The Big Bang Never Happened

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by KindaGamey, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    121
    You may have seen this before? I post it every chance I get.

    It's a fantastic summary of one issue in science where errors were compounded and they held on to a dogma that had entrenched itself rather than growing beyond their preconception. In part two you hear direct testimony of people who have been pushed out for not adopting the right perspective. What I like is that it is anti-mainstream science from sidelined scientists. It's not just poking a bear with a stick from the outside. Plus, a priest was the one who came up with "everything exploded from nothing" -- that's surely got to give the materialists pause.

    And it's pretty solid evidence. We assumed redshift meant stuff was hightailing it away from us, but then we found some high redshift objects that we know were attached to other objects that weren't that far away. So we can either ignore the outlier data or change the theory. Hmm.

    Annnnd... once you accept that the big bang might never have happened, you look at things differently. It's funny how we can change the entire history of the universe with one restructured opinion.

    Code:
    Full playlist: https://youtu.be/cUwytm8K0jI?list=PLlHanBMNk-DLrCqoiVp1i_8DdwRIisNsF
     
  2. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    664
    If changing the theory requires pulling all the $200 textbooks Professors get a 10% residual on, and writing off as folly the 40 years of a comfy $130,000/year salary (+benefits), you already know which one will get the boot. :D

    As I reached maturity, one of the most disturbing realizations was that my 8th grade Science Teacher unintentionally lied to me when she promised that "Science is inherently objective". I loved that woman. She was a gem.

    Most people never learn this. Their minds instinctively recoil in horror at that realization, because the mind sub-consciously understands the painful implications. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to remain happily content with the Status Quo.
     
    David Bailey and KindaGamey like this.
  3. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    KindaGamey, Stephen Wright and Obiwan like this.
  4. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    from Wiki
    Lemaitre wasn't just a metaphysical guesser. He was an outstanding mathematician; who held his own in peer-reviewed publication wars. He is influential beyond cosmology.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  5. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    I do agree with Einstein about mathematics not always leading to correct theories
     
    David Bailey likes this.
  6. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,404
    Apparently the Big Bang was proposed by a 13th Century Bishop:

    The Medieval Bishop's Big Bang Theory

    http://www.medievalhistories.com/grosseteste/
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    Baccarat likes this.
  7. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    When you break down atheism and atheists........you can see the many lies they have been spewing
     
    The King in the North likes this.
  8. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    I have listened to the first three parts of this story, and this is what I understand about the (unfortunately) Late Halton Arp's discoveries. Also, more generally, it describes a lot of what I believe is wrong with science in general.

    The problem for cosmology is that a lot of theorising has gone on, all based on the idea that the universe is much larger than perhaps it really is. The entire concept of a big bang at approximately 13 Billion years back in time might be wrong!

    David
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    Baccarat likes this.
  9. LetsEat

    LetsEat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    357
    I'm a big fan of this and the electric universe theory.
     
    KindaGamey likes this.
  10. beyondmortality

    beyondmortality Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Messages:
    98
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    Perhaps you can help me understand it a bit more. People talk about the sun (and other stars) being powered by an electric current flowing into the sun, but they don't discuss how it exists again. Thus it is as though the sun is positively charged (they say by 10 million volts) and that charge is being dissipated by the current flowing into the sun. Treating the sun as a spherical capacitor, I calculated that it would fully discharge in a couple of hundred seconds!

    Nothing I read seemed to clarify that problem.

    It is a shame because given the fact that the electromagnetic force is so much more powerful than the gravitational one, I am sure the theory must be partly right.

    David
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  12. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,404
    The electromagnetic force is important to charged particles such as protons or electrons or ions. However In the case of electrically neutral particles or objects, it loses its relevance. That's how it was possible for Henry Cavendish to measure the gravitational attraction between two masses in the laboratory.
     
