The Big Bang is Wrong!

[kaneda]

Martin. Light travels at light speed. If in a single second the distance light is going to travel expands by an atom's width due to expansion of the universe, light still travels at light speed and not light speed plus an atom's width. It would have to travel at FTL speeds to stretch so does not do so.

 

I have problems with the idea of FTL expansion as I have problems with the silly big bang idea. If you can get readings of 60c, then that is proof that the readings are misinterpreted, to say the least.

 

iNow. In what reference point do these effects not happen? Are you now claiming that there is some way light does not experience time and that photons can contract?

 

Note. I have rubbish dial up internet and because my post can take so long appearing, this often comes up as multiple post merged.

[Martin]

...It would have to travel at FTL speeds to stretch so does not do so.

 

I have problems with the idea of FTL expansion as I have problems with the silly big bang idea. If you can get readings of 60c, then that is proof that the readings are misinterpreted, to say the least.

...

 

You are going against Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It is a GR model that gives the figure of 60c.

 

what theory of physics do you propose to go against Relativity?

 

If you are going to make a flat statement like does not do so, you need to supply some physical theory to back it up. Do you have your own physical theory? Are you one of the "Einstein was wrong!" crackpots, or what?

 

Or are you just clueless about what Relativity really says?

 

Please explain where you are coming from. And stop making flat assertions without justification.

 

Also you should read the Lineweaver article. Dont criticize standard mainsteam cosmology without first getting some idea of the basics.

[kaneda]

Martin. Sorry for claiming that you are not all knowing.

 

The big bang is a crackpot idea for many reasons which you do not seem to know. Expansion relies on a four physical dimensional hypersphere. Perhaps you would like to explain how that is possible?

 

Things moving faster than light is impossible. As EMR, gravity, etc are limited to light speed, this suggests that space itself is the limiting factor and cannot go beyond light speed either. Some claim that it works by separate areas expanding so totalling FTL but you then have to explain where all the new space comes from which has not been done.

 

I have raised some of these points elsewhere but you apparently expect them raised again and again, every time I make a statement. You're just another text book quoter. Big deal.

[Martin]

Kaneda, I asked you what new theory are you proposing to take the place of Relativity. Give a link to some source. Put up or shut up.

 

What value do think the Hubble parameter has? The standard figure is 71 km/s per megaparsec. You are implying that it is zero.

 

Space is not a substance, like more of it should be created. Distances can increase, volumes can increase, without anybody having to manufacture anything new. You've heard of energy conservation law, I guess, but in physics there is no "volume conservation law".

 

In fact the law of gravity (General Relativity) requires that volume not be conserved. Dynamically changing distance (e.g. FTL changes in distance) are required by the theory. That is what curved spacetime means.

 

If you want to declare that distances cannot change FTL then you need to propose a new theory of gravity. One which works at least as well as the one we have been using since 1915.

 

If you cannot offer a satisfactory theory of gravity, then I don't see how you can back up your statements. If you want to make unsubstantiated claims (essentially of the "Einstein was wrong!" type) then we can set up a special thread for you in Pseudoscience Speculation forum.

[jeff Mitchel]

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Space is not expanding, the galaxies are orbiting. The universe is not isotropic; if it were we would be affected by dark matter like far off galaxies .

[Klaynos]

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Space is not expanding, the galaxies are orbiting. The universe is not isotropic;

 

Cite evidence and sources for all of these claims please as most of them if no all are not supported by modern astrophysics or cosmology.

 

if it were we would be affected by dark matter like far off galaxies .

 

As discussed this is just plain wrong.

 

Also read my signature!

[jeff Mitchel]

Modern astrophysics and cosmology are blinded by the big bang. I find it naive to think we are smart enough to know when it all began.

[Klaynos]

Modern astrophysics and cosmology are blinded by the big bang. I find it naive to think we are smart enough to know when it all began.

 

Sorry but again, you NEED EVIDENCE, the big bang has evidence, therefore you are WRONG completely and utterly WRONG, your lack of appreciating just how wrong you are is AMAZING I am struck in awe of your blind belief in your own intelligence over the scintific community that is backed up by evidence...

 

Evidence is that pesky stuff that separates the nutters from the scientists...

[jeff Mitchel]

It must be convienent believing in a theory where you can't account for 95% OF THE MATTER AND 75% OF THE ENERGY.

[Klaynos]

It must be convienent believing in a theory where you can't account for 95% OF THE MATTER AND 75% OF THE ENERGY.

 

It's not belief, it's evidence. Something you don't seem to be familiar with.

[YT2095]

It must be convienent believing in a theory where you can't account for 95% OF THE MATTER AND 75% OF THE ENERGY.

 

I don`t Ever Recall Physics Ever saying that it knew Everything???

