David Levy

Steady state is not speculation. It is a valid theory. One aspect of this theory is that the GalacticCentre" generate new mass. In this discussion, my advice is very simple: Just by verifying the shifting direction of the stars in an active galaxy, we can get an answer to the steady state theory. You are more than welcome to see the following article: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/193028?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DBIG%2Bbang%26acc%3Doff%26wc%3Don&Search=yes&uid=3738240&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=50235900154377 It is stated there: "We conclude that the Big Bang's dominance of contemporary cosmology is not justified by thedegree of experimental support it receives relative to rival theories". Hence, the steady state theory is as good as the big bangtheory!!! With regards to the following: "Well, we havegood observations of galaxies in the far past, and they do not support yourpoints". Can you show or find one active galaxy with spiralarms and disc shape that do not support my point??? (if you have got thepoint..) It is clear that if the sun is moving at ultra high velocityaround the GalacticCentre" there is achance that it might shift in time inwards or outwards. We all know that the moon is shifting outwards from theearth. only few centimeters per year. Based on that, it was very close to Earthin the past. The big bang theory came out of the following observation:""If the distance between galaxyclusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in thepast". Why the science can't verify this supper importantsubject???

Thank you all. The answer is as follow: Why Big Bang? By Wikipedia • "If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past". • "Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast" • "It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative"steady state"cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative" Why Small Bang? • If the distance between the stars and the center of an active galaxy is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. • So, if the stars are moving outwards from the center of the galaxy, than in the past all the stars musthave been in the center. • Therefore, we can assume that there was a small bang in the center which generates the requested mass for the galaxy!!! Why Steady State? • If the distance between the stars and the center of an active galaxy is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. • If new stars are still coming out from the center, than there must be a mechanism which generate mass in the center. • Therefore, the following statement by wikipedia must be correct: "In steady state views, new matter iscontinuously created as the universe expands" Hence, we must verify if the stars in the spiral arms of an active galaxy are shifting outwards!!! With regards to ACG52 Please see the following message from staff: #45 3 July 2012 - 04:30 PMimatfaal !Moderator Note ACG52 Please stop attacking the person in your posts and concentrate on criticising the argument or on answering questions raised. Implications of personal dishonesty are to be avoided if at all possible.

I woun't reply to any message from AGC52!!!

The question is very clear: In which direction the stars in the spiral arms are shifting? inwards or outwards? And... I do not want to get any reply from ACG52!!!

By verifying the shifting direction of stars in an active galaxy we should know if the galactic center generates new matter. As an example - Wikipedia: "The Sun lies between 25,000 and 28,000 light years from the GalacticCentre". What is the expectation for its location in about one billion year from now? This info is needed to verify if the sun is shifting inwards or outwards. Hence, if the sun and all the stars in the spiral arms are shifting outwards, then, there must be a mechanism for new matter creation in the galactic center. Therefore, the steady state theory should be correct. How can we measure the shifting direction of the stars in an active galaxy???

Thanks Please also refer to the following articale: http://www.jstor.org...=50235900154377 PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting ofthe Philosophy of Science Association © 1994 Philosophyof Science Association Abstract: We analyseaspects of the Big Bang program in modern cosmology, with special focus on thestrategies employed by its adherents both in defending the theory againstanomalous data and in dismissing rival accounts. We illustrate this bycritically examining four aspects of Big Bang cosmology: the interpretation ofthe cosmic red-shift, the explanation of the cosmic background radiation, theinflation hypothesis and the search for dark matter. We conclude that the Big Bang's dominance of contemporary cosmology is not justified by the degree of experimental support it receives relative to rival theories. So, the big bang theory might be a speculation... I fully support the steady state theory (which I called: updated steady state) and can explain how it works. The key element in supporting my theory is as follow: In an active galaxy the stars have an orbit disc cycle around the core. Can we verify if the stars are shifting inwards or outwards? If the stars are shifting outwards, this is a full evidence that the supper massive black hole generates new matter!!!! I have written full article and presentation about it. Neverthe less, It's too long for this site. s

Great replies. Thank you both. To imatfaal: 1. Super-massive black holes vs high temperature - I assume that you can agree with me that in the same orbital radius, the supper massive black hole will generate much, much, much more energy and temp than small black hole. 2. Matter falling to the supper massive black hole - Why the science estimate that the matter is falling in? Is there a possibility that the matter is moving outwards??? If so, this is a pure evidence for matter creation!!! To Pantheory: 1."The creation of completely new matter surrounding galactic black holeswas one of the Steady State model proposals". Wow, at last, I'm not alone with this idea... I estimate that somehow thereis a mechanism in the nature which generates new matter. 2. "Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars". In wikipedia it is stated: "In observational there is a clear connection between brightness quasar and the rate of star formation in the central areas of the galaxy. (due to a huge mass of black hole). Models and simulations computerized successful recent restore these relationships, while out in the course and go the enormous importance of physics quasars in the creation and evolution of galaxies. So, There is an activity for star forming in quasar. Hence, this might be an indication that the matter is moving outwards... hence, an indication for new matter... 3. "I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium". Why? If the temperature and the energy is high enough, why it is not possible to fusion of any kind molecules or atoms? 4. "We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them" So we don't know how to create a proton or atom. But, what isa chance that the nature had found the correct formula how to do it better than us???

