Big Bang theory wrong

[vander]

Just to make matter clear. I do not have a physics theory. I have a materialist perspective which challenges (to say the very least) some of the assumption which underpins physics as an abstractions paradigm.

 

However, if you insist on seeing it as a theory that needs to be tested in the conventional manner, then conduct the torsion balance excitement that measures the gravitational constant and heat one of the masses and watch the attraction increase in contradiction to what physics claims.

 

Or, read Cavendish’s original paper in Philosophical Transactions of 1798 and see the same thing.

 

Now, place two absolutely equivalent masses on the torsion balance and bring them into close proximity. They will repel each other, again in contradiction to what physics claims.

 

The attraction called gravity and electrostatic attraction have the same cause, the absorption of emission. It’s just that physics has thought of gravity as different and pertaining to the large scale. We could quite rightly call electrostatic attraction small scale gravity, or gravity large scale electrostatic attraction.

 

The nuclear forces are merely very small scale examples of attraction through the absorption of emission.

 

I don’t question the validity of data. Data is simply data. It’s the interpretation of data that is at issue.

 

I most certainly do not accept the idea of particles travelling through an otherwise empty space, as photons being exchanged to cause electrostatic attraction.

 

Photons travel through interacting with the emission called space. This interaction is the absorption and emission of emission no less.

 

Emission is simply a term to represent that thing of which everything is composed.

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I considered the question of what was the most fundamental thing of which everything is composed.

 

As particles are seen as composed of smaller particles which are composd of smaller particles, etc I decided to adopt the term "emission" to represent that most fundamental thing from which everything is composed, even particles.

 

You could say that emission becomes "realized" through its construction into things that we can actually detect or otherwise observe.

 

I see emission as being made of matter, so that everything which is composed of emission, which is everything, is also composed of matter.

 

Otherwise, emission is unknowable in and of itself. It's a grand assumption.

 

I've used the comments from this forum develop my essay, but its now time for me to move on.

 

Science is not just about doing experiments and making measurements. It's about thinking and deciding and coming to conclusions and then pursuing those conclusion where-ever they take you.

 

Stephen

[Klaynos]

Just to make matter clear. I do not have a physics theory. I have a materialist perspective which challenges (to say the very least) some of the assumption which underpins physics as an abstractions paradigm.

 

So, it's not science then.

 

Science is the human attempt to mathematically model the universe, make predictions and test those predictions against reality. And therefore understand teh universe through the language of maths.

 

However, if you insist on seeing it as a theory that needs to be tested in the conventional manner, then conduct the torsion balance excitement that measures the gravitational constant and heat one of the masses and watch the attraction increase in contradiction to what physics claims.

 

All well known and understood physics. You are not changing gravity, you're just using a flawed measuring device.

 

Or, read Cavendish’s original paper in Philosophical Transactions of 1798 and see the same thing.

 

Now, place two absolutely equivalent masses on the torsion balance and bring them into close proximity. They will repel each other, again in contradiction to what physics claims.

 

The attraction called gravity and electrostatic attraction have the same cause, the absorption of emission. It’s just that physics has thought of gravity as different and pertaining to the large scale. We could quite rightly call electrostatic attraction small scale gravity, or gravity large scale electrostatic attraction.

 

The nuclear forces are merely very small scale examples of attraction through the absorption of emission.

 

I don’t question the validity of data. Data is simply data. It’s the interpretation of data that is at issue.

 

I most certainly do not accept the idea of particles travelling through an otherwise empty space, as photons being exchanged to cause electrostatic attraction.

 

Photons travel through interacting with the emission called space. This interaction is the absorption and emission of emission no less.

 

Emission is simply a term to represent that thing of which everything is composed.

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I considered the question of what was the most fundamental thing of which everything is composed.

 

As particles are seen as composed of smaller particles which are composd of smaller particles, etc I decided to adopt the term "emission" to represent that most fundamental thing from which everything is composed, even particles.

 

You could say that emission becomes "realized" through its construction into things that we can actually detect or otherwise observe.

 

I see emission as being made of matter, so that everything which is composed of emission, which is everything, is also composed of matter.

 

Otherwise, emission is unknowable in and of itself. It's a grand assumption.

 

I've used the comments from this forum develop my essay, but its now time for me to move on.

 

Science is not just about doing experiments and making measurements. It's about thinking and deciding and coming to conclusions and then pursuing those conclusion where-ever they take you.

 

Stephen

 

Nothing you have discussed is not explained by current physics. You are not doing science you are woffelling, and on top of that You are ban evading.

[swansont]

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.

 

If you take two identical clocks and place one on the surface of the Earth and the other on the top of a high tower, the clock at the top of the tower will be moving faster than the clock on the surface, due to the rotation of the Earth. Experiment indicates that the clock at the top of the tower runs slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth. Physics claims that this proves that time runs more slowly with the increase in motion. Actually, the result is due to the difference in the density of the emission impacting upon the clocks. The density of emission at the top of the tower is less than at the surface of the Earth. We are talking about atomic clocks, which keep time through atomic decay, and involves absorption and emission.

 

 

Well, let's take a closer look at this. A clock at the top of the tower actually runs faster because it is higher in a gravitational potential — the effect is that of general relativity, not special relativity. This has been experimentally confirmed. (And atomic clocks do not use decay, though they do use absorption and emission)

 

Since your premise predicts the opposite, doesn't that falsify it? Of course, if somehow you can rearrange your thesis to jibe with the real result, then it doesn't really have any predictive power, and should be discarded. And this also points to a broader theme: you don't have sufficient understanding of what you are criticizing.

[Stephen Mooney]

Someone commenting on my dispersion explanation for the cosmic redsift said the following in another forum.

 

“If that were true, the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra. The observed placement of the bands on the spectra would not display any shift at all.

 

Since this is obviously not the case (red shift is the measure of the spectra relative to the placement of the absorption bands) his theory is DOA.”

 

I responded with the following.

 

“If the redshift was a Doppler Effect, than it would also increase the wavelength of light with which physics detects the absorption bands: “the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra”. As this is obviously not the case, the Doppler Effect theory is DOA.

 

The fact that they don’t shift in phase, is due to them representing different levels of emission. For the dispersion theory to be correct, would require that one would shift to a greater extent than the other. This is observed.”

 

The big bang theory dead.

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I should have added, "hoist with you own petard".

 

Stephen

[swansont]

I don't think there's much interest to what was discussed in another forum. What is of interest is addressing objections raised in this forum.

 

I've reopened this thread, following a glitch worked out by the staff, under the assumption that you will respond to questions put to you. If you don't it will be closed.