Big Bang Blasted

[Eduffy80911]

I recently finished this book by Lyndon Ashmore "Big Bang Blasted". He not only makes a very compelling case for redshift over great distances being the result of photons interacting with electrons in interstellar space (not velocity of recession), but also provides very informative and entertaining background information on the history of cosmological theory.

His research stemmed from his realization that the Hubble constant coincidentally = plancks constant time the radius/mass of an electron. Not just the number, but also the units of measure (Ashmore's Paradox).

Hubble himself stopped referring to his constant as a measure of velocity and insisted on calling it a measure of redshift (which it was). The relationship to velocity was not a measurement but an interpretation.

Ashmore's explanation and the math he backs it up with actually jive with experimental observation, unlike the expanding universe model which must be tweaked with nearly every new discovery to make the data match the theory (very bad science).

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Eduffy80911

I recently finished this book by Lyndon Ashmore "Big Bang Blasted". He not only makes a very compelling case for redshift over great distances being the result of photons interacting with electrons in interstellar space (not velocity of recession), but also provides very informative and entertaining background information on the history of cosmological theory.

His research stemmed from his realization that the Hubble constant coincidentally = plancks constant time the radius/mass of an electron. Not just the number, but also the units of measure (Ashmore's Paradox).

Hubble himself stopped referring to his constant as a measure of velocity and insisted on calling it a measure of redshift (which it was). The relationship to velocity was not a measurement but an interpretation.

Ashmore's explanation and the math he backs it up with actually jive with experimental observation, unlike the expanding universe model which must be tweaked with nearly every new discovery to make the data match the theory (very bad science).

You may want to check out, Redshift Z which is also listed in this forum. Coldcreation, one of our illustrious members, has a theory very similiar to the one you've mentioned. You will likely find it interesting also...............................Infy

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Just more info on red shifts.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered
The Cosmological Redshift Reconsidered


The Redshift
redshift

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Redshift
Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

[Pluto]

Hi

If redshift is in question.

What now with the Big Bang?

What model do we use as the standard model?

[ughaibu]

Model of what? Does the big-bang have any practical relevance?

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello All

Just more info on red shifts.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered
The Cosmological Redshift Reconsidered


The Redshift
redshift

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Redshift
Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

I refuted the BBU years ago and replaced it with my 'Steady State Universe' that complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations relavant to the universe.

The BB is really a 'creation theory' because it must have started from 'ZERO TIME'. I do not belleve in 'creation out of nothing'.

NS

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by New Science

I refuted the BBU years ago and replaced it with my 'Steady State Universe' that complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations relavant to the universe.

The BB is really a 'creation theory' because it must have started from 'ZERO TIME'. I do not belleve in 'creation out of nothing'.

NS

You keep saying this, but

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Tormod

You keep saying this, but

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

Tor
Tracing the BB backward, the current start of the BB is at Planck time of 10^-44 seconds. What happened before this is unanswerable as yet. This is open to speculation.
Lemaitraes 'expansion of space and the universe was accepted but his idea of a 'primeval atom that was huge was ignored as the beginning.
So currently this pariod before Planck time is a question mark and that means 'nothing'.

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

If you are saying here that the solution of the matter quantities between the hydrogen and helium ratio is one prediction, I did not check this out thoroughly because this is not that important.

Regarding the CMBR prediction, there was previous work done that had established the space temperature with an intersteller space particle discovered by Andrew McKellar that was shown to have a radiating temperature of 2.3K. Thi was in 1940.

In about 1947, Gamows et al predictions for this temperature was estimated to be 5K that was later revised to be 10K. Apparently, unknowingly of McKellars work.

I refuted the CMBR redshift of 1000 as outrageously too high in comparison to the measured redshift of the Virgo Cluster that I posted here recently.

NS

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by New Science

So currently this pariod before Planck time is a question mark and that means 'nothing'.

So? The BB theory offers no explanation for this, and does not claim to. That doesn't mean it's false.

[Pluto]

HI

Tomod you said

You keep saying this, but

1. No you have not refuted BB theory, you have provided a different theory.

2. The BB is not a creation theory unless you claim that there was nothing before it. That is a strange claim. The BB theory does not explain what was *before* - it only explains what happened after the Big Bang.

Big Bang theory is a well documented, well tested theory that has passed predictions. It is however a problematic theori, as will any cosmological theory which explains the origin of the universe be, because it deals with a single piece of data (our universe).

Both are theories.

Any theory backed by evidence or good science is backed by me.

So far in my opinion the BBT is at a loss. It is not well documented and not tested as far as science method is concerned and I have read most papers supporting the BBT and its sad to say, modern science has let down the people of the world.
I do not need to name the papers there are so many. The so called evidence is based on " Make the model fit" and if it does not fit than make up "ad hoc" ideas and make it fit. Powerful supporters of the BBT led most scientists down the wrong path. This path is very difficult to alter because of the momentum and mass of information supporting the BBT and I should not forget the money supporting and the political support of the BBT.

If you do have evidence and tests please post them.

OK:

Some people call up the steady state as a strong theory.
I'd like to here their side of it.

My ideas are based on recycling of matter to energy and vis versa. I will expand on this as we move along.