Yes, I think that there is a huge black hole in the Big bang theory. The main question related to the theory which started the big bang process. In Wikipedia it is stated: "Whilethe Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refinedin the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativityindicate a singularity at theorigin of cosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions" My main focus is exactly about "the earliest moments of the Universe's history". The Big bang theory had been established based on"several assumptions". My questions relate directly to those assumptions. We know about the inflation and quantum fluctuation theories. But it is only a theory... In the same way we can set a new theory that a new matter is generated in the core of the an active galaxy. Please see my reply at: Black hole theory deepens lithium crisis

In the article it is stated: "But Fabio Iocco, a physicist at Sweden's Stockholm University, has proposed the opposite: a potential lithium factory,in the form of relatively small black holes weighing in at an average of five solar masses. As some of these black holes drain materialfrom a companion star, the sucked-in material forms a swirling, donut-shapedring. Iocco calculated that the swirling mass ends up being hot enough — more than 10 billion degrees Celsius — to ignite nuclear fusion and synthesize large amounts of lithium". As we all know, in the core of the milky way there is a supper massive black hole. It's mass is more than millions solar masses. So if a black hole of five solar masses could generate more than 10 billion degrees Celsius,what kind of energy this supper massive black hole would have??? Is there a chance that this ultra high power could generate new matter??? Based the knowledge gained from the accelerator in Europe: Wikipedia - "in November2010 reported that ATRAP group could develop a new method for producing anti-atoms - hydrogen. Method is based on the slowing down of anti-particles -protons and uniting with slow positrons." Just as the scientists were able to produce anti-matter in this man made accelerator, the nature might managed it a little better. It could generate newmass in the ultimate accelerator of nature - the nucleus of an active galaxy. Do you agree?

Think about the big bang... Just One bang. Only one Huge bang during the infinite time.... Nothing before... No bang after... Do we know on any effect that happend only one time in the nature? What is the chance that there was someting before (even one atom is someting...) Can the scince prof that there was absolutly nothing before the big bang??? Isn't it a fantacy story???

I'm an Ehgineer. Therefore, I'm quite shoched from the science approch to this issue. If the messured distance is 13.1 Billion years, than IT might be 13.1 billion year. But, the meaning is that the big bang theory might be is incorrect. Hence, the science comes with new theory as follow: " cosmological models space has been expanding between us and galaxies around us while their emitted light have been traveling towards us" For me it sounds like science fictions. Why the science try to change the reality if it does not fit the theory??? How come that a measured 13.1 had been changed to 3.17? In one hand the science claims that all conclutions are based of evidence. But in the other hand, what kind of evidence the science have to support this fiction model??? Why they can't take it as is and try to verify if there is someting wrong with the big bang theory??? If a doctor measured that you have a fever of 40 c degree. than you a fever. Now, what would you think if this doctor tells you that based on the last medical module the meaning is 37c??? I have found that again and again and again the science comes with new modules to explain someting which is somehow illogical.... But always, those modules should support the big bang theory. Don't you think that there is a chance (even a small chance) that what you see is what you see. Hence, the measured result is correct!!! es

Quote: Why is it not enough? In order to get the 13.1 light year distant, the galaxy should travel almost at the speed of light. This is unlogical. Therefore, in order to get to this distant, the time should be much longer than the time from the Big Bang.

Quote: The Big Bang model does... If you want to talk about time before the Big Bang, you need a new model. Then it wouldn't really be the Big Bang theory, because in the BB theory, space and time began at some point. The most distant galaxy which had been found so far is located 13.1 billion year light away from us. Therefore, there is a possibility that to get for this distance, the time from the big bang is not enough. So, in order to use time before the big bang, is there a chance that the big bang theory is not 100% correct???

Quote: For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing. If the universe some how began from nothing, Is there a chance that we have got someting in several steps??? So, instead of just one big bang which was started from nothing, why there is no possibility to get several or even many steps that generate the energy/matter which was needed for the Big Bang? Hence, there was someting long before the big bang...

To: KatzAndMice For the following message" mr.spaceman, on 1 July 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:Also if the universe began with certain amount of energy and had a definite size how can be universe infinite? You have replied: A process could repeat itself for infinity So, how come that the Big Bang is a very singular process? Is there any chance that it is a repeat process (Even one time more...)?

To ACG52 From now on, Please do not reply to my messages any more!!! If you think that you have some sort of wisdom, keep it to yourself. Don't share it with me.

