Galaxy Spin

[jeff Mitchel]

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang didn’t happen. What did happen, is happening and will happen, is Galaxy Spin.

Like satellites around planets, and planets around stars, and stars around the galaxy, the galaxies themselves are turning in orbit.

The Big Bang is based on two premises. One, there is cosmic background radiation everywhere; and two, the galaxies are going away from each other causing their light to be red shifted.

With billions of stellar furnaces out there it would be surprising if there weren’t background radiation. As for the galaxies flying off to Neverland as the Big Bang tells you, it’s not happening.

The red shift is caused because our galaxy in its’ orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.

But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that? Well, they don’t. What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.

If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.

There is no dark matter. What is causing the light to shift is that the galaxies are turning in their orbit around a central unknown I call Tipperary because it’s a long, long way to go. And as for the galaxies accelerating to infinity and … They are not.

This is what’s happening. Say you are in a car going ten miles an hour, and another car next to you is going ten miles an hour. There is no acceleration going on. But say the car next to you takes an off ramp. Then suddenly it appears to one another that the other car is going faster and faster, even though you are still both going ten miles an hour. Every galaxy is on its own off ramp appearing to be accelerating, but it’s still going its same orbital speed.

Sexy stuff; dark matter and dark energy. I wanted to put them in my theory, but I didn’t know what they were either.

How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary. Your guess is as good as mine. If we compare it to our place in the galaxy: the distance to the nearest star; Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years. The distance to the center of our galaxy 182,400 light years, which gives a multiplication factor of 43,428. The distance to the nearest galaxy; Andromeda is 2.2 million light years. Multiplying 2.2 million by 43,428 gives a distance to the center of galaxy spin as 95.5 billion light years. It could be a lot closer or a lot further. As of now we can only see less than fifteen billion light years; we are going to need better glasses before we see Tipperary.

I call this galaxy spin entity a Whirly; I call this Whirly we are in the “S.R.T.E. Whirly”. Are there other Whirlies out there? Logically. All spinning around something even bigger.

It’s time to place the Big Bang theory where it belongs, next to the flat earth theory. Thank You.

If you would like to see my demonstration, it is on YouTube as (Big Bang A Bust). I would appreciate any comments (rants or raves) you may have. My email address is galaxyspin@yahoo.com.

Sincerely, Jeff Mitchell (The Galaxy Spin Guy)

[insane_alien]

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang didn’t happen. What did happen, is happening and will happen, is Galaxy Spin.[/bang]

 

You only have the very laymans view of big bang theory. cosmic inflation did and is happening.

 

Like satellites around planets, and planets around stars, and stars around the galaxy, the galaxies themselves are turning in orbit.

 

yep we have known this for a long long time now.

 

The Big Bang is based on two premises. One, there is cosmic background radiation everywhere; and two, the galaxies are going away from each other causing their light to be red shifted.

 

actually, these are predictions of big bang theory(proper name cosmic inflation theory).

 

With billions of stellar furnaces out there it would be surprising if there weren’t background radiation.

 

except we see a near even distribution even when there are no star visible. we should see a far more discrete distribution if it were just stars producing the 3K radiation.

 

As for the galaxies flying off to Neverland as the Big Bang tells you, it’s not happening.

 

yes it is. we even have the tragectories of a large number of them.

 

The red shift is caused because our galaxy in its’ orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.

 

that would be sufficient for a local supercluster of galaxies but what about other superclusters that are not orbiting anything as they exceed escape velocity.

 

But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that?

 

local gravitational effects. big bang says nothing about how particles interact. just says the space is expanding.

 

Well, they don’t.

 

They don't need to. it is not relevant to the scope of the theory. the universe could be composed of uniformly spread neutrinos for all the theory needs to care.

 

What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.

 

prove the galaxy is in an orbit first.

 

If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.

 

This is debateable. we have made some indirect observations and there is some evidence for it. it cannot be discounted or fully accepted at this time. this is why research happens.

