Big Bang theory wrong

[Stephen Mooney]

Edwin Hubble's assumption that the redshift from distant galaxies was indicative of a Doppler Effect and an explanding Universe, which had begin with a big bang, is wrong.

 

The redshift is merely indictative of the way in which light travels across the Universe.

 

Stephen

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How so? What about the way light travels redshifts it?

[Stephen Mooney]

As the light (which is emission) from distant galaxies travels across the Universe it's subject to dispersion and interaction with the emission called space. It is this which results in the increased wavelength of the light, and not a Dopper Effect resulting from galaxies accelerating away.

 

See the essay "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe", located at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

 

Stephen Mooney

[mooeypoo]

You're making quite a lot of definitive claims in here, Stephen, do you have any validation on them? Seeing as the current theory is supported by observation *and* math, do you have an alternative substantiated explanation?

 

Blank statements don't quite help..

[Daecon]

Maybe the "ether" is sticky and it drags photons down slightly but it's only noticeable over tremendously long distances.

 

What? I'm just trying to help.

[Stephen Mooney]

"substantiated explanation".

The big bang theory is not based on a "substantiated explanation". It is based on an assumption about the cosmic redshift. What we are really talking about are competing assumptions, which can only be "substantiated" by their consquences for our whole understanding of the process of the Universe.

 

Physics, by which I mean the abstractionist paradigm of establishment physics, will claim that space is a vacuum and then claim that it is composed of virtual particles, dark matter, and who know what next week.

 

As I seek a totally connected perspective of the Universe, I decided that space is composed of the emission of objects and that all objects have emission which forms a field around those objects.

 

If you read my essay you will see I've gone a let futher than that. See "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe", located at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

 

When I realised that many of the assumptions of physics were wrong, I also realized that a new paradigm was needed for us to obtain a connected understanding of the Universe.

 

And, basically, that's where I'm presently at. Exploring the possibility of a new paradigm, a materialist paradigm, a typology which always begins with what we observe.

 

The big bang theory is wrong.

 

Physics can not measure cosmic distance with the redshift of the light from galaxies. You can not distingish between the distance and the luminosity of a object from the redshift of its light.

 

Physics claims that light does not change as it travels. Think about it. Light leaves a source and retains its wavelength as it travels. Complete nonsense.

 

Stephen

[Klaynos]

You need maths.

 

You need predictions that are more precise and match the experimental evidence BETTER than current theories.

 

Until then you have nothing, you're not doing science, you're just making stuff up.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is no ether, we've experimental evidence for that.

 

We know light speed changes, c does not, but the effective speed does. These changes are very very small space, but we take them into account.

[mooeypoo]

Well, you can't really state the Big Bang theory being wrong without showing us any sort of proof and expect us to accept it.

 

The "big bang" theory has implications that are observable, it has made predictions that came true (and keep coming true), it fits with other phenomena and theories we observe in the universe and has very sound math that explains phenoemena and helps us predict quite accurately events and phenomena that happen in space.

 

What does your theory have?

[jackson33]

Stephen; Don't get discouraged, you caught my attention with dispersion and their are a good many skeptics of BBT. You offered a good rebuttal in the site listed and are in 'Speculations'. I don't bother posting here on BBT, but you might want to check out NASA's light photons available to increased distances. In a 8-10 minute exposure, from the furthest objects, maybe one is observed/recieved, distance reflects that dispersion...

[swansont]

Physics, by which I mean the abstractionist paradigm of establishment physics, will claim that space is a vacuum and then claim that it is composed of virtual particles, dark matter, and who know what next week.

 

 

Physics claims no such thing. You are debunking a straw man.

 

Saying "space is a vacuum" is not a statement about the construct of space, as with "this chair is wood." "Space is a vacuum" is saying that space generally contains very little matter.

 

Physics claims that light does not change as it travels. Think about it. Light leaves a source and retains its wavelength as it travels. Complete nonsense.

 

You'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. Science demands testing and empirical evidence. What have you got?

[ajb]

Any comments on the other evidence of BB cosmology?

 

The abundance of the light elements and the CMBR for example?

[Stephen Mooney]

The CMBR is the emission fabric of space. With regards to the abundnce of light elements, I've made in clear in my essay that as light changes as it travels you can not determine the presence of any particular element from that light.

However, I think that the detection of light which conforms to the light elements is (in fact) the sub-atomic symmetry of those elements.

 

You should read my essay at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

 

Stephen

[ajb]

I hope your not offended if I pass on your kind offer to read your essay.

[swansont]

The CMBR is the emission fabric of space.

[…]

I think that the detection of light which conforms to the light elements is (in fact) the sub-atomic symmetry of those elements.

 

Word salad. What is "emission fabric?" How does a symmetry manifest itself as the detection of light?

 

If you want a hypothesis to be seriously considered you have to establish that the BB does not account for some phenomenon, i.e. either as being incomplete or wrong (and this does not include someone just "not liking" the explanation). You also have to do it better — account for some new facet as well as explaining all the rest that the theory covers.

 

Also, from a courtesy standpoint if you want people to engage you in discussion, you have to be willing to discuss it here.

