0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?
The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all 
what do you believe?
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:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINHere 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)....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002)....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163 (2005)....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN5. "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/S106377880611007X...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN6. "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-...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINI 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. Manuel...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
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".
What debunked ideas?Or you just like being a critic
Quote from: Harry Costas on 12/07/2009 10:12:38What debunked ideas?Or you just like being a criticI think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS
I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers.
Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me .........
Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.
(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos, (c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars, (d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and (e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.
Quote from: om on 12/07/2009 19:13:39(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos, (c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars, (d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and (e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept. Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.
If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.
I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions? You appeared to supply the answers. Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching? Whatever, I’ll play ball.
(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)
What is the most abundant element in the Earth?Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32
Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that than your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)
Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet. Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.
Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron? I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.
What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.
I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?What is your point?
Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.
ahhhh... Iron and Oxygen, Earth's two most abundant elements -- Rust -- Hemaglobin!Hemaglobin... the color of the glow of health and of the blush of embarrassment, the color of both the wondrous renewability of the womb and the shameful sin of war. Hemaglobin, of all the proteins, the most symbolic of life!!(And why do I feel underfoot around 2 struggling titans? -- or at least 1½ titans?)
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government. Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
G'day OliverYour response is fantastic, thank you for the info.
Quote from: om on 12/07/2009 04:56:08THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. -----This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something.
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale.