0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.
Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt
but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles.
Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.I look forward to your reply with interest.
Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.
Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.
Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?No, absolutely not. It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe. They will lead you to three fundamental truths:1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs Z/A (charge density) vs A:http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htmHere are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163 (2005).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007Xhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051I will be happy to answer any questions. Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).With kind regards,Oliver K. Manuelhttp://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
G'day from the land of ozzzzThere are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs. The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.
Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".