jeff Mitchel

No, they are all an appeal for you to think logically.

Unfortunately this forum does not let you add diagrams. I put the theory up at http://BigBangaBust.thecomicseries.com. There are only like seven pages, all in color, suitable for framing.

To those of you that have no life, perhaps will remember me from a couple of years ago. I am the one that has the Galaxy Spin theory that reputes the big bang. I said I would be back, and heeere's Jeffy. "Pack up the babies, and grab the old ladies". Let me be brief: The Galaxy Spin theory is based on two premises 1: The galaxies are in orbit. 2: Gravity bends light. With those two statements all the nonsense of the big bang can be refuted; The magical singularity, dark matter, and dark energy.

There was a gentleman who did a study of the blue shift galaxies of the NED and found that most were located in two directions, 180 degrees apart. I was wondering what directions those were. Jeff

Is there any direction in the sky where blue shift galaxies are more prevalent. Thanks for any answers.

Since the 1980's we have known that the local group of galaxies is being drawn toward the area of the Great Attractor and Shapley Supercluster. I can see only two methods of attraction. (1) Orbital; in which case we should be able to detect many blue shift galaxies on inside or outside orbits. (2) Straight line attraction: in which case we should be able to detect blue shift galaxies on the other side heading into the area of attraction.

The tiny amount of dark matter they claimed to have found does not nearly account for the observations. That's why they waste millions of dollars digging down in copper mines looking for wimps. Without wimps your big bang wimpers out. Hey, I ought to write a poem. Not with a bang but a whimper. Oops sorry, it's already been done. My bad.

"So basically, you are going to cut and run, being incapable of or unwilling to demonstrate your argument in any rational and logically constructed fashion." Sayonara I don't see this as the case. Quite the opposite. How do you argue rationally and logically argue with someone who believes 90% of matter is undetectable and 70% of energy. You guys have been spoon-fed the big bang from grade school on. You seem either incapable or afraid to take a step back and look at the big bang logically. Something starts expanding from a "singularity". Gee, what's that? Where did it come from? What made it expand? What's making it go faster? Well it's all true because Stephie says it is. It's all trash. It doesn't matter to me obviously who believes otherwise; be it scientist or preacher.

Okay, okay. I've recieved a level of verbal abuse that should last me for awhile. Look, I didn't start this post, I was only replying to the thread that asked if the universe would keep on expanding. The administrator sent me here as a new post. That was fine, it was nice to hear old friends again. I put my theory out there , and I heard the same arguments I heard before. You don't believe my reasoning and I certainly don't believe in yours. The thing is; I won't disappear into the woodwork. The only thing that would cause me to do that would be the "Eureka" of finding the dark matter and dark energy, and that's not going to happen. Not in a hundred million years. So every few months or so I will be back. It will give you time; hopefully, of thinking up some new arguments to why we can't detect all that matter and all that energy. No A. No B. No C. Love Ya! Jeff

To Insane Alien. Honestly, I do not mean to ignore you. I believe you are right about the 'great attractor' where billions of galaxies are clustered. Because of the distance involved though, we are not able to see it. It's a big ocean. As for the blue shift galaxies again you are right. It would seem that there should be more blue shift galaxies. I'm faced with that problem; while you're faced with the problem of finding 90% of matter and 70% of energy. I think I have the easier problem.

I don't know what "math" you want. Kepler's three orbital laws works for planets and satellites, I would assume they work for galaxies as well.

"The one with more scientific proof is more logical." What more "proof" does the big bang have over my hypothesis. How the obsevations fit my hypothesis--Most galaxies do appear to be receding from each other, but not because there was a big explosion. Each galaxy has its own orbit. Those on an inside orbit are going faster than us, so there light is red shifted. Those on the outside orbits are going slower than us and so their light is red shifted. The galaxies are not traveling out to beyond infinity. That there is an abundance of lighter materials is only logical, and proves nothing. It would be like saying the fact that there are more lighter rocks on earth than heavier rocks proves a theory. The Big Bang theory relies heavily on dark matter and dark energy. If no dark matter how is the light of distant galaxies being shifted? If no dark energy, why are the galaxies accelerating? The Galaxy Spin Theory unlike the Big Bang Theory does not rely on dark matter and dark energy. The light of distant galaxies is shifted because they are actually turning in their respective orbits. The Galaxies are not actually accelerating but only appear to be in relation to our own galaxy. This can be illustrated by two cars on the freeway going the same speed. Because they are going the same speed there appears to be no acceleration in relation to each other. However if one car takes the off ramp; even though he is moving at the same speed as before, it appears to the other car now to be accelerating. All galaxies in their respective orbits are on their own off ramp, seeming to each other to be accelerating even though they are going there normal orbital speed. ______________