 

There is no dark matter. What is causing the light to shift is that the galaxies are turning in their orbit around a central unknown I call Tipperary because it’s a long, long way to go. And as for the galaxies accelerating to infinity and … They are not.

 

umm we do count galactic motion into the calculations. and for there to be a central point you'll need to discount relativity. also, you have not proved there is no dark matter.

 

This is what’s happening. Say you are in a car going ten miles an hour, and another car next to you is going ten miles an hour. There is no acceleration going on. But say the car next to you takes an off ramp. Then suddenly it appears to one another that the other car is going faster and faster, even though you are still both going ten miles an hour. Every galaxy is on its own off ramp appearing to be accelerating, but it’s still going its same orbital speed.

 

physicists are well aquainted with how things move particularly astrophysicists who actuall study the way galaxies move.

 

Sexy stuff; dark matter and dark energy. I wanted to put them in my theory, but I didn’t know what they were either.

 

you have issues.

 

How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary. Your guess is as good as mine. If we compare it to our place in the galaxy: the distance to the nearest star; Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years. The distance to the center of our galaxy 182,400 light years, which gives a multiplication factor of 43,428. The distance to the nearest galaxy; Andromeda is 2.2 million light years. Multiplying 2.2 million by 43,428 gives a distance to the center of galaxy spin as 95.5 billion light years. It could be a lot closer or a lot further. As of now we can only see less than fifteen billion light years; we are going to need better glasses before we see Tipperary.

 

numerology and unjustified assumptions. if the galaxies truely are in an orbit around some point then we would be able to calculate it with great ease.

 

also, your point it outside the universe acording to recent estimates.

 

I call this galaxy spin entity a Whirly; I call this Whirly we are in the “S.R.T.E. Whirly”. Are there other Whirlies out there? Logically. All spinning around something even bigger.

 

Which you haven't proved exists.

 

It’s time to place the Big Bang theory where it belongs, next to the flat earth theory. Thank You.

 

except we have evidence for Big Bang theory. flat earth has nothing.

 

and another thing. even with galaxies orbiting in their super clusters(which has been observed ) it still doesn't disprove cosmic inflation.

 

you never even provided any maths man, if the universe isn't expanding it is just basic orbital mechanics. especially since you have thrown out dark matter and dark energy too. you should be able to do this at the very least.

[thedarkshade]

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang didn’t happen.

What do you mean by it didn't happen? Like the whole theory is wrong? Wow, you're messing with the Bigs by saying that man. What about the radiation? It was predicted and discovered Doesn't that show that Big Bang happen? Then the expansion of the universe. Everyone knows nowdays that universe is expanding. Now reverse the expansion of the universe and what you get? A single point, just a single point. And that's Big Bang my friend.

Like satellites around planets, and planets around stars, and stars around the galaxy, the galaxies themselves are turning in orbit.

Not orbiting, moving away!

If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.

Not knowing about something doesn't mean it does not exist. Centuries ago nobody knew about electrons, protons, neutron, neutrinos, photons etc, but does that mean they don't exist?

There is no dark matter.

You got proof about that?

Sexy stuff; dark matter and dark energy. I wanted to put them in my theory, but I didn’t know what they were either.

Does anyone?

[swansont]

Ah, another "proof by gross misunderstanding"

 

CMBR is nearly isotropic, which is not what you'd get from galactic sources.

 

As for the rest, you've explained ... nothing.

 

edit: ah, I see i_a and darkshade have given a more point-by-point discussion.

[thedarkshade]

Hi5 for swansont:cool:!

[Royston]

Deleted...point was already covered

 

EDIT: Don't think I've seen such a rapid debunking of a speculation...5 mins no less

[jeff Mitchel]

The biggest objection to my theory is that the cmbr is isotropic and does not come from one source. After reading my post I can see the confusion. I do not mean the cmbr is all being radiated presently. I do believe after billions of years and billions of star births, and billions of star novas, and untold quasars, and everything else out there (all isotropic of course) that cosmic background radiation would be a given. Believing it came from one source is illogical.

[thedarkshade]

Believing it came from one source is illogical.

