pantheory

It appears to me that we are not disagreeing. When using a preferred reference frame to measure motion, velocity is the motion whether linear or orbital, that is measured relative to a background field which is considered stationary. In modern physics it is called relative velocity, but in a particulate ZPF (an aether) there was generally only one preferred reference frame which accordingly was gravity centered. The definition of aether that I'm using is "a hypothetical background field of particulate/ string-like entities including their energies of relative motion," which comprise the ZPF. It may or may not be a luminiferous aether. As explained by the definition the I provided above from wiki, a preferred reference frame only needs to be a simpler to use reference frame, that's all. In the old aether models which defined preferred reference frames, such a choice of frames was solely based upon the idea that a particular frame of reference could be considered stationary because its constituents could be considered to have no average relative linear motion, hence motion calculations could be considered preferred such as velocity relative to the Earth, for instance, or the velocity of the Earth relative to the sun. Both the Earth and the Sun accordingly would be considered preferred reference frames for calculation purposes. Later in the 1870's, the idea that an aether might have a different relative motion to the Earth, redefined such preferred reference frames as being solely gravity centered. Today because of the perspectives of Special Relativity since no aether-like background field has yet been discovered (such as dark matter), the phrase "preferred reference frame" is no longer used. But the future is just around the corner

I believe that if a background particulate field exists, that the standard model will need to be revised. "In theoretical physics, a preferred reference frame or privileged frame, is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames." (bold added) quote from link below. http://en.wikipedia....Preferred_frame Such a frame would be simpler because no transformations would need to be applied. Everything within a defined field such as velocity, would simply be compared to the dominant background gravitational field as a preferred reference frame which would be considered stationary. Any preferred frame would not be absolute since it may have relative motions concerning its particulate ZPF constituents. It would simply be a reference volume concerning relative measurement of motion of matter or radiation such as velocity or rotation within its domain. //

The idea of a preferred-reference-frames seems to again be surfacing. The strong hypothesis of dark matter, along with other hypotheses such as gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, field strings, and many more, all assert a background field, a particulate ZPF. If any of these hypothesis and there related physical particles are valid then the background field (the ZPF) would be fraught with such particulates. Such a field used to be called an aether (whether luminiferous or not) and it surly provided a preferred reference frame to measure relative motion of matter or anything else within the field. If any of these particulate hypothesis are valid then physics might again assert a preferred reference frame as well as to revisit the merits of Special Relativity as apposed to Lorenz Transforms. They would also probably reconsider the merits and structure of Quantum Theory which as one of its foundation pillars also asserts no preferred reference frames. //

Of course as all realize the devil is in the details. But as far as the logic of it goes, in my opinion, it is totally plausible. I like his general approach which has similarity to my own model His website generally gives no details that I could find. It seems that the purpose of it is to sell the book. In my opinion, it's irrelevant how good a theory is, even if it is 100% correct, and it's not how well it is explained, it's how it stacks up against present interpretations of observations. If there are no recognized interpretations of observations to support it, it might take centuries for a "correct theory" to get recognized. Once dark matter of some kind, or some other particulate(s) is recognized as being part of the Zero Point Field, then aether theory seemingly might again become more than just hypothetical like Dr. Brown's model appears to be. Lisi's model had lots of cool math and as far as I know, had no new foundation particles of reality. It's just the kind of mathematical model theorists like to play with.

It is explained by the many pushing gravity models, as indicated by the link that I provided above. http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation If you read this wiki article you will understand the general mechanics. The Moon has less mass than the Earth, about 1/6th as much. The force of the inflowing field is proportional to the mass of the object, just like all other models of gravity. Each pushing gravity model proposes somewhat different mechanics. The mechanics of my own model can be seen here , starting at page 57a. For my model aether flows through matter and only a portion of it is stopped carrying the vector of its motion inward, compressing matter. The larger the matter the greater the compression. The inverse square law is based upon the surface area of all the matter involved which has as its basis 4 pi r2 . This is why gravity has its limit in the formula based upon 1/r2, called the inverse square law of gravity. The aether particulates are accordingly very small, roughly on the Planck scale, 10-35 m. You might equate them with dark matter except they are much smaller and accordingly are mass-less like photons at rest, and their mechanics are strictly a physical pushing. A better description might be a physical aether with vortex motions and fluid dynamics.

