Galaxy Spin

[Phi for All]

Good post, Bignose.

 

And jeff Mitchell, I'm sorry you read my enthusiasm as "venom". When you talk science you need to use science and a big part of the method involves tearing ideas apart to see if they have merit.

 

When you go against accepted theories your opponents have the weight of years of observation, experimentation and evidence on their side. That's not just traditional theory, that's accepted theory. You should expect your idea to get a vigorous going-over.

 

No venom, just speaking loudly to ensure the point is taken.

[iNow]

Meanwhile the galaxies are merrily going round and round Tipperary following Kepler's laws.

 

I love how you've already used the Galileo Gambit in support of your assertions. You've received nice replies, now it's your turn to return the favor and make your assertion serious and supported.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

That does not follow. Where'd you pull that last sentence out of?

[jeff Mitchel]

My theory is based on observation, studies and logic. Everything spins or orbits from leptons, quarks, photons, gluons, electrons to asteroids, satellites, planets, stars, and if you believe my theory galaxies. I didn't pull this orbiting and spinning out of my hat. Can you say the same for the Big Bang. Can you say, oh yeah, we get big bangs all the time. No. Which is more logical. With orbiting and spinning I have a track record and you're trying to start a new railroad line.

[insane_alien]

its based on obsevations and studies? well, provide some here then.

 

also, just becase A does something does not mean B,C,D...X,Y,Z need to do it as well. that would be a logical fallacy.

 

which makes us doubt the logical consistency of your theory. post the mathematical model you must have produced if you were planning on putting it up against cosmic inflation.

[jeff Mitchel]

You are correct; if A does something it does not follow that B,C,D,...X,Y,Z need to do it as well. But if A does something and B does it along with C,D,E,F,G and H; it is logical to assume that I will do it as well.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No.

 

I might point out that the subatomic particles you listed don't orbit like the little Bohr models of the atom you've probably seen. They just "exist" in fields of probability.

[Bignose]

jeff, Cap'n is right. The Bohr model is actually a very, very poor representation of what is actually happening.

 

This goes back to many previous posters' point. That you still think that Bohr's model is good representation of what is going on indicates that you are unfamiliar with a lot of modern theory. And, if you don't know something -- at least enough to be able to talk about the current model -- it's awfully hard for you to tear it down.

 

Look, no one is going to be foolish enough to say that the current model is perfect. There are holes in it, there are errors in it. But, you have to know it reasonably well in order to critique it. You also should probably know how successful it has been.

 

Also, again, do you have a mathematical description of your idea? Can you make any kind of predictions at all? Until you can, you really aren't doing science. You are writing stories.

[jeff Mitchel]

I predict as I said before that the Large Binocular Telescope will not see the beginning of time, nor near the beginning of time. Nor will the next telescope, or the one after that, or the one after that. As I said I am willing to bet money, but as yet no one has taken me up on their strong beliefs. We as humans foolishly believe we can know something in its finality. We are the center of the universe, the heavens revolve around the earth, we know the beginning? Going downward we have devolved into string theory, going outward into the big bang. We know nothing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think the LBT advertises being able to see the beginning of time. It just predicts being able to see phenomena from early in the life of the universe, which would allow it to reconstruct how the universe was formed. As for "near the beginning of time", well, define "near."

 

http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbto/why.htm#Examples

 

You have still failed to provide evidence for your hypothesis, by the way.

[Klaynos]

I predict as I said before that the Large Binocular Telescope will not see the beginning of time, nor near the beginning of time. Nor will the next telescope, or the one after that, or the one after that. As I said I am willing to bet money, but as yet no one has taken me up on their strong beliefs. We as humans foolishly believe we can know something in its finality. We are the center of the universe, the heavens revolve around the earth, we know the beginning? Going downward we have devolved into string theory, going outward into the big bang. We know nothing.

 

Secondly to Cap'n Refsmmat's point, you don't seem to understand that the above is NOT a scientific prediction, you should predict what it will see mathematically, not what it wont see qualitatively.

[Edtharan]

My theory is based on observation, studies and logic. Everything spins or orbits from leptons, quarks, photons, gluons, electrons to asteroids, satellites, planets, stars, and if you believe my theory galaxies

There exists magnetic fields in space. Charged particles interacting with these fields will produce a specific type of effect (polarization of photons) that can be detected here on Earth. Rotating magnetic fields (which would occur if all the galaxies were in orbit) would produce a very specific and identifyable signature in the photon polarization.