In the place where the first atomic bomb was tested, the level of radioactivity is 10 times greater than normal. In world there are many ways that lead to radioactive decay, so believing that radioactivity in that area came from the atomic test would be illogical?

 

C'mon man, face the facts. We might not completely know how the universe was created exactly, but we know enough to conclude that there was a beginning, the Big Bang!

[swansont]

The biggest objection to my theory is that the cmbr is isotropic and does not come from one source. After reading my post I can see the confusion. I do not mean the cmbr is all being radiated presently. I do believe after billions of years and billions of star births, and billions of star novas, and untold quasars, and everything else out there (all isotropic of course) that cosmic background radiation would be a given. Believing it came from one source is illogical.

 

It doesn't matter what you "believe." By what mechanism would galactic sources give rise to a nearly isotropic background? What does it scatter off of? The distribution of matter is quite clearly not uniform. Why would it have the temperature that is observed?

 

Argument from incredulity carries no weight as an argument.

[jeff Mitchel]

If you apply Occam's razor to the big bang you immediately cut the big bangs throat in a manner that would make Jack the Ripper envious. The big bang seems to have turned into a religion. After all isn't that what a religion is, a belief in unexplainable matter ( a diety) and unexplained energy ( miracles or mysterious ways).

[Phi for All]

Moved to Speculations due to unproven attributes.

It appears to me that people are blinded by the big bang.

Science often prefers a successful model over less successful models.

It's not that they can't see the forest for the trees, but they can't see the trees because they are looking at the leaves.

Claiming that your detractors are blind is an ad hominem fallacy. You attempt to undermine a very logical, accepted theory, not with counter evidence, but with arguments from incredulity and slander.

If you apply Occam's razor to the big bang you immediately cut the big bangs throat in a manner that would make Jack the Ripper envious.

Misleading Vividness, and untrue as well. Remember that Occam's Razor has two edges; if you apply it you apply it to all your conclusions. So far, BB has more than enough evidence to make it a likely theory. What theory are you saying the BB is less likely than?

The big bang has turned into a religion.

Careful. We're very cognizant of the differences between science and religion. You have a nice little sound byte here that is false in every respect.

After all isn't that what a religion is, a belief in unexplainable matter ( a diety) and unexplained energy ( miracles or mysterious ways).

"Unexplained" is different from "unobservable". The former is the property of science, the latter religion.

[jeff Mitchel]

Using the phrase "very logical" to the BB? Once upon a time(whoops, sorry there was no time) a singularity(what's a singularity?) started to expand (why?) and gave off all this cmbr, so now that we know what was happening in the first trillionth second? But instead of expanding like a big ballon should we have all this acceleration and light shifting happening? Yeah, my bad, I can see all the good logic there.

[insane_alien]

you find it illogical because you do not understand the mechanisms behind it.

 

it does not actually state that there was a singularity. just that the universe was an incredibly dense point about a planck length in diameter.

 

also, the CMBR is the remenants of the gamma rays that populated the early universe. as space expanded the wavelength got longer and now they appear as microwaves.

 

why don't you actually learn what cosmic inflation theory is about(not the popularized 'in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded' myth which is a gross simplification ofthe actual theory) before you try to discredit it which you will only succeed in doing with a logically consistent theory and a mountain of evidence and calculations. you have none of these.

[swansont]

Using the phrase "very logical" to the BB? Once upon a time(whoops, sorry there was no time) a singularity(what's a singularity?) started to expand (why?) and gave off all this cmbr, so now that we know what was happening in the first trillionth second? But instead of expanding like a big ballon should we have all this acceleration and light shifting happening? Yeah, my bad, I can see all the good logic there.

 

Appeal to ridicule.

 

The CBR wasn't always microwave (it wasn't "given off" as cmbr), and it's thermalized because of all the photon scattering that occurred in the early universe before it was cool enough for the electrons to combine with protons (and deuterons, etc) and form neutral atoms.

 

You don't appear to understand the topic you're criticizing. Nature is under no obligation to be understandable and follow your brand of logic.