Edited February 21, 2009 by swansont
fix tag

[Klaynos]

Here at scienceforums.net we expect posters to follow a certain amount of scienfic rigour even in the psudoscience and speculations forum. I'd strongly recommend given you above comments that you read the following threads before continuing:

 

Why has my post been moved to Pseudoscience & Speculation

So, you've got a new theory...

Pseudoscience for the Responsible

 

Failure to answer questions etc. WILL result in infractions for trolling being issued.

 

Please note this is a standard message.

 

[Mokele]

Stephen Mooney, here's a simple question - what evidence would prove your idea wrong?

 

 

No dodging - this is the single most important question in any scientific discussion.

 

 

All science relies on testing falsifiable hypotheses, and if you cannot lay out criteria that would lead you to reject your idea, it's not science, period.

[cameron marical]

hey man. i like your theory. i think its perfectly beleiveable. ya, you have to have some tests and eqautions to prove your right, but i think you can do it.

[ennui]

I read the essay he posted a link to. I'm not a physicist, but even I can see it's very flawed. The author (Stephen) glosses over scientific topics without any scientific rigor.

 

As an example: "Physics sees this attraction as being the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. On this question physics remains silent. It has a mathematical expression of attraction as an effect and doesn’t desire anything more."

 

First, there's a contradiction. One can't say that physics "remains silent", and then proceed to say that it offers a mathematical expression. A mathematical expression is not "remaining silent."

 

Second, electrostatic charges are explained very well by physics. It's hard to even know what "something more" the author is referring to. If you've explained something with experiment, developed a great theory, and you even have a mathematical basis... I can't see what more you'd want. The author then goes on to explain his interpretation of a crude experiment while only giving bizarre pseudoscience as justification.

 

He uses the sentence "I decided that the attraction was the result of the pith ball absorbing emission from the glass rod, and that this emission forms an unbroken material connection between the two objects." I might decide that the Moon is made of cheese; but without the scientific data to back it up my claim is useless.

 

Where are the repeat experiments? The statistics? The falsification? How is Stephen's interpretation proven? Words such as "emission" are used without any explanation. Emission of what? How were these emissions identified and proven - since they deviate from standard scientific thinking?

 

It's all just waffle, if anyone takes the time to read it. It's as if someone has done a beginner's course in "Philosophy of Science" and posted their first essay online. It's shabby work.

Edited February 21, 2009 by ennui

[Stephen Mooney]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

 

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually, what I said was

"Physics sees this attraction as being the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. On this question physics remains silent."

 

Physics does remain silent on how dislike charges cause attraction.

 

Stephen

[Bignose]

Physics does remain silent on how dislike charges cause attraction.

 

But this isn't true. Photons have been shown to be the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. That is physics not being silent on how dislike charges cause attraction.

 

Perhaps you should read a little more in depth before criticizing things you don't know that much about. E.g. read up on the Standard Model of particle physics. It certainly isn't complete, and there are actual questions that merit discussion. But the point I quoted above is pretty much settled -- the evidence to support it it very conclusive. You would do well to read up on that evidence and learn why the standard model is the standard model -- that is specifically what evidence supports the model and why.

[Mokele]

Stephen, this is your last chance - explain the criterion for falsification and testing of your idea.

[Stephen Mooney]

My interpretation is proven by virtue of the fact that it goes to the mechanism and is not merely an expression of effect or a mathermatical representation.

 

Clearly, you are convinced that the absractionist paraidgm is the ultimate means for understanding the Universe. I'm not.

 

I intentionally chose to begin with a simple electrostatic experiment to demonstrate how the abstractionist paradigm has confined the thinking of the physics establishment.

 

My favorite is the atomic clocks experiment. The fact that "the rate of atomic decay is dependent upon the density of the impacting emission" was completely overlooked by physics because it chose to treat time as a thing in itself and not look for the materialist mechanism of its variability.

 

The true nature of the nuclear fusion process was over looked by physics because its thinking was once again confined by the abstractionist paradigm.

 

Because of this confined thinking, the physics establishment has allowed me to make these discoveries.

 

I suppose I should be thankfull that there are people like you who can't think beyond the confines of the abstractinist paradigm.

 

Stephen

[Mokele]

No falsification criteria, no experimental test = not science.

 

Enjoy ban-ville.

[vander]

The exchange of photons as the cause of electrostatic attraction. I had forgotten about that. Thanks. I changed my essay accordingly.

 

The exchange of emission, the exchange of particles. I prefer emission because I don't believe that particles travel as simply integrated units.

 

For some reason I was barred from this forum. I dared to say "You are, of course, entitled to your opinion." Apparently that's a crime.

 

Needless to say, I have more than one email address.

 

Whoops, now you know I dare say you will bar me again.

 

That Ok. You have been helpfull and there's lot of other forums from which to obtain feedback.

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The exchange of photons as the cause of electrostatic attraction. Right. Got that.

 

I've updated my essay.

 

Stephen

[ennui]

Everything we know about biology is wrong. I'm planning to write a PDF on it, and proclaim myself the Biology Messiah. The problem is that every biologist in the world thinks differently to me, therefore, they are wrong. I can prove my theory that all Biology is actually caused by tiny sub-atomic rabbits by saying how biology is "too interested in measuring." Who needs more evidence than that?

 

Take that, science.