G Anthony Milgrom's model is much closer to the rotatation curve of the Milky Way than the dark matter profile provides. I think this is an indication that he is onto something. As I said in my posting above #2, that Milgrom's equations cannot solve the problem however, not Newton's or GR. One particular problem with Milgom's model is that there is no theoretical justification for it. Based upon my own analysis I think there are a number of unidentified variables involved with spiral galaxy rotation, not something that just dark matter can explain. I think the trick will be to come up with a rationale for a new formulation for gravity, and that the formulation used for spiral galaxies will include three or more presently unknown variables which when plugged in (unrelated to the present variables of mass, etc.), the formulas will work every time within a tolerance range, concerning spiral galaxies. The problem for this development other than the justification, I think will be to identify what these presently unidentified variables are. I think these variable are related to several factors one of which you mentioned such as the mass and appearance of the central black hole. Other factors presently not considered which I think are necessary, first concern the true mechanics of gravity (a mechanical explanation, such as vortex mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc.) which I think is presently needed and missing. Next might be the relative position and orientation of the galaxy in the cluster, the orientation of the adjacent galaxies, the rotation rate and relative orientations of the cluster, an estimate of the unseen physical characteristics of the galaxy, etc. The whole process is an estimation but in time I think we will be able to come closer than the present dark matter idea. If dark matter is an aether of Planck size particles, which I expect it to be, we will never be able to observe individual constituents. My hope is instead they will focus on a better understanding of gravity and that the warped space idea will be replaced by flat space and dark matter currents (an aether). I think that at galactic scales gravity will forever be an estimate with tolerances, something like the quantum world which will always involve statistical tolerances. For this new gravity model I favor a Pushing Gravity model, maybe something like my own model

Pushing Gravity is based on an omni-present aether-like atmosphere of particulates in the ZPF, something like dark matter, gravitons, or smaller Planck size particulates/ strings. The atmosphere would have its own pressure on itself and would push matter together in the field since it could not push back. In some models the aether passes through matter and only some of it is stopped, in other models it may not totally penetrate matter but will leave its inward moving vector force within the matter. This is an old gravity model with a great many versions, some new and some old. One of the most famous is Le Sage's model. http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation You can find many other models by searching "Pushing Gravity." //

Little or no similarity to the BB model at all other than both models propose a finite beginning of the universe, otherwise they are very different. Not a similar path, a completely different evolution process of galaxies and of the universe. The Inflation model of the BB relates to how fast the universe supposedly first expanded. In my own model there is no expansion, no Inflation, dark matter, or dark energy. The Inflation model is not a model concerning the creation for new matter, it is the mechanism that supposedly transported mass/ energy to the far corners of the universe according to the BB model. In the BB model there is no new creation of matter simply stellar nucleosynthesis which is the fusion processes within stars which all cosmological models adhere to. New matter is created in Hoyle's Stead State Model, the Plasma Cosmology model, and my own model. Such a model which proposed the creation of new matter was first proposed by Paul Dirac in the 1920's. I think the Bullet Cluster is a good example concerning evidence that suggests that there is something going on the we cannot see, hence they presently call it dark matter. Also in my opinion, another model of gravity is needed based upon pushing gravity and an aether. I believe mathematical formulations alone cannot solve this problem. Thanks Diamond. I expect that you will have learned from this thread since one can learn a lot by asking questions //

G Anthony, The overall dark energy data of type 1a supernova data have many error factors within them but through the numerous sources, it should be realized that there was no scam going on. Perlmutter and others were trying to show the validity of type 1a supernova as standard candles as a guide to assist astronomers and to help confirm the cosmological constant. He also considered the hypothesis that the universe might be slowing down in a Big Crunch scenario. What he finally concluded was the opposite. I have gone over all the data and done the recalculation of it using my own formulas from my own cosmological model, but quite similar to the Hubble formula, but when using my formulas dark energy goes away -- accordingly does not exist. http://www.pantheory...ical-papers.pdf Dark matter is a different question. One can find two spiral galaxies that have a similar appearance concerning the age of their stars, their forms, their diameters, their estimated mass, the estimated size of their central black holes, etc. After an extended period of telescopic study one might realize the the rotation velocity of one galaxy rotates much faster relative to the background field of galaxies, than the other. Not only that, you might also observe that the internal rotation velocity of the stars of each have a quite different profile concerning their relative internal rotation curves. Upon observing this you would realize that no gravity formulation could have ever predicted these rotation velocities for these galaxies based upon the standard criteria because their general appearance is very similar. So instead you postulate that there must be unseen matter within and surrounding the galaxy to account for these rotation rates. You also realize that matter alone will not do the trick. You not only need 20 times as much matter that you can observe for one galaxy and 5 times as much as you observe for the other, you also realize that most of this matter must lie outside the observable galaxy. But the worst of it is that you must also provide greater momentum to the unseen matter for your models than the momentum you can observe withing the galaxies, and each galaxy would require different amounts of momentum for this unseen matter. Now once you know the rotation velocities of these galaxies you can throw into the model the supposed missing matter and momentum and presto. Welcome to the world of dark matter and retrodiction (predicting a quantity after it is already known to begin with). It's not accordingly just a different formulation of gravity that is needed, I believe it is a different model of gravity that is needed that could allow for galactic vortex currents, and fluid dynamics for minuscule Planck-size field particles too small to behave as matter. I expect an aether-like model of pushing gravity like my own model, to eventually replace GR and the present dark matter hypotheses.

