No universe expansion.

[jeff Mitchel]

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.

[insane_alien]

ah so you are saying direct observations are wrong and that we should instead trust someone who shows little math skills or even consistency in their ideas?

 

stick to what science actually says in this thread jeff. its not about your own little pet idea that should have been put down long ago.

[jeff Mitchel]

No A. No B. No C.

[insane_alien]

prove it.

[Klaynos]

There is observational evidence that says you're wrong and that the universe is expanding. So you'll have to deal with that.

[jeff Mitchel]

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.

[insane_alien]

ahem, dark matter is not necessary for the big bang to be explained. (infact it sort of opposes it) dark matter is necessary because of the rotation of galaxies. we have even made some very detailed 3D maps of darkmatter. it DOES exist. we are just not to sure of the details of its nature. could be slow neutrinos, could be something else. we're working on it.

 

if the universe is not expanding then a lot of galaxies are travelling at multiples of c. we have lots of evidence in favour of dark matter, dark energy and expansion of the universe, where is your evidence?

[mooeypoo]

Isn't this the third or fourth time we've been having this conversation with you, Mr Mitchell?

 

Didn't you, last time too, post the same general idea with no proof, argued for quite a while on the necessity of proof - quite a vain argument in a SCIENCE FORUMS - and then left it "unresolved" on your part?

 

Is this going to be a recurring issue here, you posting vainly unproven sentences, then argue off-topic principles about the rules of the forum, then run off when you're proven wrong, then come back as if nothing happened and post this - SAME THING - again?

 

Because just like posting an empty claim with no proof in a scientific forum, this above 'methodology', too, is against the rules here.

 

 

You will not convince anyone without proof.

Your attempts to make it seem as if you are surprised that we require proofs were annoying in the first time (didn't you read the purpose statement of the forum you signed up to?) and are extremely silly now.

 

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

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.

[insane_alien]

As for "dark energy" that's just silly

 

if it is so silly please provide proof. surely if it is silly there is some humungous logical flaw in it.

 

bear in mind that all science has had to say on the matter so far is that the universe is expanding faster than before. something must be causing it. and proposed dark energy as one possible mechanism. all we know about it is that it doesn't interact like normal energy. hence dark.

 

dark matter is not blackholes. it is something that doesn't intteract except via gravity. for your 'idea' to work there would need to be even more of it and then even more dark energy to cover the expansion of the universe.

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

We won't need to hold any breaths, because we have the scientific observations and facts on our side, which you don't.

 

The fact you choose to ignore the science behind the big bang and the expansion and dark matter does not mean that the science doesn't exist.

 

The fact you choose to not understand our explanations (for the fourth thread already on the same points!) does not make us wrong, you right and science invalid.

 

Nice of you to ignore my point there, Mr Mitchell, but that too doesn't make the fact you AGAIN post the SAME points, that we have already addressed a few times already, in another thread, with quite the annoying tendency to move the goal post, ignore our claims, twist the facts and run off when it suits you.

 

I don't even begin to get into your argument (it's hardly existent in your Original Post, and it hardly got 'filled' with any substantiation or SUGGESTED substantiation in later posts) because your methodology is - quite simply - annoying, and against the rules.

 

Start listening to the claims people put forth before you utter such nonsense as science is wrong. People might actually start taking you seriously if you debate logically, rather than poke and run.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

That's like asking me to prove there is no green unicorns

Using this analogy, it is you who are claiming that the green unicorns exist, that is why the burden of proof is on you.

 

You are claiming that you have another theory that explains all the observational evidence we have (and you do have to explain all of it). That is the Green Unicorn you are trying to say exists.

 

Under your theory there is no need for Dark Energy or Matter or the Big bang, but they are aspects of your theory.

 

The current theory states that observations indicate that there is matter that doesn't seem to interact with electromagnetic radiation, yet exerts a gravitational influence. This is then called "Dark Matter" (dark because it doesn't interact with light).

 

Also, there seems to be some force that appears to be causing an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. As this force is unknown in exactly what it is, it is called Dark energy (in this case it is dark because we are in the dark about what it actually is).

 

Then there is the matter of the big bang. From observations, we can see that most of the galaxies in the universe seem to be moving away form us (red shifted), and the further away the galaxy is the faster it is receding. On the assumption that there is no special place in the universe (which if there was such a place it would show up in observations, which it hasn't), this means that all galaxies are moving away from each other and the further they are the faster they are receding. Following this backwards in time, it indicates that all the matter in the universe was, at one point, in the same place and then expanded. This is what we call the big bang.

 

So...

 

If we want to get rid of Dark Matter, we have to explain what it is that is gravitationally interacting with matter, but does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (light).

 

If we what to get rid of Dark Energy, we have to explain why the universe appears to be undergoing an acceleration of expansion.

