prove with REAL science. 5. It would be an absolute travisty to divert/redistribute Trillions of dollars before rational, non-political, real science-based discussion takes place.

Thanks for your comments. OK, it's not a theory. However, the elephant(s) in the room is not only where did the singularity come from, but how did that signularity mass result in hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundereds of billion of stars and planets. The "model" may still be valid, but the beginning may be different. I'm offering a "speculation" to finally address these glowing shortfalls of the Big Bang theory.

Klayons. Thanks for the comments. There are no supporting graphs or math. Just a theory...just as the big bang is just a theroy. Again, if you can't explain the what and where of the "Big Bang" then the beginning is still up for discussion.

The Big Bang theory has always seemed to be a scapegoat theory. There’s no other explanation for the birth of the Universe and, by default, is the best available given observational data. But to me it just doesn’t pass the common sense test….all that we can see resulted from the explosion of something very, very small. Hubble has now seen Galaxies that are billions of light years from earth. All told, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies which contain hundreds of millions of stars and untold number of planets, moons and asteroids. And all of this came from a minuscule explosion? If not a Big Bang, then how did the Universe form? Well, here’s my shot in the dark (sic). My theory is the theory of nothing (TON). No matter how small the “thing” the Big Bang starts with, you have to explain where “that thing” came from. If you can’t the only other alternative is to start with nothing. Obviously to state the Universe started as an infinite void is about as preposterous as stating it started with the Big Bang. The question of how it came to be will remain more a philosophical question rather than a statement of fact until there is irrefutable evidence that proves the true beginning. I’ll start by noting the drawbacks to the Big Bang. Can’t explain where the “thing” which exploded came from. Theory states the Universe is still expanding based on light measurement from furthest stars/galaxies, using the Red Shift. Hubble’s latest observation saw a galaxy so far away, the Red Shift estimates the Galaxy (hundreds of millions of stars) is moving away from us at a speed of nearly 84% of the speed of light! The idea of the Big Bang and the expanding universe (galaxies moving outward) will look preposterous once we note a galaxy so far away it will “supposedly be moving near the speed of light. The alternative is the galaxy developed at/near where it is today…giving the same red shift distance measurement. My TON supports this possibility. The Big Bang and current Cosmology/Quantum Physics which tries to work within the Big Bang concept still cannot explain the bulk of the energy and matter in the Universe, calling it dark energy and dark matter. There are other theories as well…sting theory etc., but none explain the beginning. So, here’s my theory from left field…the theory of nothing (TON). My idea is you start with nothing…an infinite void, not even a quark to be found. The equation would be 0 (zero). At some time T, at some point x, at an unbelievable small scale of say 10 to the -43 nm, a discontinuity develops producing a negative and a positive next to nothing. The equation is now 0 = 0. (side note: the equal sign is probably the single most important concept in all of science; essentially defining a continuous movement toward balance). I would call this “Null Physics”; the next/last step below quantum physics. The discontinuity may appear and disappear thousands of times per second, but at some point there is something (quark or smaller) that is maintained. Moreover, I would suggest this interaction is between a negative and positive aspect of nothing and once there is “something” it would be defined as the interaction of matter and antimatter. As the “interface” continues, there are accelerating integrations of the matter and energy waves. Just as there is a dual nature of light…both as matter (photons) and wave energy. For example, integrating Cos X and Cos X results in Cos X…and ½ Cos X. Another words, you always have what you started with (Cos X) but the product also gives you a result that is ½ the wave height of the original. If you reduce the height/length of the wave you concentrate the energy into a smaller space. Given a small enough resultant wave, the energy under the curve would appear as a mass (photon). As the integrations across the negative/positive interface continue, larger and larger structures (quarks, atoms, molecules) result. After a period of time (billion, trillions years ???), there is sufficient mass and energy surrounding the initial point that the matter begins to coalesce into stars, planets, moons etc. The starting point would be what we call the center of a galaxy, and the center is what we today call a black hole (where the matter/antimatter interface began). I would also submit, each Galaxy started this way at various time and places within the initial avoid. The Universe could be hundreds of trillions years old…not the currently agreed upon 14.7 billion years old (hundreds of billions of galaxies and only that old…really.). The smaller, currently un-detectable integration results, provide the dark energy and dark mass (via dual nature).