Jackson33, Except for theorists, most people usually never fathom or ever realize that no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite concerning times past, according to my explanation in the previous posting, the overall-universe could not logically or possibly have had a cause. No matter what model one chooses there could have been no original cause for its existence. My own model has a mathematical reason for its age according to the model. In the BB model the redshift interpretation is that the universe is expanding at a calculated rate. When you follow this rate back in time you get an age of 13.7 billion years old. My model has a similar type of calculation inherent in the model. Matter accordingly doubles in quantity while its relative size decreases by 1/2. Like the BB model this is also calculated from observed redshifts. From a single field particle roughly a million of which make up an electron, the whole universe was very slowly created by doubling in numbers every ~5 billion years. It then would take roughly 1.4 trillion years to produce the observable universe, which is probably minuscule compared to the size of the entire universe -- but still accordingly finite in time, quantity, and extension.

The biggest drawback that I see is that just to design a single microbe to do just one of those things you mentioned would take many decades of time to develop, test, and get approved. As to the here and now, from what I have read, the best bet for uncontrollable obesity is a gastric bypass. It has the best record for effectiveness over other surgical methods with the least trauma and side effects, with other health benefits that could also improve longevity

Thanks for the conversation , as I said before when I was a teen I briefly believed in Hoyle's steady state model. As I stated before my own model is also a type of steady state model. For all observable past times and directions, the universe would appear the same. This is totally contrary to the BB model. About the only thing that I can think of that my model has in common with the BB model is that they both have a beginning. The BB beginning was 13.7 Billion years ago, and the beginning for my model was about 1.4 trillion years ago minimum. I've done the calculations. Diamond, Today there is just one accepted model, the Big Bang, which has many versions. Less than 1% of the theorists consider any other model. Many different theorists work on different versions and facets of the same model. The BB model is all that is taught is schools today with only a brief mention to other cosmologies. All other generally known cosmologies are believed to have been disproved like in the video, and are therefore generally ignored. Those theories that are not known are never considered. Few if any are looking to find new models to solve problems. But there are hundreds of different mainstream versions of the BB model. This is cosmology today. Here's an interesting link that if this information would have been available at the time the video was produced, this information would have been in the video. It concerns the fact that a quasar's light is not time dilated. http://www.physorg.c...s190027752.html One of the primary subjects of the video you presented were quasars. The idea was that at least some quasars may not be at the distances that there redshift would indicate if their redshift was due solely to the expansion of the universe. Events at a distance are time dilated. This means that a supernova type 1a explosion event will last twice as long as one relatively closeby which has half the redshifted value. The BB idea is that over the course of time the supernova light is been stretched to twice as long, in this example, so that the explosion will appear to last twice as long as it did in its own time. Quasars also have events that are consistent one to the other. They maintain a pattern of brightness and less bright over one cycle and then repeat the same pattern consistently over and over again. In the standard BB model this consistence is totally baffling since it violated the principle of time dilation. In my own model, a quasars light profile is based upon its size and spin rate. Along with being a steady state model, my model is also a Scaling Theory, another type of cosmological model. It asserts that the size of matter decreases over time for a specified reason, and this diminution causes a change of scales concerning measurement over time and at distances. For a quasar its spin radius seems greater at a distance, but time at a distance appears to pass more slowly, therefore the velocity of rotation would appear the same with no change in the period of rotation as we would measure it in our own time frame. If space was expanding as in the BB model, this light stretching of light should be the reason for the observed redshifts which should lengthen the period of rotation of a quasar, but it doesn't. This is a direct contradiction to the standard model and all other models that propose an expanding universe.