 

what it Does deal with is working Models that comply with the currently available Evidence, Yes there Is speculation, and Potential models held that have no Proof, That`s where Experimentation comes in, or hadn`t you Thought That far ahead yet

 

Science works within given Parameters, It allows room for imagination and free thinking, that will then lead to a way to Test this Idea via experiment(s). this will then lead to elimination of certain ideas or lend support to them (it`s impartial).

 

But we work with the tools we Have!

[kaneda]

Sorry but again, you NEED EVIDENCE, the big bang has evidence,

 

 

The big bang idea has the CMB and red shift. With creationist zeal, we have been told by infallible people that there is not the slightest chance that these can have any explanation other than what is needed of them.

 

The BB idea has many things wrong with it which is why it needs regular injections of fudge to keep it going and stop people finding what utter rubbish it is.

 

Martin. This is a science forum and not a science lecture hall. Serious scientists like Stephen Hawking would not be caught dead posting here. If I had a new theory, I would not be here but instead looking for a Nobel prize or whatever. Your idea of being a Physics Expert seems to be to quote what anyone can find for themselves in a science text book or on a science site, which means you are redundant here except to people who are too lazy to check the official version for themselves.

 

I have asked where all the new space is coming from, and evidence for a four physical dimension hypersphere which is needed for the current model of expansion. Why have you not asked these questions instead of blandly accepting whatever you are told? I don't know if it is zero but I see problems with expansion.

 

Space IS a material. You talk as though it were just an empty vacuum and nothing else. Explain how space can be bent by a gravitational source if it is just a vacuum as you claim.

 

How do we know that gravity is the same at any distance, anywhere in the universe. Take a star of several solar masses which becomes a black hole and recently we found one which had a stable orbit just one hundred miles from the event horizon (in other words, near where the centre of the core of the star would normally be for such a mass).

 

Gravity moves at light speed. How can it affect something moving FTL? Such a thing would be free of all gravity in the universe. We have no evidence on earth of FTL speeds and only in very distant space, an illusion caused by what is very poorly seen and even more poorly understood. Like god, if you want to propose the impossible, you need evidence and not just some crazy ideas based on faulty evidence with a few names of people you believe infallible to back it up.

 

You behave like a creationist, believing your text book right from the first word to the last. You have answered ZERO of the questions I asked you and just fall back on an "I'm right, you're wrong" stance. Expert? Hahahahaha!

[iNow]

kaneda,

 

I don't know who you've been talking to or which books you've been reading, but your perception is pretty significantly skewed from actual reality.

[kaneda]

iNow. Better not let Martin catch you making empty statements like that without proof to back up what you say.

 

I wonder why Martin uses a picture of a 17th century idiot as an avatar?

[iNow]

iNow. Better not let Martin catch you making empty statements like that without proof to back up what you say.

 

Why? You have provided all of the evidence I needed for this assertion in your own posts.

 

Further, if Martin, or any other site staff member asked me to clarify or support a position of mine, I would. If I could not, I would acknowledge that and retract my postion.

 

I ask you again. What's your point?

 

 

I wonder why Martin uses a picture of a 17th century idiot as an avatar?

 

I don't know. You should ask him, preferably somewhere that such a question is actually relevant, like in a PM.

[kaneda]

We are told that superstrings exist and lots of scientists work in that field. we are told that they have eleven dimensions. Proof that more than three dimensions exist is......? These are supposedly serious scientists and yet they cannot give any evidence to support what is just a belief. Evidence that superstrings exist is......? Actually a lot of people left the field about five years ago because they saw it as a scientific dead end, but the others still continue.

 

74% of the universe is dark energy. Or so the scientific establishment would have us believe. Evidence for DE is......sadly missing. Not a shred of evidence.

 

Why do certain people here ask me for evidence when with the right people, they are willing to believe such unsupported statements?

[Klaynos]

74% of the universe is dark energy. Or so the scientific establishment would have us believe. Evidence for DE is......sadly missing. Not a shred of evidence.

 

Why do certain people here ask me for evidence when with the right people, they are willing to believe such unsupported statements?

 

I will ignore string theory as we are NOT discussing that here.

 

The evidence for DE is that the universe expansion is speeding up, we don't know WHY this is happening so for the time being the reason is called dark energy, there are a few ideas about what dark energy might actually be but there's no evidence yet so no one goes around shouting "I AM RIGHT YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS" because physics requires evidence.

 

Now I hear you ask "What evidence is there that the universe is expanding and that this expansion is speeding up?"