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    Well yes, obviously, but the point is that considerable electric charges build up in space, and there is no reason to suppose that there isn't any electrostatic attraction/repulsion between the planets (say). Gravitation and electrostatic forces follow the same inverse square law.
    David
     
  14. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,404
    But is there any reason to suppose that planets or other bodies carry any excess charge of either kind?

    Here on Earth we can detect localised build-ups of charge - for example my hair stood on end when I stood on the top of a mountain during a thunderstorm. But don't the localised charges balance out?
     
    Hurmanetar and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  15. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    121
    Yeah! I like this guy too. He says planets used to be stars... some are ejected nickel/iron cores. Stellar Metamorphosis. This would mean Earth is actually older than our sun.

     
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    Well there are streams of charged particles emitted from the sun, some of which will get captures by the planets. Also, think how easily objects can acquire an electrical charge on earth - all you need to do is comb a cat!

    The gravitational force between two electrons is 8.2 X 10^(-37) times the electrostatic force, and remember the forces scale the same way with distance.

    David
     
  17. beyondmortality

    beyondmortality Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Messages:
    98
    Yes, they first glance it seems ironic. But Big Bang is at its essence creationism. In the beginning there was nothing, not even space and time. Big Bang is the creation of space and time, then subsequently all things in the universe. So Big Bang fits nicely into the Christian narrative.

    Some speculate resistance to Turok's two brane world theory is the fact that it isn't creationism. Science and religion have both come from a creationism perspective that they refuse to consider other possibilities.
     
    Baccarat likes this.
  18. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    My feeling is that science has to come back down to earth (sorry for the pun). I mean there are serious discussions about what happened 10^(-33) sec after the BB (if it actually happened). Halton Arp's work indicating that some red shifts may not be the result of distance, or indeed due to the Doppler shift - illustrates just how much of a house of cards they are creating. Something similar seems to have happened in other areas of science - including medical science, where you might expect people to be more careful.

    David
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  19. beyondmortality

    beyondmortality Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Messages:
    98
    All discussion on the moment of the Big Bang is based on presupposition of a Big Bang.

    The problem with Big Bang begins with a far more fundamental observation than red shifting. It begins with what scientists have known, but too timid to challenge--that being the preposterous notion that this massive, beyond our ability to measure something we call the universe, came from absolutely nothing. Everything came from nada--from zilch.

    I really don't understand how they can talk about 10^(-33) and proceed to 10^(-11) seconds in the absence of a magnetic monopole. Four fundamental forces, yet evidence of one hasn't been found anywhere in the universe. And what about the near perfect uniformity of the CMB? How did it reach equilibrium in a time frame that would be a hundred times the speed of light? How can it be near flat? Scientists are so focused on trying to prove and support Big Bang, they are blind to other possibilities.

    I get humans are conditioned toward blind faith and creationism theories beginning long before we reach the age of understanding. Rituals such as infant baptism to male circumcision set the stage for viewing the world through the lens of creationism. I get how blind faith allows them to ignore the glaring problem inherent in their absolutely nothing to instantaneous creation of absolutely everything theory. Big Bang theorists are simply men who have traded the cleric collar for a lab coat. But given the other problems here I don't understand how scientists manage to cling to this Big Bang theory.
     
    KindaGamey likes this.
  20. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,226
    The CMB is a curiosity in itself. As I understand it, it is only actually uniform after corrections have been made for the presence of the Milky Way! So performing such a correction and then looking for residual ripples that are supposed to be meaningful, seems doubly crazy!

    On top of that, observing radiation that follows the Rayleigh–Jeans law, seems a bit like observing something jittering that follows a Gaussian distribution (bell curve) - it could come from all sorts of causes.

    My general feeling is that physics has to return to much more local concerns. Worrying about the origin/fate of the universe is just silly because the theories aren't settled and the data is pretty tenuous. I was interested in the fact that the astronomer Margaret Burbidge is supporting Halton Arp's view about red shifted quasars.

    David
     

Share This Page