(deleted, double posting)

Gravity as a repulsive force? The closest thing that I can think of is a long history of pushing gravity models. In these models a aether like substance, maybe a kind of dark matter, flows into all matter generally to its core (or through it), and then is radiated away or otherwise cycled outward in a continuous cycle. Using a search engine to find "pushing gravity" models you get numerous present and past proposed models over the centuries. The closest thing to being a repulsive force involves a uniform field pressure which pushes the field apart and things within it together, like matter that does not push back

Bacteria are probably the best bet, but parasites such as viruses and fungi might also do the trick But why stop with obesity, why not better gut microbes to help predigest food for skinny people and different ones to interfere with the process for fat people -- or plaque eaters to clear arteries, anti-viral living agents of some kind to fight viral infections, bacteria that produce insulin or other natural enzymes, hormones, etc., or microbe cocktails along with drugs for some of the above maladies, to thwart the ravages of genetic and/or age related diseases, etc. One strategy might be to start with ones own cells in a bacteria amalgam which would accordingly provide the "self" marker to avoid the normal immune response. Another might be a generic type of "marker-less" exterior that would not be as quickly identified by an immune system. I think your idea is sound and someday in the not too distant future, living engineered organisms will begin to assist in our health and longevity, no doubt

According to this model the explanation of how the universe began is primarily based upon logic. In this way my explanation has a number of similarities with the original Big Bang explanation. The logic is as follows: For such a discussion we must be using the same definitions of the words being used. For such an understanding of the beginning, all of these words must have the general definitions that I will now give. It means that for your understanding of the beginning you must understand the same definition of these words that are being used in this explanation and none other: The first word defined for this understanding is "universe." The universe includes everything that exists. In this definition we are talking about an overall-universe. If there are many universe-like entities somehow in our same, or in some other spacial dimensions, then they collectively would by definition be part of the same overall-universe. If there was a spiritual world or god(s) of some kind, it/ they would still be part of the overall-universe. If there are other dimensions than the 3 physical dimensions and one of time, that we know of, then they too as well as anything they might encompass, would also be part of the overall-universe. If there was a Zero-Point-Field, space, or time outside the physical universe of matter, they would still be part of the overall-universe. Everything that is real and not imaginary accordingly would be part of the overall-universe. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow, I will use the wording overall-universe. The next word defined is the word "infinite." The word infinite means without limit in at least one direction. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow the word "infinite" will mean infinite in all directions. For example infinite space would mean infinite space in all directions, a continuum. Infinite time would mean an unlimited amount of time in both the past and in the future. An infinite amount of matter would mean a never ending quantity of matter in all directions. The next word defined is "finite." Finite means a limited quantity. Finite-space in this explanation would be a limited quantity of space in all directions. Finite-time would mean a limited quantity of past time; also a limited number of consecutive cause-and-effect sequences. A finite ZPF would mean a singular finite contiguous volume of the Zero Point Field. Time is defined as an interval of change between two time frames. A time frame is a picture of things during an instant in time. No motion is involved. Space is defined as the distance between matter and extending no farther than the Zero Point Field. There is one assumed axiom involved: Something cannot come from nothing. These are the definitions needed to explain the beginning. This beginning that will be explained is similar to the explanation of the beginning according to the standard (original) version of the Big Bang model since both my model and the standard version of the BB model propose a beginning for time and space. We must start our explanation with "something," since according to the above axiom "nothing" could not be the beginning or start of anything. So accordingly if there was a beginning of time there must have been something to start with which we could call substance -- as in my model, or in the BB model it is called an entity, as in the BB beginning entity or singularity. This something must not have changed from being anything else since if it had done so it would violate two of our definitions. It would violate our definition of the word time, since this would assert a change before the first change which would be an extension of time. It would also violate the meaning of the word "finite." Finite" in this case means a finite amount of past time. If there was anything before that then it must be included in our meaning of the word "universe" and it also would be part of the beginning. If there was something before, which there could have been in such a scenario, then what was the cause of that? This questions would lead in an infinite cycle which would result in an infinite times past without a beginning. But if there was no cause for a particular sequential past entity or causal condition, then the universe would be finite in time. It should be realized that no matter whether the overall-universe is infinite or finite concerning times past, it could not have had a cause for it for obvious reasons explained by the related definitions. For instance in Biblical creation the universe had a beginning time but the god who accordingly created it is infinite, so god must be within our definition of the overall-universe, so this would be an infinite universe model. So we are back to our beginning entity that could not accordingly have had a cause, and consider that time thereafter would progress. For time to progress there is the old question concerning "a prime mover." For time to progress, our definition of time, changes of some kind must take place. Since nothing accordingly can exist outside our beginning entity, there would be nothing outside to motivate it, to cause a change of some kind in its form, since motion concerning its whole, could have no meaning (relative to what could it be moving, spinning, etc.). So we must conclude that any changes must be motivated by an internal force of some kind which could be mechanical, or energy of some kind. Accordingly from this beginning point in time the whole universe was created including the ZPF, time, and space. In the BB model all were created by the bang itself or similar explanation. In my model the Zero Point Field was slowly created from this beginning, developing into spring-like stands of particles, evolving over trillions of years eventually creating what we call field pressure which accordingly created black holes, and these black holes accordingly created matter from the surrounding spring-like field material, by the torquing forces surrounding black holes. In the BB model there are other versions that propose that there was a "before," concerning the Big Bang. These models propose an infinite universe concerning times past.