[jeff Mitchel]

Not only do we know what happened the first trillionth second, now we know it was 1.6x10-35 metres in diameter (a planck). How do you measure something when there is no space? It just keeps getting logicer and logicer.

[insane_alien]

space did exist. thats how far back cosmic inflation theory can take us.

 

there are various quantum interpretations can go further back but they are just hypotheses just now but may be elevated to theory if they prove to be true.

[Phi for All]

The trouble with intuition is that people experience it with some subjects and then are disappointed when it can't be applied to all subjects. Intuition only prompts; what we derive from those prompts is not universally applicable, it's merely a natural tendency.

 

jeff Mitchel, I think you are using portions of the theory you don't understand to suggest that the whole theory is wrong. Doesn't Occam's razor suggest that it is you who is wrong rather than all your peers who have reviewed the evidence for many decades? Rather than an obviously fallacious Appeal to Tradition, this is to imply that you listen when others suggest your knowledge base is lacking.

[jeff Mitchel]

I don't need to know how textiles are made, or how to do the dyeing process, or the ends and outs of fashion to pronounce the king has no clothes on! Ladies and gentlemen "The Big Bang King is Bare Butt Naked".

[insane_alien]

yes but it is not as simple as that, in this case, you cannot see the king(you have not looked at the proper theory) and you do not know what clothes are (you do not understand the theory).

 

therefore you are completely unqualified to pronounce that the king has no clothes on.

[Klaynos]

I don't need to know how textiles are made, or how to do the dyeing process, or the ends and outs of fashion to pronounce the king has no clothes on! Ladies and gentlemen "The Big Bang King is Bare Butt Naked".

 

You do if the textile is a metamaterial... Or something else that you completely don't understand and didn't think of...

[/feeding]

[Phi for All]

I don't need to know how textiles are made, or how to do the dyeing process, or the ends and outs of fashion to pronounce the king has no clothes on! Ladies and gentlemen "The Big Bang King is Bare Butt Naked".

Another desperate sound byte! Completely inapplicable here too.

 

You *do* need to know how textiles are made if you want to criticize how they were *first* made. And just because the answer doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to a textile maker.

[jeff Mitchel]

I am amazed at how much venom my post has produced. I thought that science was a search for the true nature of things. Eh... wrong again. The Large Binocular Telescope is coming on line and is supposed to look back 14 billion years to the beginning of time. Bet you money it don"t. All they"re going to see is more and more galaxies with no end in sight. That will leave you bb boys looking for more illogic to explain it. Meanwhile the galaxies are merrily going round and round Tipperary following Kepler's laws.

[iNow]

If you supported your assertions with evidence, instead of a bunch of hand waving, you'd be taken more seriously. Specifics would also allow others to a) see your point more clearly, or b) show precisely where you are misinterpreting. You have not, however, done this... hence the quote unquote venom (appeal to shame and appeal to ridicule).

[Klaynos]

But we're already got observations using large scopes that show how things have changed over time, not quite that far back, but pretty far!

[Bignose]

jeff mitchel,

 

Here is a completely unvenomous sincere question:

 

Can you demonstrate/cite/provide any evidence that supports your idea? Can you provide a mathematical model of what you are saying, and show how that model makes predictions -- and then even better that those predictions are at least as good or better than the theory that is accepted today?

 

Science is the search for the true nature of things, but this search does not include looking down every wayward path unless there is good reason to believe that the path will get us closer to the goal. Please post some good reasons to show that your path heads in the right direction, because at the moment the main road we're on seems to be doing an excellent job. Show us that your road is indeed a shortcut.

 

If you can do these things, I guarantee that people will change their mind. But, at the moment, all you've provided is an idea and words and nothing of any substance at all. If you can provide that much needed substance, you'll get people to support you. Give us some evidence that things like "whirlies" exist, and you'll get supporters. Otherwise all it is is fiction writing. You have the new ideas, it is up to you to bring the evidence that shows your ideas are better than what's out there right now.