On that most of the galaxies are red shifted we agree. On that the galaxies "appear" to be accelerating we agree. You use those for proof to justify the big bang and that appears okay. If I use the same anomolies for my theory's acceptance you ask "Where"s your proof."? You say they prove your theory, and I say they prove mine. The only difference is my theory does not depend on ninety percent of missing matter and some giant magnet in the sky accounting for seventy percent of the energy. Which is more logical?

Hey, come on man, I really love you guys; and I can feel the love in return. Some of the proof I have is the same proof that the big bang has :ie red shift and acceleration of the galaxies. It's not that I totally disagree with dark matter as long as you use them in reference to black holes and brown dwarfs. They obviously exist. But there is not near enough "dark matter" to account for the known observations. As for "dark energy" that's just silly. I'm not holding my breath 'til they find the mysterious dark matter down in copper mines or the acceleration magnets of infinity. Like religion, the answer is coming tomorrow, you better be good. You might want to hold your breath.

You ask me to prove there is no dark matter and dark energy? That's like asking me to prove there is no green unicorns. I'm not the one whose theory is dependent on a giant magnet accelerating the galaxies to infinity and beyond. The observational evidence shows that most galaxies are red shifted. It's like being in a race car. The doppler effect would show that most of the other cars you are racing with are red shifted. It doesn't mean the racetrack is expanding.

No A. No B. No C.

The universe is not expanding or contracting, it stays the same. A+B=C. Where A is dark matter and B is dark energy, and C is the big bang. No A. No B. No C. See galaxy spin posting.

That the galaxies themselves are orbiting around causing the light shift we detect. I try to show it on YouTube under Big Bang A Bust.

Dark matter exist between the earlobes of people who believe in the Big Bang. Because without dark matter and dark energy you can't have your Big Bang. And that would be sacrilegious. Much easier believing in matter you can't detect (wimps and/or machos; give me a break) and energy coming out of nowhere making the galaxies go faster. All in the name of science??? I need to start snortin' some of that bb dust. It's a better drug then the ones I've been taking.

I am saying that the word "time", and the "concept of time" has been lost because it does not have an exact definition. the statements "It's time to take the dog out" and "The time is 4:00 o'clock" has no relatoionship to the speed of one entity to the speed of another entity.

I would like to define time as the "speed of one entity in relationship to the speed of another entity" i.e. It takes her 1 hour to walk around the block. (her speed in relation to the speed of the clock.) Where problems arise is when we use the word "time" in the abstract: "The time it takes for the earth to go around the sun is one year." The above statement has nothing to do with time but is the definition of a year, i.e. When the earth goes around the sun we call it a year. Yes, yes, Quarks Rule!!

In the experiments for life on mars, the nutrients introduced were turned into gas extremely fast; much faster than any earth life form. That gave rise to the magic dust theory. Carl Sagan said in his book "Cosmos" that if an alien life form (different than life on earth) exists on mars, then we should leave mars alone. We could be opening a can of worms that makes the movie "Alien" look like a walk in the park.

I feel we have more in common with tadpoles then we would with any alien lifeforms; and of course we don't converse with tadpoles. The search by SETA and others is unfortunately a waste of time and money. We are looking for aliens that would be in the approximate time frame that we are in. What are the chances of that? A couple of hundred years ago we would have been using smoke signals. Not that there aren't other life forms out there. From experiments on mars you either have alien life forms or you have magic dust which eat nutrients and produce gas. Interesting how no other experiments for life on mars have been forthcoming since Carl Sagan. What would that do to world religions if life were found elsewhere?

Magnethos, Thanks for the reply. Before I do my experiment I would like to know what voltage you preformed your experiment at and what kind of source? I assume it was a battery.

Magnethos, I thought of doing the same experiment myself. The molecules of water woul be agitated by the heat. Did you do the experiment at different temps? It would seem that the best temp would be right below boiling. Thanks, Jeff