Diamond, There is no conclusive evidence the universe is expanding. The primary evidence according to the BB model and many other models is the observed galactic redshifts. There is also much evidence to support the assertion that there is a direct correlation between a galaxy's brightness and its redshift. This would mean that we accordingly can calculate galactic distances based upon their observed redshifts. As to determining the expansion of the universe, an assumption must first be made. This assumption is that the redshifts of galaxies are caused by their relative recession velocities away from us and each other. If this assumption is wrong then the observable universe is not necessarily expanding. All of the cosmological models mentioned in the video, along with the Big Bang model, make this same assumption that redshifts indicate a recession velocity and related to the Doppler effect. For my own cosmological model I make a different assumption and otherwise explain galactic redshifts having a different cause, so in my model the observable universe is not expanding. In the BB model the expansion of the universe is generally associated with the expansion of space. Reasons for this expansion of space seem to be hypothetical since there is no consensus of opinion concerning why space accordingly should expand. In most Steady State models the expansion of the universe is due to the continuous creation of new matter which accordingly would expand the space that encompasses this new-creation process. In the Plasma Cosmology model the universe's expansion is proposed to be created by a continuous matter creation mechanism at the centers of galaxies which result in the creation of both matter and anti-matter which upon their interaction and anti-matter's annihilation, would accordingly cause the expansion of galaxies and ultimately the expansion of the universe. In a totally flat universe this might be true, flat meaning Euclidean geometry. But according to the BB model based upon General Relativity, space "warps" (bends). This means that it does not follow Euclidean geometry which is common-sense to our senses, but instead follows another kind of geometry called Riemann Geometry. If the universe curves around on itself as many BBers propose, then the universe however large it may be, would have no edge since when traveling far enough in a straight line one eventually would move in a three dimensional circular path. In this model the universe also would have no center to it. According to the BB model the size of the universe must remain unknown because of the Inflation hypothesis which has a number of different versions. Accordingly the universe could be almost countless time larger than we can presently observe. According to the BB model, everywhere was the center of the BB since space has expanded everywhere since the proposed initial expansion. jackson33, Unfortunately such an explanation although I think simple, requires some verbiage; I will try to be as brief as possible. According to my explanation of how the universe began, is simply based upon logic. In this way my explanation has a number of similarities with the original Big Bang explanation. The logic is as follows. For such a discussion we must be using the same definitions of the words being used. For such an understanding of the beginning, all of these words must have the general definitions that I will now give. It means that for your understanding of the beginning you must understand the same definition of these words that are being used in this explanation and none other: The first word defined for this understanding is "universe." The universe includes everything that exists. In this definition we are talking about an overall-universe. If there are many universe-like entities somehow in our same, or in some other spacial dimensions, then they collectively would by definition be part of the same overall-universe. If there was a spiritual world or god(s) of some kind, it/ they would still be part of the overall-universe. If there are other dimensions than the 3 physical dimensions and one of time, that we know of, then they too as well as anything they might encompass, would also be part of the overall-universe. If there was a Zero-Point-Field, space, or time outside the physical universe of matter, they would still be part of the overall-universe. Everything that is real and not imaginary accordingly would be part of the overall-universe. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow, I will use the wording overall-universe. The next word defined is the word "infinite." The word infinite means without limit in at least one direction. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow the word "infinite" will mean infinite in all directions. For example infinite space would mean infinite space in all directions, a continuum. Infinite time would mean an unlimited amount of time in both the past and in the future. An infinite amount of matter would mean a never ending quantity of matter in all directions. The next word defined is "finite." Finite means a limited quantity. Finite-space in this explanation would be a limited quantity of space in all directions. Finite-time would mean a limited quantity of past time; also a limited number of consecutive cause-and-effect sequences. A finite ZPF would mean a singular finite contiguous volume of the Zero Point Field. Time is defined as an interval of change between two time frames. A time frame is a picture of things during an instant in time. No motion is involved. Space is defined as the distance between matter and extending no farther than the Zero Point Field. One axiom is involved: Something cannot come from nothing. These are the definitions needed to explain the beginning. This beginning that will be explained is similar to the explanation of the beginning according to the standard (original) version of the Big Bang model since both my model and the standard version of the BB model propose a beginning for time and space. We must start our explanation with "something," since according to the above axiom "nothing" could not be the beginning or start of anything. So accordingly if there was a beginning of time there must have been something to start with which we could call substance -- as in my model, or in the BB model it is called an entity, as in the BB beginning entity or singularity. This something must not have changed from being anything else since if it had done so it would violate two of our definitions. It would violate our definition of the word time, since this would assert a change before the first change which would be an extension of time. It would also violate the meaning of the word "finite." Finite" in this case means a finite amount of past time. If there was anything before that then it must be included in our meaning of the word "universe" and it also would be part of the beginning. If there was something before, which there could have been in such a scenario, then what was the cause of that? This questions would lead in an infinite cycle which would result in an infinite times past without a beginning. But if there was no cause for a particular sequential past entity or causal condition, then the universe would be finite in time. It should be realized that no matter whether the overall-universe is infinite or finite concerning times past, it could not have had a cause for it for obvious reasons explained by the related definitions. For instance in Biblical creation the universe had a beginning time but the god who accordingly created it is infinite, so god must be within our definition of the overall-universe, so this would be an infinite universe model. So we are back to our beginning entity that could not accordingly have had a cause, and consider that time thereafter would progress. For time to progress there is the old question concerning "a prime mover." For time to progress, our definition of time, changes of some kind must take place. Since nothing accordingly can exist outside our beginning entity, there would be nothing outside to motivate it, to cause a change of some kind in its form, since motion concerning its whole, could have no meaning (relative to what could it be moving, spinning, etc.). So we must conclude that any changes must be motivated by an internal force of some kind which could be mechanical, or energy of some kind. Accordingly from this beginning point in time the whole universe was created including the ZPF, time, and space. In the BB model all were created by the bang itself or similar explanation. In my model the Zero Point Field was slowly created from this beginning, developing into spring-like stands of particles, evolving over trillions of years eventually creating what we call field pressure which accordingly created black holes, and these black holes accordingly created matter from the surrounding spring-like field material, by the torquing forces surrounding black holes. In the BB model there are other versions that propose that there was a "before," concerning the Big Bang. These models propose an infinite universe concerning times past. Any further discussion should take place in my thread, "alternative to the big bang," otherwise the mods might give a warning since this explanation extends beyond the video presented, and the related models. This does however, explain the beginning of the Big Bang model, and why most consider that there was no space of time before that.

