[Jay-qu]

I am sick of people complaining that because they dont have a background in science they dont have a valid opinion.. Yes Im doing an astrophysics degree and its going to take me 4 years - can four years of hard study be matched by what you find in wikipedia articles?

Im not saying you dont have an opinion - by all means you do and we have no probs listening and discussion them with you. The fact still remains, a whole lot of guys smarter than us have decided that for the moment BBT is the best bet - not correct, but the best fit model to what we see. So for the moment any theory other than BBT will be considered alternate.

Its not a bad thing to have a forum for alternate theories, it just helps clean things up a little.

Thanks

J

[Jay-qu]

Sorry if I come accross a bit harsh, but try and see it from our point of view.

Things are never black and white, but we still try to draw a line,
Jay

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Sorry if I come accross a bit harsh, but try and see it from our point of view.

Things are never black and white, but we still try to draw a line,
Jay

the title of the thread "BB, Erroneous" and i suspect an effort to argue its authority. how can arguing an accepted scientific theory be classified *alternative*, whether or not an alternative is offered, in this case NOT...

grats on your educational effort, taking a course and learning a subject may not be the same...NS claims a 20 years effort to understand certain scientific views. what you learn in four years may or may not equal his 20. i will tell you IMO, if you later apply for a position in the US science community, indicating the desire to disprove many accepted principles, you will not get the job...

as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view. not just in science, but on many issues. if i ran a forum, even with my contrary nature, i would expect the moderators/administrators to feel as i do, which is understandable.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by jackson33

as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view. not just in science, but on many issues.

Or, it could just be that the staff is an intelligent bunch that sees clearly the faults in the premises of others, and work consistently to correct false information.

It's not like they are claiming that the clouds are full of dancing purple unicorns or anything. You seem to argue the point that, when a poster says 1+1=3, and they correct them to say that 1+1=2, they are falling prey to some sort of numb group think comradery, and that's rather silly.

The funny thing really is that most staff wouldn't say 1+1=2. They'd say, based on this and confirmed by that, the common understanding is 1+1=2. Can you support somehow how you arrived at your conclusion that 1+1=3?

[jackson33]

you need to look at the arguments. they are the same and just as ambiguous or with less substance. "source", "what proof" and the host of rebuttals you see. i would add that its not likely the staff normally would agree so enthusiastically, if no one else were privy to a discussion. that is under normal circumstances reading between the lines i see very different personalities.

i prefer to argue on issues of a subject rather than the total. so on BBT and the singularity, lets try the said temperatures of space itself. its suggested that matter or particles formed as space which was also formed cooled to less than 10 billion degree kelvin. no one seems to guess how long space was over 10 billion K, or how much over it was to have cooled. its said the current temperature of space is about 3 degree K or just above AZ or where molecular action cannot take place. please just give me a guess; how long would it take for something 10 to 20 billion degrees to cool to 3, while all that is formed, disintegrated, reformed the number of suggested times to get what is in our known universe?

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by New Science

The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered.

Jackson, you suggested that there was a uniformity of mind set within Hypogrpahy staff. I sugest this is not so. I am a mere minor moderator, yet I certainly have grave suspicions about the reality of the Big Bang. These misgivings arise from philosophical considerations, not scientific, therefore I rarely mention these reservations at all.

Nevertheless they exist and I welcome any evidence that might substantiate alternative views such as those of Arp. However, what is important is evidence, not my (or anyone elses) opinion of what I would like to see as evidence.

NewScience made much of the anomalous redshifts, claiming these quite invalidated Big Bang theory. This recent research offers a simple explanation for these anomalous shifts and demonstrates, again, that taking absolute positions in science lies somewhere along an axis that runs from unwise to downright foolish.

Zhang, T. X. Electric Redshift and Quasars The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 636, Issue 2, pp. L61-L64. 01/2006
Abstract
A new redshift mechanism-the electric redshift-is proposed, in accord with the five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies Einsteinian general relativity and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory. It is shown that a dense, massive, and charged object can significantly shift a light ray that is emitted from the object's surface toward the red as compared with the gravitational redshift. A compact, electrically charged object with density and mass comparable to those of a neutron star can impart a redshift as great as quasars have. Therefore, if quasars are dense, massive, and electrically charged objects, their large redshifts do not imply that all quasars are extremely distant; thus, the luminosity of quasars and their association with low-redshift galaxies can be understood. This interpretation does not conflict with big bang cosmology, because the electric redshifts are negligible for normal stars, galaxies, and large-scale matter, which are not dense and electrically charged.

Source: Content Page

[jackson33]

Eclogite; admittedly *staff* was loosely used in my discussion. i will suggest if you check out NS first three or four threads and the response to a new member and by whom, you will see a consistency. this however is not the point of my argument nor do i have a problem with the staff. frankly its at levels you don't see on many forums with well educated people in differing fields.

also, i am not defending NS or his methods to make a point. debating requires some moderation of conviction when trying to influence an outcome. both NS and many of the staff, lacks this talent...IMO.

the so called red shifts, in my mind are flawed in explanation by just what received as distant light. this gets into speeds of objects from source to receiving, the created illusions of interference of space itself and the nature of energy when emitted from an object. i rarely try to argue the point. i would not argue your abstract. however IMO and by what i have said above, from a distance of 10 to 14.2 BLY away is a composite of 186,200 differing sources over a period of one second. this is very hard to explain on a written forum, just barely explainable with a chalk boards and a few hours. but the individual photon, wave or what have you, simply are never from the same distant source. even from our sun, the energy received on one spot of the planet are constantly from a different spot on the sun as we and the sun, rotate and orbit. then add the distance and the trillions of sources giving an appearance of a light you can develop a scenario catering to any theory you want.

the point of my post, BBT or SSU are both accepted view of the universal existence, each having problems and each variation of the theory itself. which is the alternative is dependent which is accepted by the author, on this issue like no other. i do admit and have a few thousand times BBT is the current accepted theory.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by New Science

WHY THE BIG BANG IS ERRONEOUS

The first sentence in the original post is why this kind of thread ends up in "Alternative theories" forums.

1 - the argument does not try to explain BB theory, but instead it tries to use a host of loosely connected "evidence" to discredit it

2 - it concludes that since the BB is wrong, steady state is the answer.

This is both poor science and poor logic.

Jackson, I think you should stop your outcries against the staff. Anyone who's hung around this site over the past 7 years should know that the moderators are chosen for their desire and ability to volunteer and help out, not because of their political views (or lack of), religious opinion (or lack of), scientific background (or lack of), sex (or lack of) ...

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by jackson33

as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view.

All I have to say is that 'this forums view' is that of current scientific understanding. End of story. The staff all have their own personal views that may differ from this and we will happily discuss any alternate theories with you guys

[arkain101]

relativistically speaking there was no bang. All that was, was in the begginning. Whether it was energy, or some sort of complex plasma. All that existed was in the similar state.

As such it is relativistically impossible to view any such bang.

Rather it would be as though a loss of energy, a burning out flame.

The only perspective possible would be of that to begin by embracing the perspective of light, then the next step, untill finally assuming the perspective of some kind of particle-wave.

So in a sense the big bang theory is infact an inverse perspective. A folly of human expectation. Relativly speaking;

The big bang is and should be considered as a falling energy state.