 

Looking at the photons from the CMBR, it show no such signature. Therefore we can categorically rule out any mass organised rotation of the galaxies. This observation completely disproves your hypothisis.

 

So, if you are going to claim that you are basing your hypothisis on observation, you seem to be either ignorant of these observation (not in posetion of the completel facts) or are deliberatly cherry picking your data and ignoring the observations that contradict your hypothisis.

 

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".

Even if the Big Bang was shown to be incorrect, it does not mean that your theory has to be correct. So just disproving the BB is not enough to make us accept your theory.

 

So even if the Emperor is Naked, it does not mean that you are necesarily correct. This is why so many people here are asking for you to provide evidence for your theory. They seem to be willing to entertain the idea that the Big Bang might not be correct, but as you have then not provided that your hypothisis is any more valid than any one of many other alternative hypothisis that have been put forward over histrory.

 

Even if the Big Bang is incorrect, you have provided no more evidence for us to accept your theory, than the theory that the universe was made acording to the Norse religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology).

 

Just because you prove something wrong, does not make you right.

[jeff Mitchel]

Norse mythology??? "not in posetion of the completel facts"??? Perhaps like the third fate Atropos it is time to cut the thread. After all it is only "pseudoscience and speculation" not real science. I would like to thank those that took the time to make comments and as a parting gift (so you may sleep better at night) would like to submit I do not have a mathematical equation. But, statements like "I am a man" and "wood comes from trees" do not have mathematical equations either, but never the less are true. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely Jeff Mitchell (the Galaxy Spin Guy)

[insane_alien]

statements don't. theories do. especially if you are trying to replace an existing one.

[Bignose]

jeff has apparently moved on: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/68918-galaxy-spin.html

 

This should make for a good read in a day or two. If he thought SFN was unreceptive, he's in for a huge surprise at BAUT.

[insane_alien]

i will be watching

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Oversimplifying a very complicated theory just to claim that it is silly is not very fair.

 

It's also a strawman.

 

The Big Bang theory was and still *is* being supported by what we observe in our universe. The fact we are not certain about specific points is irrelevant to the bigger picture, and the fact that there is *no other theory that proves/explains what we observe as well as the Big Bang theory*.

 

None so far. Your "theory" didn't manage to prove anything either, since your claims are untested and unproven and you seem to rely mainly on claiming that the Big Bang must be false because you don't understand it.

 

That's not a good enough reason on why it's false.

 

Here's a nice NASA'ic explanation on the Big Bang, I do think you should read it. Your claims about what you think the Big Bang is seem to be not-too-accurate.

 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

 

Other than that, I suggest you listen to this: http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/the-big-bang-and-cosmic-microwave-background/

and this: http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

As the podcast explains VERY WELL what the big bang is (and isn't) and about the *observational facts* that we have to support the Big Bang theory.

 

I am usually not too comfortable calling it "the Big Bang" either, since that name is not the original - it was coined as a mockery of it. Not that I care about mockeries, I just think the name is confusing. The origin of the unverse is thought to be a rapid *EXPANSION* not an explosion, and "The Big Bang" seem to confuse people.

 

In any case, you haven't quite given us anything of substance. Claiming a well supported theory is false requires more than just Occham's razor; it requires showing how the observations and data that SUPPORTS the theory is either flawed or supports the *other* theory.

 

Good luck, if you manage to do that, you might win a Nobel, and I'll have the honor of saying I debated with you.

 

((That isn't an attempt at mockery, btw, I am serious. If you *truly* prove the "Big Bang" wrong, you will probably be very famous, quite rich, and win a Nobel prize))

 

Another point:

 

You are correct; if A does something it does not follow that B,C,D,...X,Y,Z need to do it as well. But if A does something and B does it along with C,D,E,F,G and H; it is logical to assume that I will do it as well.

 

Perhaps, but:

 

1. A is doing something and B is doing a *similar yet not completely the same* --> electrons spin only in a very simplified sense. They are not *exactly* spinning, they are more "changing states" and such. Asteroid, however, spin (not always, btw) in a completely different manner - a physical *actual* spin, like a dancer, and even amongst "themselves" they are different. Some asteroids spin quickly and irratically, and some slowly and barely spinning at all. The fact they all have some sort of movement does not mean "everything is spinning" and that you can make an ultimate conclusion out of that observation.