Hi Alan I have enjoyed to read your answer. Please see the following topic which I have posted yesterday and let me know your advice: BIG BANG In This Topic I would like to use an electronic element in order to get better understanding of the Big Bang starting point. The main Idea is that the Science have found a way to convert nothing into something!!! For the following question: "How can you agree that an energy came out of nothing???" I have got the following answer: "As long as the net energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, there is nothing which prevents the universe from starting as a quantum fluctuation." So let's assume that the quantum fluctuation is a blackbox. As Electronic Engineer, I realy don't care how it works inside. This is the job for scientist. The most important issue is that the input in this case is nothing and the output is someting. So, 13.2 billion years ago this blackbox had converted nothing into something. This generate the Big Bang!!! As this is a natural blackbox, my questions are as follow: 1. Why it couldn't function 100 billion years ago, 1 Billion year ago or even tommorow? 2. Why this blackbox function only one time? Why it couldn't function twice or 1,000,000 times? 3. Is there a chance that there will be a new big bang in the future??? 4. Why we couldn't estimate that there is a reversabale blackbox in the nature? So it could convert someting to nothing??? 5. Is there a chance that we will become nothing in the future???

In This Topic I would like to use an electronic element in order to get better understanding of the Big Bang starting point. The main Idea is that the Science have found a way to convert nothing into something!!! For the following question: "How can you agree that an energy came out of nothing???" I have got the following answer: "As long as the net energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, there is nothing which prevents the universe from starting as a quantum fluctuation." So let's assume that the quantum fluctuation is a blackbox. As Electronic Engineer, I realy don't care how it works inside. This is the job for scientist. The most important issue is that the input in this case is nothing and the output is someting. So, 13.2 billion years ago this blackbox had converted nothing into something. This generate the Big Bang!!! As this is a natural blackbox, my questions are as follow: 1. Why it couldn't function 100 billion years ago, 1 Billion year ago or even tommorow? 2. Why this blackbox function only one time? 3. Is there a chance that there will be a new big bang in the future??? 4. Why we couldn't estimate that there is a reversabale blackbox in the nature? So it could convert someting to nothing??? 5. Is there a chance that we will become nothing in the future???

Dear ACG52 Please don't take it too personality... I'm an Electronic Engineer (MA). You can speak with me in bit & byte. In magnetic field, matrix or convolution. But, it must be logical. The engineering is based on someting real and pure logical. I can explain you how the most advanced comunication system works. You are diffrent. you are Scientist. It's easy for you to except the theory of the inflation or 'ex nihilo nihil fit'... Good for you... Now it's clear why we see it diffrently...

I do appriciate your Knowledge. So please try to answer. What was the source of the energy which generate the Big Bang? If you think that it is inflation, than was was the source of the energy of this inflation? How can you agree that an energy came out of nothing??? I realy can't understand that they say that there was nothing before the Big bang. and then there was a so big energy which creates the whole universe. I feel that I am like the small child which say that the king is naked. and no one agrees....

"You've been told before to research Inflation theory." The inflation is an outcome of the Big Bang!!! (or vice versa???) There is no info or evidence what was before the big bang. Based on the sciense, there was nothing before the big bang. So the story is as follow: "Once apon a time there was nothing. nothing, nothing.... And then, sudenlly there was a big bang. Big Big Bang. Holy Big Bang. And this big bang creates the inflation & matter, dark matter, stars, earth, sun and the galaxies." Even a young boy will reject this story....

Further your message: In science the search for the answers is driven by evidence that supports the assertions and to question the results repeatedly. In religion the answer is assumed and never questioned. I think that is a huge difference... irreconcilable in fact... In the big bang we realy do not know what was the source of the energy which started the whole process. We start from the point that "there was a big bang". Almost the same thing is written in the bible. There is no fact or evidence which can show us where and how this energy had been created. This is a pure religion!!! Even the pope excepts this theory!!! One more issue - In the nature everything starts again and again. Just everything. It can be suppernova, tide, Birth or even death. How come that the big bang is the only phenomena world wide that happened only once? How come? This is not natural!!! Is there any chance that there was someting before the big bang? We must verify how this energy had been created? we must verify how the dark matter had been created. Without a solid evidence about the pre-moments of the big bang, it will stay as a pure religion. (Or a nice story)

Just a quick question - Why you don't ask yourself about the process which generate the big bang??? Why do you take for granted this story??? Some time ago pepole belived that the earth is the center of the universe... Is there any chance that one day in the future we will find some key points about the first steps in the universe which could change dramaticly this theory???

Did anyone read the Bible??? There was chaos before the first creation. In this story we realy don't understand what was before... Don't you think that it's a simmilar story??? We should all start a new religion. The BIG BANG!!! The HOLY BIG BANG!!! Actually the big bang started before the creation in the Bible. So which one has more powerfull???

I personaly think that there is a black hole in the big bang theory!!! (Or a super massive black hole). How could we get into any real theory without deeply understanding the process which generate the big bang!!!! For me, we all take it as an axiom. For example, we could also state that 1 + 1 = 3, and based on that we could come with new matematics. I realy can't understand how the whole world accepts this theory without understanding the first steps which generate the big bang.... What is the chance that there was someting before the big bang? What is the chance that there was a matter or ever a dark matter before the big bang? What is the chance that there was a big bang (or several big bangs) before the big bang? It is almost a holy big bang. Shall we start pray to the big bang???