This being the "BB theory disputed" thread I won't go into much detail concerning my own model which if you are interested can be discussed in the "alternative to the Big Bang model" here in the speculation forum. I'll give you my opinions on your above mentions. As to stellar nucleosynthesis I think this is a great theory that has few detractors and almost universal acclaim, and it can fit with all cosmological models that I know of. My own model is of a universe trillions of years old but not infinite or eternal in any way. All of the theory is tied together by theory, reasoning, and observations. Most models classify elliptical galaxies as older galaxies which does not fit well with the Milky Way galaxy being 12-13 billion years old, its current estimates. As to stable elements breaking down there are two paths. One is surrounding black holes where nuclear fission might take place, and another is withing stars where some nuclear fission takes place, but the mechanics and degree of it is still speculative. When the James Webb goes up if we continue to see the same kinds of galaxies whereby some will appear quite old as we presently can see with the Hubble, at that time the BB lose favor since no old appearing galaxies should exist near the beginning of the universe according to the BB model. I expect the BB model to be replaced within 20 years or less. \//

The strict interpretation that all quasars are closer than their redshifts would indicate, can be challenged. This was Arp's strictest interpretation. But the idea that no quasars could be closer than their redshifts indicate cannot be challenged based upon existing evidence. This was mentioned in Arp's book "Seeing Red." This reluctance of consideration is what much of the presented video is all about. Eric Lerner believes in Plasma Cosmology. Much of his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" remains a valid criticisms of the BB model to this day, in my opinion. Ned Wright from U.C.L.A. has challenged some of the numbers and statements in Lerner's book written in '92'. Although some of Wright's criticisms may have validity it does not address the ad hoc foundation crisis of the BB model or many of the most damaging criticisms of the model. Neither Arp nor Lerner have been disproved, nor have there theoretical models been disproved. Yes there are some valid arguments against aspects of these models as they were once presented. Equally there are a number of valid arguments against the BB model as it was once presented. One of the major criticisms in the video concerns the scientific approach of present-day theorists. It concerns their reluctance to fund or evaluate ideas outside the mainstream Big Bang model. This reluctance is well known and well documented. ..