You can, but it's extremely over-simplified, and doesn't quite follow the reality of what those "things" are. Nor does it follow logic.

 

2. A is spinning, B is spinning, C is spinning... Language does not necessarily spin --> the fact *parts* of a system behave a certain way does not mean the entire system behaves the same way. Even *if* all parts "spinning" in the same sense (go over pt #1) that doesn't make the system they are part of spinning as well.

For that matter, the electrons in the molecules that make up your body are "spinning" (again.. in quite a different sense than a dancer, but okay..) - that doesn't mean your entire body is "spinning".

You are making a connection where none necessarily exists.

 

 

Cheers,

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

On my last post "Galaxy Spin" I was inundated with requests for mathematical formulas that would support my theory and disprove the Big Bang. I would first like to recap my theory for those that missed it, and at the end put out the proposition that ends the Big Bang.

 

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 three 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, and three there is an abundance of lighter materials.

With billions of stellar furnaces, quasars, novae, super novae; present and through billions of years in the past, it would be surprising if there weren’t background radiation. As for the galaxies flying red shifted 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 following the orbital laws of Kepler.

How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary? No telling. If we were to compare it to our place in our 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 fourteen 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. I expect my theory to be validated in the very near future when the Large Binocular Telescope comes on line. It is supposed to see to 14 billion light years and the WMAP puts the universe at 13.7 billion light years with a 1% probability of error. Out to 14 billion light years and further all they will see is more galaxies.

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.

 

To disprove the Big Bang. You are on top of the north pole with a telescope, look straight up and see a galaxy "A" 12 billion light years away. Another person is on the south pole and looks down, whoops, I mean straight up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" looking through a telescope past earth would see galaxy "B" at 24 billion light years. This would seem to prove that wmap mapping the cbr, giving the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years with a 1% chance of error is totally wrong. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang; using the cbr as its' pillar is wrong, and comes tumbling down.

 

Sincerely, Jeff Mitchell (The Galaxy Spin Guy)

[Klaynos]

Unfortunately time doesn't work like that, you can't just sum the values and get the real answer...

 

There's also the problem than the universe is isotropic and the universe is expanding, EVERYWHERE is where the big bang happened.... You can't look one say and see young space and another way to see old space, it's all the same...

 

Also what are you doing back btw?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=383029&postcount=38

 

And you still have not provided any real evidence that you are correct.

 

Also, I feel that we can add nothing to what you've been told:

 

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/68918-galaxy-spin.html

 

Who seem to have hit on some nice arguments against you which you've just skimed over.... the last time using a falacy, nicely done!

[swansont]

No need to post this in a new thread; merged with existing one.

[mooeypoo]

How 'bout you first answer our questions regarding the general aspects of the theory (like your form of logic, which appears to be slightly flawed here in reaching the conclusions you're talking about) before you 'refine points'...?

 

I don't see why I should take the time to consider the deep points of a theory that fails on the basic step of logic... but I might be wrong or misunderstanding you, which is definitely possible, and which is why i think you should first tackle *that* basic problem before moving on to deeper considerations.

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

When you add 12 billion light years plus twelve billion light years you are not adding up time but distance. One mile plus one mile eqauls two miles.

[mooeypoo]

When you add 12 billion light years plus twelve billion light years you are not adding up time but distance. One mile plus one mile eqauls two miles.

 

Yeah that isn't the lack of logic i was refering to. Check out what I asked you 2 posts ago: here.

 

 

It seems to me that the entire concept is constructed on bits of misunderstood physics.

 

Explain?

[Jacques]

Your spinning will produce half galaxies will be redshift and half the galaxies will be blueshift. Can you see that?

What we observe is that most of the galaxies are redshifted. Only a small number in our local group are blueshifted.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, the *basic premise* of this theory seems to begin from "since everything is spinning, galaxies are spinning" The so called proofs and explanations are derived from that.

 

However. Everything *IS NOT SPINNING*, and making that kind of statement is an over simplification of physics.

 

Are you ever going to address that, jeff Mitchel? I wrote quite an extensive overview of why saying 'everything is spinning' just plain wrong, which, essentially, crushes your basic premise.

 

I am open to corrections, but I really don't see how anyone could consider an alternative theory to the one that exists today (which is *EXTREMELY* well founded, and I gave a few resources with very good examples and explanations as to why and how) with a theory that's basic premise is illogical.

 

I do believe it's time you address your basic premise again, jeff.

 

~moo