 

And if we want to get rid of the Big Bang, we have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding and therefore, in the past, would have been in a single location (which it then expanded from).

 

All you have done is to state that these don't exist, but have not provided an alternative to why we have these observations.

[jeff Mitchel]

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?

[mooeypoo]

The one with more scientific proof is more logical.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How exactly does your hypothesis fit the observations?

[Bignose]

"Logic" has almost nothing to do with it. For a long time, it was very "logical" for a lot of people to believe that the earth was resting on the back of a giant tortoise. For a long time, it was very "logical" to believe that heat energy was a fluid called phlogiston. For a long time, it was very "logical" to believe that the moon was made of cheese.

 

All of these have been refuted by evidence. Please cite the evidence that disproves the current model and supports your model. You can't just go by what your gut thinks is "logical". You have to evidence to back it up.

 

End of story.

[jeff Mitchel]

"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.

 

______________

[Klaynos]

Without maths there is no way that your idea fits any data or observations. That's the way it works...

 

Just saying words does not make the data match the idea.

[jeff Mitchel]

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.

[insane_alien]

if galaxies were orbiting some point then not only should it be very very obvious(along the same lines 'the great attractor' is very obvious) but it should also be well within the visible universe(as gravity travels at the speed of light).

 

this means that if we were to look towards this 'greater attractor' we would see a myriad of blueshifted galaxies very very far away from us. much like if we consider stars when looking towards the centre of our galaxy.

 

and ignoring that, if all galaxies are in an orbit, the ones catching up on us (in a closer orbit) should be blueshifted and the ones we are cathing up to(in a further orbit) should be blueshifted.

 

on the whole, there should be a roughly 50:50 ratio of blueshifted to redshifted.

 

no, as the number of redshifted galaxies outnumbers the number of blueshifted galaxies like the earth outweighs a small child i think it is safe to say your idea is utter bollocks.

 

i believe i also brought this up last time and you utterly ignored me. please do not repeat this.

[mooeypoo]

I must point out, yet again, that beyond the fact that this is a repeated thread (admittedly so, if you read the original post itself), one that has no proof, no substantiations, no attempts to explain its logic, refusal to supply the math, and lacking any and all kinds of scientific endeavoring at all, it also has a clear lack of respect of the rules from Mr Mitchell here.

 

Mr Mitchell, the request to substantiate, give proofs and maths, is more than just the scientific thing to do. It's more than just your responsibility as the one who opened this (ridiculously repetitive) thread.

It's the rules of the forums.

Perhaps it's time you read them again.

 

This is also the third time I am pointing this out to you.

Will you go and read them already, or are we - again - going to have yet another vain thread messing around your insistence that scientific debates should go according to your wishes rather than according to logic and the scientific method?

 

We are not here to give you a crash course in physics or Astronomy, we are here to analyze your theory. The burden of proof is on you, not us. The scientific methodology for proving and substantiating the Big Bang exists (and is repeatedly proven again and again with more proofs) for many years, and your claim that it makes no sense will not be what causes it to disappear from the scientific thought.

 

If you are here to preach and insist "things aren't logical", all the while not supplying any sort of proof for your claims, you should stop typing and go read the forum rules. Just like you should've done LAST TIME.

 

 

Save us all the trouble.

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

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.

[insane_alien]

not really, you have the larger problem as it completely contradicts your proposition that galaxies are orbiting some central point.

 

so that leaves us with expansion. for expansion to be accelerating there must be something causing it. we have labelled 'dark energy' as the placeholder, it may not even be energy it my just be a property of space itself. we are investigating.

 

dark matter is required to explain the orbital velocity of stars in a galaxy. this has nothing to do with the motion of galaxies through space. your idea would still have to address this as it claims there is no dark matter.

 

also, wwe have mapped the gravitational anomalies in certain parts of space and it does not correspond with visible matter. so SOMETHING is there and it is darkmatter. as to its exact nature we are unsure. it is possible that the LHC may shed some light(no pun intended) on this.

[Sayonara]

The model proposed in this thread (or rather, lack thereof) doesn't meet any of the standards we expect on SFN. It does not qualify as science or even pseudoscience. Nor does it speculate, other than to say "I disagree".

 

Opinions are fine, but they need to be backed up with something other than denial or random analogies.

[Royston]

I spent nearly half an hour constructing a post explaining the history, and evidence that modeled big bang cosmology, only to press the back arrow, realizing that it's pointless arguing with somebody who has clearly no knowledge in the subject...and who has already made their mind up. I'm not meaning to sound pompous, but your idea really doesn't hold up.

 

Jeff, do yourself a favour and do some courses in astronomy, I guarantee you'll see your idea will break down. If you're so adamant that your idea is correct, then you need some mathematical rigor to back your idea up, not only that, but you'll have to find error in accepted principles (and that, I'm afraid is very hard indeed)...good luck.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Snail