[Mike C]

WHY THE BIG BANG IS ERRONEOUS

The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered. They (BB’ers) claim it is a chance alignment but I will cite three examples that absolutely confirm Arp's hypothesis
The first and most important example is:
NGC 7603. Refer to Sky & Telescope's April, 1983 issue on page 307.
These S&T images are positive photos and are better views than Arps images that are negatives in his book .
The next most important is AM 2054-2210.
The third example is AM 0328-222. Notice in this last example that the smaller galaxy appears to have passed through the larger galaxy and taken a good portion of its stars with it.
The first two examples which includes both the larger and smaller galaxies, are 100% conclusive as being at the same distance. The smaller galaxies (quasars) are revolving around the
larger galaxies in a transverse motion to our line of sight.
I consider the above evidence to be sufficient enough to refute the expansion of space since it is presented as the cause of the redshift.

What then is the cause of the observed redshifts? It is the light waves themselves that are expanding. The clue? The radiating temperatures of the quasars that are much higher than and the companion galaxies indicate that the energy levels within the photon pulses are the cause of the different expansion!

The next reason that is also very important is that we are portrayed as being in the center of
the Universe and they say that we would be in the center regardless of where we would be in this Universe The reason for this is the equal expansion of the redshift in all directions from one point of view that would obviously make us appear to be in the center.
They use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis.
This is a false analogy. Three dimensional cubic space can not be compared to two dimensional space. You will notice that all three dimensional bodies have a single point source of gravity. This is the center of those three dimensional bodies. Since our current Universe is a three dimensional structure, the only possible center to this Universe can only be the point source of the initial expansion.
However, the ‘expansion of the light waves (EoLW) would create the same illusion that the BB’ers use for the EoS, so this would eliminate the idea that the universe is expanding and can actually be a flat universe with no expansion or contraction. A Steady State Universe?

The third reason which is also important is that the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter' are violated by the big bang concept that the Universe started from an undefined quantity of mass or energy that is inadequately defined. It would appear that the big bang started from zero time (nothing) or an infinitely dense point source of mass that has no physical dimension?

The fourth reason is that the CMBR is the ‘clincher’ evidence for the proof of the BBU. It is shown that it is a ‘perfect’ BB radiation remnant with a redshift of 1000.
The recombination of the particles is the zero point source of this redshift in the beginning.
Firstly, it cannot be a perfect BBR because there would have to be some ‘plasma’ radiation mixed in with this matter radiation to negate a perfect BBR. The particles could not ‘suddenly‘ and completely transform from a plasma to a matter form of radiation.
Secondly, the redshift of 1000 is ludicrous because if we divide the age of this universe that is 14 billion years old by 1000, we get a redshift of ‘one’ for every 14 ‘million’ years of age.
If we take this age and use it as a distance indicator as ‘light years’ (LY) and apply it to the Virgo Galaxy Cluster, we would get a redshift of 3+ by dividing 54 million LYs by 14 million.
However, we know that the redshift of this cluster is a fractional redshift of ONE, while the observed redshifts of the VC are .0035 (several galaxies) or .004 (M87), the central giant elliptical in this cluster.

I am sorry if some material here may seem repetitious but I had to consolidate it into a complete article.

NS

I needed to insert the 'ONE' for clarification in the second last paragraph.

[Tormod]

Here we go again. Can I just say "see my replies in previous threads"?

[TheFaithfulStone]

You know what I'd like to see?

A rule against starting new threads about Theories of Everything unless you have a PDF with some really scary calculus in it.

Seriously, give it up. Einstein may have been a patent clerk, but he also new what the heck he was talking about.

TFS

[Jay-qu]

I think this thread is perfect for our new alternate theories forum, any objections?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I'd also like the ability to tag other people's threads. That'd be awesome.

TFS

[Jay-qu]

Thats a mod ability if you have suggestions im happy to add them - if they are appropriate of course.

[Mike C]

To All

If you will notice, I supply reasons for my refutes.

1 - Arps Redshift Anomalies
2 - Doppler observations replaced with Lemaitraes subjective ideas.
3 - The origin of the universe from nothing.
4 - the CMBR redshift of 1000 that does not seem as probable.

There are other unanswered questions, as well.

NS

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

I think this thread is perfect for our new alternate theories forum, any objections?

I concur.

[jackson33]

obviously, the staff on Hypo, thinks in unison which i do not oppose. IMO; much of what NS, reflects here in opinion, is common knowledge to the staff from other forums which i do find disgusting when it influences where influence can now be used.

as for SSU, or any theory opposing BBT, the subjective view that only one is possible under the current explanation make its an alternative would seem premature at best. there are thousands of articles in opposition to BB, by many folks with all the science backgrounds each here feels is a prerequisite for an opinion.

as for BBT, it was really the MBR which seems to have given legs to the theory. each of you are aware of the other possible explanations for a source and i feel sure you realize this explanation along with the singularity or cause for questionable expansion are doubted to many people, frankly the new to science folks which is my reason for even bothering on this issue.

[Tormod]

Huh?