 

Well I can actually answer that, Type 1a supernovae happen at a very specific mass barrier, the Chandrasekhar limit, I can derive this limit for you but I suspect the maths and physics will go straight over your head. Now because this limit is fixed, we know the amount of energy given off by Type 1a supernovae because we know they act like star-sized nuclear fusion bombs and can model them VERY accurately. So they are a "constant candle" and we know what frequencies they radiate at, so when we observe them we can tell how far they are shifted from these known values. And we can also work out how far away (and therefore how old that region of space is) the event happens, from this we see that expansion is accelerating.

[losfomot]

Why do certain people here ask me for evidence when with the right people, they are willing to believe such unsupported statements?

 

The "right people" do not hand out "unsupported statements" in the first place. I have to agree with iNow when he asks 'what's your point?'

 

You are against the current model (which has evidence supporting it) in favour of... what?

 

You ask some interesting questions, and you have some powerful resources here to help answer those questions... but your methods are far from desirable. Instead of rejecting the science that exists outright, why not just ask the questions that bother you.

 

Martin is probably one of the most knowledgable people you will ever have the good fortune of discussing this stuff with. You should take advantage of that fact, and not spit in the face of it.

 

I know you are a persistent bloke, but 'SFN' is a little different from what you're used to.... if you keep on the way you're going, you won't last long here.

[swansont]

If you want to make unsubstantiated claims (essentially of the "Einstein was wrong!" type) then we can set up a special thread for you in Pseudoscience Speculation forum.

 

And I have done so after the recent deluge of posts.

[jeff Mitchel]

Kaneda,

You are correct about the big bang, it didn't happen. I had a post on here titled "Galaxy Spin" where I logically explained what is happening. The big bang has turned into a religion and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified.

[Klaynos]

Kaneda,

You are correct about the big bang, it didn't happen. I had a post on here titled "Big Bang a Bust" where I logically explained what is happening. The big bang has turned into a religion and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified.

 

You did have a thread in it you where shown just how wrong you where.

 

Just because you don't like something doesn't make the evidence go away!

[thedarkshade]

Kaneda,

You are correct about the big bang, it didn't happen. I had a post on here titled "Galaxy Spin" where I logically explained what is happening. The big bang has turned into a religion and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified.

You can't just say Big Bang didn't happen. You need to have something really strong against that because BB does have a good base.

 

BTW, Galaxy Spin thing didn't get much support here did it...

[iNow]

Kaneda,

You are correct about the big bang, it didn't happen. I had a post on here titled "Galaxy Spin" where I logically explained what is happening. The big bang has turned into a religion and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified.

 

Rubbish.

 

Go against it all you want. That's what science is all about.

 

If you knew your elbow from your bung hole, you'd realize that it's hand waving, unsupported claims, and logical fallacies which get crucified, not the person challenging the ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin is probably one of the most knowledgable people you will ever have the good fortune of discussing this stuff with. You should take advantage of that fact, and not spit in the face of it.

I've repeated the above quote because it is so accurate and valid.

 

Martin is a good dude, and he is very knowledgable and helpful. He's not trying to push agendas or share dogmas, and that's important to realize. He wants to learn about our universe and maybe share what he learns with others. There is much honor in such an approach, and it's insulting to all of us that you would attack him like you have.

[Edtharan]

You are correct about the big bang, it didn't happen. I had a post on here titled "Galaxy Spin" where I logically explained what is happening.

All the logic in the world means absolutly nothing if evidence contradicts it. Take Zeno's Paradox. Zeno logically proved that an arrow could never hit a turtle. But observed evidence says otherwise. Thereofre even though it was logically proved that an arrow can't hit a turtle we know that it can.

 

This is why evidence is extremely important. This is why science needs observation and experimentation. It does not matter how famous the scientist, how perfect the scientists logic. If evidence contradicts what the scientist think, then the sceintist accepts that they are wrong and tries to understand what is really happening.

 

Have a look at the "Michalson/Morely" experiement. They were convinced that ther was a Luminiferrous Eather that caused Light. They were backed up by decades (even centuries) of Logic, but all their experiemnts said that there was no Luminiferrous Eather, so they looked for some other explaination.

 

The big bang has turned into a religion and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified.

Hand me those planks of wood and some nails .

 

Really, do you seriously believe this?

 

If you can actually give evidence that the Big Bang didn't happen then you would earn the Nobel Prize. There would be no question about it, you would have the Nobel prize in several categories. There have been a lot of Nobels given out to scientist because they disproved current thinking. IF you can disprove the Big Bang, you would be an absolute shoe in for the Nobel Prize.

[jeff Mitchel]

In the big bang there is no accounting for 95% of matter and 75% of energy??? What does it take for someone to say "Maybe this theory isn"t right"??? Religion like the big bang relies on the belief in dark matter and dark energy. In religion they just rename them deities and miracles. So far I am the only person I know of who does not believe in dark matter or dark energy in any form. It's not that I'm trying to be different, to me it's just logical.