Modern cosmology is wrong

[Mordecai]

20th century cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage due to:

1) Excessively far fetched implications (e.g., entire galaxies at the edge of the known universe are proffered to travelling faster than the speed of light in vacuum);

2) Gross internal inconsistencies (e.g., per very definition of explosions, the big bang would require the universe to be empty for about 13.7 billion light years from Earth, with galaxies then decreasing in speed, in dramatic disagreement with astrophysical evidence, while the background radiation can be easily proved to have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago); and

3) Large failures in representing the intended conditions (e.g., dark matter and dark energy cannot possibly provide any measurable effect when equally distributed, and they demand the contraction of galaxies and of the universe, respectively, according to Einstein gravitation). All in all, Santilli has initiated a much overdue new renaissance in cosmology along Galileo's teaching that we must first achieve rigorous mathematical representations and experimental verifications on Earth, prior to applying our views to the universe in a scientifically and financially accountable way.

The experimental confirmation of Santilli 1991 prediction that the redshift of the sun at sunset and sunrise is due to loss of energy by light to our atmosphere without any relative motion between the source, the medium and the observer (Santilli 1991 Iso-Redshift), and without any credible contribution from photon decomposition of light, absorption or scattering. These experiments have confirmed F. Zwicky 1929 hypothesis that the cosmological redshift is due to loss of energy by light to intergalactic gases without any need for the expansion of the universe (Zwicky 1929 Tired Light), although not according to the 1929 scattering origin (which has been dismissed at the astrophysical and laboratory levels), but according to Santilli's IsoRedShift (Zwicky-Santilli effect).

[juanrga]

20th century cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage due to:

1) Excessively far fetched implications (e.g., entire galaxies at the edge of the known universe are proffered to travelling faster than the speed of light in vacuum);

 

I agree on that there are fundamental issues with the current cosmological models, but the recession velocity is not an ordinary velocity. Galaxies are not "travelling" at speeds faster than light, but the space between galaxies is expanding with a recession velocity faster than that of light.

 

I do not find any problem with such recession speeds. No known law is violated.

 

2) Gross internal inconsistencies (e.g., per very definition of explosions, the big bang would require the universe to be empty for about 13.7 billion light years from Earth, with galaxies then decreasing in speed, in dramatic disagreement with astrophysical evidence, while the background radiation can be easily proved to have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago); and

 

The Big bang is not an ordinary explosion. It is often presented as such in pictorial or popular presentations, but it is not.

 

In an explosion matter moves in a fixed space, and there is a centre of the explosion. This is not how the Big Bang works. The Big Bang deals with the expansion of the own space and there is not a true centre.

Edited December 9, 2012 by juanrga

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Mordecai, please do not post your own non mainstream ideas in the main science forums, that is considered thread hijacking and is avant our rules.

[WorriedLad]

Juanga states

 

I agree on that there are fundamental issues with the current cosmological models, but the recession velocity is not an ordinary velocity. Galaxies are not "traveling" at speeds faster than light, but the space between galaxies is expanding with a recession velocity faster than that of light.

I do not find any problem with such recession speeds. No known law is violated.

I appreciate the honesty in stating "I do not find..." because that's decent and deserving respect because fully admitted under a true scientific democracy.

However, I have to disagree with sincere respect because the ACCELERATION of the expansion caused Earth being at the center of the universe even under the assumption that space itself is expanding (see Santilli's diagram in the main section and related text).

THAT is the point for which Santilli suggests a moment of reflection on all these hyperbolic assumptions, because the IsoRedShift of the Sun at Sunset provides a numerically exact and time invariant representation of the experimental data on cosmological redshift without any expansion, without any acceleration of the expansion, without any expansion of space itself, without any big Bang, without any dark matter, without any dark energy e, without any hyperbolic assumption to justify a preceding hyperbolic assumption, etc. see the comprehensive MEASUREMENTS of IRS in two continents
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf
Until these measurements are disproved by massive counter-measurements, this series of hyperbolic conjectures on the universe remain fringe science.


Juanga additionally states

The Big bang is not an ordinary explosion. It is often presented as such in pictorial or popular presentations, but it is not. In an explosion matter moves in a fixed space, and there is a center of the explosion. This is not how the Big Bang works. The Big Bang deals with the expansion of the own space and there is not a true center.

 

I am sorry but Juanga this time presents these views as reality out there and, as such, the presentation does not warrant respect because the views are extremely, incredibly, unbelievably farfetched. If I assume that the Sun is made up of excited bees, I can prove any astrophysical model I wish, but that would be the negation of science.

 

There must be a limit in: assuming a farfetched conjecture (the universe originated from an explosion at a point as originally proposed by Weinberg and his brothers); then to modify it because of its evident inconsistency with astrophysical evidence (return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center due to the acceleration of the expansion radially from Earth from Hubble's law); and then modify it again to avoid the preceding inconsistencies; and then modify the latter again by claiming (how???) that the Big Bang occurred everywhere in the universe !!!!!!! But then where is the Bang to begin with???? This is ultra farfetched theology, at the limit of being the negation even of fringe science.

 

When he was at Harvard University, it is nowadays internationally known that Santilli had "irreconcilable disagreements" with Weinberg, Glashow and (the late) Coleman on the Big Bang (as well as otehr aspects) because the Big Bang conjecture is grossly inconsistent with the original intent, represent the expansion of the universe.

 

When you add the acceleration of the expansion (that is, the proportionality of the redshift on the distance from Earth), Juanga illustrates quite clearly what one has to do, add the farfetched conjecture on farfetched conjectures, none of which avoid Earth at the center of the universe (due to the acceleration of the expansion) and, most seriously, all conjectures having been disproved by Santilli IRS MEASUREMENTS on Earth. Their continued ignorance without massive counter-measurements and disproofs PUBLISHED IN REFEREED JOURNAL 9rather than fake abuses of pseuodo-authority) only damages the image of American Science throughout the world. See the DVD
http://www.world-lecture-series.org/a-new-renaissance

The moderator Kleynos requests

Mordecai please do not post your own non mainstream ideas in the main science forums, that is considered thread hijacking and is avant our rules.

However, with due respect, I believe that Mordecai merely posted statements published in refereed journals perhaps for the intent of illustrating that indeed:

20th century cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage

[michel123456]

Does Isoredshift has this particular scaled feature? -see this thread in this Forum.

 

From this http://tap.iop.org/astronomy/astrophysics/702/file_47550.doc page 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[swansont]

However, with due respect, I believe that Mordecai merely posted statements published in refereed journals

 

!

Moderator Note

Regardless, the subject matter is not mainstream. The material has been moved to speculations, so it is moot for this particular discussion, but necessary to stem the recurrence of Santilli discussions elsewhere on the forums. Stay on topic, please.

[zapatos]

Juanga states...

 

I appreciate the honesty in stating "I do not find..." because that's decent and deserving respect because fully admitted under a true scientific democracy.

 

Juanga additionally states...

 

 

I am sorry but Juanga this time presents these views as reality out there and, as such, the presentation does not warrant respect because the views are extremely, incredibly, unbelievably farfetched.

So you claim juanrga's views are "extremely, incredibly, unbelievably farfetched."

 

But you present your view as reality. I suppose then that your view does not warrant respect either, under your own definition.

Edited December 10, 2012 by zapatos