Diamond, In my opinion it's not that the scientists discussing that some quasars might have redshifts that are unrelated to their real distances from us; it's that theorists will not discuss it seriously because it would interfere with one of the pillars of the BB model. That pillar is that redshifts are directly related to distances. I agree with the scientists in the video that such fear in not warranted in that "some quasars" does not mean all quasars, nor does it necessarily mean that any galaxy's EM radiation could be influenced in such a way. The most common explanation for such a redshift is called a gravitational redshift, which is also called an Einstein redshift. This proposal if valid would weaken the BB model but I don't think by much. I agree that probably no BB theorists want to consider such a possibility, and believe as they have suggested, it's because of the possible destabilization of the BB model. This one possibility is not a big challenge to the BB model in my opinion. Halton Arp according to the video, on the other hand, believes that galaxies in general are created from proto-galaxies by an ejection process from a central black hole area of a parent galaxy. He believes this is the standard mechanism of galaxy formation via proto-galaxies. This idea/ model is totally contrary to the standard BB model and if valid might do away with the BB model. But to consider the possibility of some proto-galaxies might be at distances different from their observed redshift might open the door for the possibility of all, so such an idea will not even be considered unless the evidence is overwhelming which it presently is not. I am a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the second order (little recognized). I've been creating theories since the late 1950's. I have never believed in the BB model. There was a time in my early teens when I adhered to Hoyle's steady state model. Since that time I have developed my own theory which can be found by using any search engine looking for the Pan Theory. My own theory I believe is vastly simpler than the BB model or the steady state model. In my own model I allow for some quasars to be at distances different than their redshifts would indicate, similar to what the scientists in the video believe should be considered. In the BB model, Hoyle's steady state models, and Plasma Cosmology, the universe is expanding based upon the observed redshift of galaxies. As Hubble first pointed out these redshifts correlate with a galaxy's brightness meaning that redshifts, at least concerning galaxies, appear to be related to their distances. The farther away a galaxy the greater its redshift. One further assumption must be made to conclude that the universe is expanding. The assumption is that these galaxies are moving away from us which is the reason for their apparent redshifts. In my own model I make a different assumption which explains galactic redshifts differently. In my model the universe therefore is not expanding. I consider it the simplest possible model consistent with observations but it remains generally unknown to most mainstream theorists and the public in general. My expectation is that the BB model will begin to lose ground to other models maybe 5 years after the James Webb goes up. This is because I believe they will continue to see old appearing galaxies as far as they can observe which will be contrary to the BB model but consistent with "older universe," or infinite universe models. As the gents in the video have pointed out there are a number of ad hoc hypothesis that have necessarily been added to the BB model so that it can remain consistent with observed reality. The dominant hypotheses that had to be added were Inflation, dark matter, and some kind of dark energy. For my own model I have developed observational experiment(s) that might exclude all models based upon General Relativity, which include the BB and all the other models mentioned. Such experiments or observations that point solely in the direction of another model of gravity or point to the prediction(s) of a particular model, could demand the attention and consideration of present day cosmologists. //

Newton's motivation source for gravity was matter/ mass. When Newton was asked why mass causes gravity, he said that he did not propose hypothesis. Einstein's motivation source for gravity was the warped space concept that accordingly surrounds all matter. When Einstein was asked why mass warps the space that surrounds it he accordingly gave an answer similar to Newton. Few alternative gravity models such as gravitons, for instance, cannot answer the energy-source-of-gravity question either. Maybe the simplest alternative model of gravity (alternative theory) that might answer this question is pushing gravity. This theory requires currents of something like dark matter or aether to inflow into all matter from all sides pushing matter together. There are various proposed reasons for this supposed inflow and radiation cycle depending on the model. Presently General Relativity is the mainstream gravity model which does not propose an energy source for gravity. //

