[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

This is not in of itself make a credible link. Anybody can put up a website - as did Rense.com did.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
BB top 30 problems

No is this site "Metaresearch.org" affiliated with and scholarly institution.
Thus can say anything it wishes.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Another Fringe website (not credible).

Originally Posted by Pluto

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged
Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

Another homebrew (not credible) website.

Originally Posted by Pluto

unexplained super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies.
Note the repeat in clusters. They are 13.2 Gyrs just 500 yrs to form theses monsters. No book in reference to the BBT could explain their formation by scientific logic.

In what peer reviewed journal is this written up ? I am aware of Super cluster (embedded 2 deep) and wall structure of about 1 G-Parsec or so
which has been found in the last ten years by the Harvard - Sloan Deep Sky Survey.

There are papers (like Hoyle when he was alive) that wish to kill BBT. There are many more
papers about that are a protagonist for BBT than those
who are against. Many more.

You can be against it all you wish. I don't care. Normally, you spit out papers
from a bonified journal archive. Now you are giving me links from sites that vary from interesting to Crap!

At first I did have trouble with the idea of inflation. I am still not "completely" sold on it.
I am forgetting the author though he is portuguese who had come up with a competing idea as
VST (Variable Speed-of-Light Theory) in the last couple of years.
Look for the book called, "Faster than the speed of light". It is written by a physicist and gives a
credible alternative to inflation.

maddog

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Mad dog

Maybe this link may explain....

It should be noted that several of these rely on Arp's work on quasars "connected" to low redshift galaxies. This work has largely been disproved- in each case pointing a better telescope at the objects has shown them the quasars to not be connected via a "luminous bridge."
-Will

[FRIPRO]

My friends of the Forum: I have asked this question several time, "What if the Universe was rotating in an infinite nothingness?"

Would that not explain many questions being asked in the past 400strings on this thread?

Just because the slowing red shift is judged as meaning the Universe is expanding, it also could mean it is rotating. A rotating Universe would explain gyroscopic gravity to me--why not to the rest of our questioning fourm members?

The Big Bag could be a local bang in an eternal Universe. There are billions of Big Bangs in this eternal Universe together with their vortex centers (Black Holes).

These uncountable galatic systems centers (so called black holes) are spawning grounds for fantastic energy beams that make more vortexs within the dark matter of the eternal universe.

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

Of course this is a hypothesis who can prove otherwise?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

"The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether." -FRIPRO

Very evocative....
Have you thought that all black holes may be connected in various ways; especially by (say wormholes) a network of spaghetti spokes, radiating out from the big-mother black hole at the center of a galaxy (perhaps qualifying as some dark matter?), dragging the galaxy so cohesively (with those similarly connected to other galaxies even)?
===

FRIPRO,
Wouldn't the main suggestion from your post give a strong directionality to those things you mention: red shift and gravity?

Aren't you just substituting rotation (like acceleration/ gravity) for inflation?

It's an interesting strategy (thought experiment) to use with many questions (or perspectives) in cosmology and other theoretical physics perhaps....

So in a way you could be right, but first get away from thinking of space as an area "contained within that nothingness," and then apply those ideas. Those attributes of space that you suggest would apply (maybe) if you visualize many different kinds of space, overlapping, co-located, non-additive (except via expansion?), interacting to minimize or maximize various relationships, generated by and generating more....
Think of every point as simultaneously the center of that rotating....
We are the center of the universe!
~

...spaghetti w/ blackholes....
mmmmmmm....

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Maddog

Look at the science, look at the issues. Before you become a critic of crap.

What scientific point do you disagree with?

====================

Hello Erasmus

You may say what you may about Arps work, but! the dispute over redshift is still on the table. The intinsic redshift in supernova and black holes has not been disproved.
=====================

Hello Fripro

You said

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

THat I would agree with.

============================

I have some interesting links, please read them if you wish.

[astro-ph/0405083] Another origin of cosmological redshifts
Another origin of cosmological redshifts

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
(Submitted on 5 May 2004)

Abstract: If gravitons are super-strong interacting particles which fulfill a flat non-expanding universe, we would have another possibility to explain cosmological redshifts - in a frame of non-kinematic model. It is shown by the author that in this case SNe 1a data may be understood without any dark energy and dark matter. A value of relaxation factor is found in this paper. In this approach, we have Newton's law of gravity as a simplest consequence, and the connection between Newton's and Hubble's constants. A value of the latter may be theoretically predicted.

and

[astro-ph/0409111] A quantum gravitational model of redshifts
A quantum gravitational model of redshifts

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
(Submitted on 6 Sep 2004)

Abstract: The main features of an alternative model of redshifts are described here. The model is based on conjectures about an existence of the graviton background with the Planckian spectrum and a super-strong character of quantum gravitational interaction. This model is connected with the assumed quantum mechanism of gravity. A behavior of two theoretical functions of a redshift $z$ in this model - the geometrical distance $r(z)$ and the luminosity distance $D_{L}(z)$ - and an existence of two different cosmological horizons for any observer are discussed.

[astro-ph/0403130] Another possible interpretation of SN 1a data - without kinematics: Comments on the paper astro-ph/0402512 by A. Riess et al
Another possible interpretation of SN 1a data - without kinematics: Comments on the paper astro-ph/0402512 by A. Riess et al

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
(Submitted on 4 Mar 2004)

Abstract: It is shown here that for redshifts $z < 0.5$ the luminosity distance, which is predicted in author's model astro-ph/0005084 v2, fits well supernova observational data of astro-ph/0402512 by A.Riess et al. Discrepancies for higher $z$ would be explained in the model as a result of specific deformation of SN spectra due to a discrete character of photon energy losses. The model does not require any dark energy; it is based on the conjecture that gravitons are super-strong interacting particles fulfilling a flat non-expanding universe.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Look at the science, look at the issues. Before you become a critic of crap.

"Look at the science" ?? Where -- in those fringe sites -- there wasn't any....

Even you call it crap...

I think I hit a nerve ?!?

Originally Posted by Pluto

What scientific point do you disagree with?

It is not science that I disagree with. It is that which like a wolf in sheeps
clothing, made to look like science that I am skeptical.

Originally Posted by Pluto

You may say what you may about Arps work, but! the dispute over redshift is still on the table.

I think we found your hero [Arp]. There is NO dispute over redshift. Only in your mind and those that believe in flat Earth !!!

Originally Posted by Pluto

The intrinsic redshift in supernova and black holes has not been disproved.

Intrinsic Redshift is not even an issue...

Originally Posted by Pluto

I would agree with.

You agree with Fripro -- someone who's post wasn't even coherent.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

My friends of the Forum: I have asked this question several time, "What if the Universe was rotating in an infinite nothingness?"

Would that not explain many questions being asked in the past 400strings on this thread?

No, it does not. Like the Newton Bucket idea that Mach argue with about the time Einstein was coming up with SR -- ~1905; You have a something
rotating against a background of nothing, you have no reference to judge
what anything is doing. No measure.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Just because the slowing red shift is judged as meaning the Universe is expanding, it also could mean it is rotating. A rotating Universe would explain gyroscopic gravity to me--why not to the rest of our questioning fourm members?

Increasing red shift with distance (said slightly different than yours) is not
associated directly with universal expansion. It is associated with the fact that the expansion was slowing -- an argument for a closed universe.
Recent WMAP probe data now show the universe to be accelerating in its expansion.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Big Bag could be a local bang in an eternal Universe. There are billions of Big Bangs in this eternal Universe together with their vortex centers (Black Holes).

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

These uncountable galatic systems centers (so called black holes) are spawning grounds for fantastic energy beams that make more vortexs within the dark matter of the eternal universe.

Galaxies are not likely to be "uncountable" in the universe, even if the universe were infinite in size. You misunderstand the meaning of the word.
In mathematics the Real numbers are uncountable while the integers are not. Integers can ONLY be countable ! (1, 2, 3, ...)

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

Of course this is a hypothesis who can prove otherwise?

Wheeler invented the term "Multiverse" to hypothesize the idea of a "Universe" of universes. Maybe yes, maybe no. There are a lot of papers out there on the ideas spawn from, on "Bubble Universes".

None of this has to do with Aether (which BTW -- Newton had nothing to do with).



maddog

[litespeed]

Sirs:

Just about everything in the universe seems to be speeding away from everything else. This seems to suggest everything came from the same original place. In addition, lots of actual data have accumulated in the last decades that suggests something like this did actually happen long long ago in a place very far away.

On the other hand, these same folks were convinced throughout my entire life the expanding stuff was slowing down. The only question being would it slow down enough to reverse. Well.

Now just about everyone is convinced the universe is ACCELERATING its expansion. I am old enough to remember the SNL Church Lady. "Never mind." Truely a cautionary tail. Specifically. The rules DO seem to change. For instance, recently we learned the universe originally 'inflated' faster then light speed because space/time was not yet in charge. They use a term called a 'scaller' field to explain this. Seems tautological to me.

[FRIPRO]

My friend: Inside the international space station (INS) all soap bubbles are nearly spherical and float gently (wobble) with the breeze. In fact man moves (side by side)within the cabin at the same rate-unless he is pushed by some mechanics.

This simple display, we all have seen on our TV screen.

That same space station uses a gyroscope to align itself--why would the Universe G' be any different. . .

The question seem to be is the Universe rotating or expanding. What mass or radiations are rotating is another question?

Huble's latest deep space stereo photos express indirectly toward rotation rather then expansion--- less there would be no free fall within the INS, and the spherical clusters of galaxies (in spherical vortexs like huricanes on the earth) are easly seen in Huble's photos.

Free fall being a demonstration of the equivalence principal--the feather and the ball falling at the same rate from the leaning tower of Piza-etc

The rotating Universe could qualify as the source of the equivalence principal. Of course the big bang follows the same concept-- in fact millions of them do. So does the Earth.

However the expansion or decay hypothesis--does not permit an equiivalence principal to exist on the space station.

This Univers's gravity G' is a complicated equation that no man will ever solve--it is a hypothesis only--not to be mistaken with the formula G on earth.

One's belief in a Big Bang that started it all--is ludicrous.

Let us not become a Luddite.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

The parts that contract are those that matter we can see eg, towards a gravity sink such as a star, black hole , cluster of galaxies such as the great attractor.

The expanding parts are the jets that we see on Stars, Black holes and the intereatcion between stars and galaxies.

The expansion that people talk about is time/space and not actual distance.

Hello Maddog

You hit no nerve, I'm more interested in understanding what the hell is going on.

Too busy reading papers and papers to find out why the BBT become the standard model. Where did science go wrong and for what reason. I assume that most scientists have a head on their shoulders and yet there is a mountain of information that is in conflict with the BBT.

Just to support the BBT because its the standard is a great mistake.