Although anti Big Bangers may have some valid arguments, my guess is that they represent no more than 1% of the total theorists in cosmology. Part of the reason is based upon few jobs, funding, or grants available for alternative study or theorists. Probably most pursue alternative theory and hypothesis with their own funding. There is also is no consensus among alternative theorists other than some beliefs in common concerning problems with the BB model. As to which is gaining grounds, I think that the BB model has lost little grounds to other models in the last 40+ years or more. It would seemingly take a discovery that both is contrary to the BB model and which seems to add credence to another model, to change the tide if the BB is wrong. Such observations might be after the James Webb telescope goes up. If at that time as far as we can observe we still see old appearing large elliptical galaxies at the farthest distances as we now see with the Hubble, then I think the tide in favor of the BB model will begin to turn. And if another theory makes a prediction that is confirmed which contradicts the BB model, then there would be for the first time in nearly 50 years serious consideration given to another cosmological model. There are possible experiments that seemingly could accomplish this in the next decade. Providing strong evidence that some QUASARS are closer than their redshifts would indicate is just one possibility. //

There are at least two alternative models that differ from the mainstream explanation. In the first example it is known that gravity bends light. Accordingly light trying to escape a black hole would be stretched and redshifted, giving the impression that the black hole is much farther away than it really is. This would normally be only a small percentage of the light spectra since most escaping light would escape tangential to the torus of the black hole. Maybe only for certain types of galactic black holes could this effect be detected. For this small portion of the spectra to be properly identified is another matter The other model relates to a particulate aether such as dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, field strings, etc. In this model light still moves at the same speed of light relative to the background field but the background field moves, therefore here on Earth there would be a difference in the speed of light that might now be detectable with such precision timing devices such as those in orbit used in GPS technology. I have designed an experiment to test such a small speed differential of up vs. down. ..

Yes, I watched the whole video and think that most of the criticisms are valid. It is nothing new however since some of the clips were filmed before the production date 2003, maybe decades ago. Since that time the Big Bang model has seemingly not improved with the additional epicycles such as the cosmological constant or dark energy, dark matter, the Power Spectrum of the microwave background, etc. One improvement of the model I believe involves no requirement for a beginning BB. The theory now begins with a hot dense expanding field. Before that is now considered as hypothesis by most theorists. Some possible epicycles have so-far been avoided such as Multiverses, higher dimensions such as string theory, Brane theory, quantum field addendums, etc. You might realize that the production of this video is directed toward novices considering the hoaky crumbling Greek monuments, the 1950's patriotic inserts, some of the analogies, references discussing religion and the BB model, etc. Many of those who commented are famous dissidents concerning the Big Bang model since its beginning. Some of these physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers, are/ were Nobel Prize caliber scientists, even though none actually won the Prize. The most noted would be Fred Hoyle. He and Jayant Narlikar, a famous mathematician and theorist , together wrote a number of alternative cosmological theories. Geoffrey Burbrige and his wife Margaret both were professors and astrophysicists, and both were founding members of the University of California at San Diego and long standing theorists who have written books and numerous papers concerning what some consider to be serious problems with of the Big Bang model. Also dissident astronomers such as Halton Arp who along with the Burbriges are well known concerning their opposition to the idea that all QUASARS must necessarily be at the distances as seemingly indicated by their redshifts. Eric Lerner produced the video and is a known author, researcher, and theorist in the field of Plasma Cosmology, which is a proposed alternative to the BB model. He is known for his book The Big Bang Never Happened and his theories concerning Plasma Cosmology which were also discussed. With the exception of the one Spanish astronomer who grew up in the modern age of the Big Bang era, all the rest of the theorists featured in this video have stated either that they have always had doubts concerning the BB model, or that they never believed in the possibility of the Big Bang model based upon the evidence. //

Although the speed of light is presently thought to be constant in a vacuum, its speed varies greatly through different transparent mediums. In some solids it can move at a relatively slow speed. In air its speed is slower than through a vacuum but faster than through water. It is thought that the "slowing" of light is a function of the incidence of refraction. In the old aether model the speed of light was thought to be controlled by the density of a particulate aether which was thought to be generally constant at least in our solar system, and that the speed of light was relative to the motion of the aether which accordingly was the "carrier" of light. With such new hypothesis as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. the idea of a particulate ZPF is back again and if such entities exist then their densities in space might control, influence or determine the speed of light. This might again involve a luminiferous aether even though Michelson and Morley and others seemingly could not find a significant difference in the speed of light with their equipment, more than a century ago. ..