+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    From http://unconventional-wisdom.info/Page_2.html

    Inflation might be on its way to being falsified as we see from observations. Gaussianity is the bell-shaped distribution of temperature fluctuations across the Universe and the minute but important (variations on the order of 1 in 100,000) skewing of the distribution, non-gaussianity, measured in fNL, is between 50 and 80 but should be between 0 and 1 according to inflation, cyclical models predicting at least 100 times the inflationary value. Admittedly, the error bar is still too big as it is at 2.8 sigma (over 99% reliability) when it should be at 5 (99.99995%). And there is no solid scientific idea for why and how inflation might have happened (New Scientist, "Inflation deflated," June 7-13, 2008).

    Inflation, which was invented independently by Starobinsky and Guth in 1979, was devised to attempt to solve what are referred to as the 3 main problems with the Big Bang model, the horizon, flatness, and structure problems. In the horizon problem, an expanding universe would have the 2 opposite horizons out of causal contact so would not show the same level of homogeneity as they do, and this is related to the smoothness (isotropy) of the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation; aka CBR or MBR), which is unaccounted for in the Big Bang model. In the flatness problem the critical density of the universe is contrary to the theory. In the structure problem, the uniformity or homogeneity of the large-scale structure of the cosmos is also unaccounted for in the Big Bang model.

    Also, the Universe is everything so it can't be finite as there would be something outside of it which would be a contradiction or there would be non-existence outside of it and non-existence is also impossible because it is paradoxical to say nothing exists. The Universe is necessarily infinite in time both negatively and positively and in space and the same would go for each state of the Universe. As there is no beginning nor end there is also no purpose for the Universe beyond its own existence.

    Big Bang hypothesizers say that there is an expansion of space not of matter but it is not possible for space to expand as expansion requires volume which requires matter and because space is infinite. Moreover, there can't be space without matter (as Einstein recognized (Singh, 1959, p. 301)). They also say that space itself explodes but this is also impossible, only matter can explode. And it is impossible for time to begin at a certain point since it has to have a past or else it is not time. It is also impossible for nothing to exist as this is a paradox and contradiction. It is also impossible for there to be matter-energy and space-time in 1 point with nothing existing around it.

    Other problems with the Big Bang are that a singularity is impossible, and the lack of magnetic monopoles (these are predicted by inflation in large quantities but have never been observed). And the red shift can be explained in other ways besides expansion. Grote Reber theorizes the red shift is due to repeated absorption and re-emission or interaction of light and other EM radiations by low density dark matter over intergalactic distances. As well, the standard model assumes intergalactic space empty but this has been proven false by Grote Reber who discovered it was full of protons and electrons emitting EM radiation.

    The Big Bang theory had already been disproven through metaphysics (time always has to have a past, expansion of space is not possible, space can't explode, space cannot exist without matter), but also physics, from the start. Grote Reber, who was inventor of the radio telescope, the 1st radio astronomer, father of radio astronomy, and recipient of the Bruce Medal (1962), the Russell Lectureship (1962), and the Jackson-Gwilt Medal of the RAS (1983), said, "Red shifts have nothing to do with motion. It is not my idea. Hubble knew this over 60 years ago...The Big Bang is a concoction of latter day saints" (New Scientist, '94).

    It was also disproven by LaViolette's test 30 years ago, which included 4 data sets and which corroborated the tired-light explanation. The data set was later expanded to 5: 1) the galaxy cluster angular-size-redshift test, 2) the radio galaxy angular-size-redshift test, 3) the Tolman surface brightness test, 4) the Hubble diagram test, and 5) the galaxy-number-count test. Again, the tired-light model consistently came closest to fitting observations.

    Stargate, btw, was based on a script written by LaViolette.

    Others who have opposed the Big Bang hypothesis include Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar, Edwin Hubble, Hannes Alfven (Nobel Laureate), Eric Lerner, Anthony Perratt, Tom Van Flandern, Halton Arp, Donald Scott, David Talbott, and Wallace Thornhill.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 15th May 2014 at 07:31.

  2. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,206
    Thanks
    207,997
    Thanked 456,565 times in 32,726 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    -------

    Thanks for this post (and welcome to the forum!) -- and I fully agree. Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe theory is pretty close to what's really happening. I and many thousands of others have clearly recalled situations and events far, far older than a mere 13 or 14 billion years, which in universal terms was just yesterday. We're all almost infinitely older than we may assume.


  3. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Atlas (12th May 2014), DNA (11th May 2014), ElfeMya (12th May 2014), Hervé (11th May 2014), Jean-Marie (12th May 2014), JRS (13th May 2014), kanishk (11th May 2014), peterspm (13th May 2014), Snoweagle (11th May 2014), Sophocles (11th May 2014), wnlight (13th May 2014)

  4. Link to Post #3
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,400
    Thanks
    12,061
    Thanked 30,974 times in 5,003 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    I have no such recall, but look at it this way. Our galaxy takes a quarter of a billion years to complete one revolution. At most, including the time to form, it would have rotated no more than about 55 times, hardly an astronomical number. If you compare this with a bicycle ride, that many turns of the wheels would carry you about a hundred meters, probably not enough to reach the next street.


  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    christian (11th May 2014), ElfeMya (12th May 2014), ThePythonicCow (15th May 2014)

  6. Link to Post #4
    United States Avalon Member ghostrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Location
    Sand Springs Ok
    Age
    58
    Posts
    7,427
    Thanks
    9,893
    Thanked 28,794 times in 6,634 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    our ET friends say the universe is 46 trillion years old , and expanding ... one day it will contract ... it has a twin called the Dal universe ... long ago a barrier/bridge was created between theirs and ours , they brought new technology and ideas to earth ... the information jump is no accident , they jump started the whole thing , a new epoch ... here is the rub- they say it all started by a flea sized piece of spiritual energy that explodes , creates , then one day contracts to the nameless nothing , then again explodes and the entire process begins anew ... they call it The Creation- a living energy consciousness of spiritual life filled with the memory of all living things that ever were , and we learn and evolve and take that knowledge back to the creation where it adds to the whole and makes it ever stronger and bigger for the next epoch of creation ...
    Raiding the Matrix One Mind at a Time ...

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ghostrider For This Post:

    araucaria (11th May 2014), ElfeMya (12th May 2014)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Lightbulb Re: Real science

    And what about the universal background noise, 3 degrees Kelvin, where does that come from? (I believe that drives zeropoint froth vibration another story...)

    Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the source of "noise radiation" present coming from the universe as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna pointed skywards.

    In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.

    References:
    Bernstein, Jeremy (1984). Three Degrees Above Zero: Bell Labs in the Information Age. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-18170-3
    Crawford, A.B.; D.C. Hogg and L.E. Hunt (July 1961). "Project Echo: A Horn-Reflector Antenna for Space Communication". The Bell System Technical Journal: 1095–1099
    Dicke, R.H.; P. J. E. Peebles, P. J. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson (July 1965). "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation". Astrophysical Journal Letters 142: 414–419. Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..414D. doi:10.1086/148306
    Hey, J.S. (1973). The Evolution of Radio Astronomy. New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-88202-027-7
    Penzias, A.A.; R. W. Wilson (October 1965). "A Measurement of the Flux Density of CAS A At 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal Letters 142: 1149–1154. Bibcode:1965ApJ...142.1149P. doi:10.1086/148384

    Background map at about 4080 megahertz (temperature) - "microwave frequency", 7 centimeter wavelengths approx.



    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...aureates/1978/ - Nobel Prize website



    As stated in the webpage by the Nobel Prize organization,

    "Mysterious background radiation
    It has been known for a relatively long time that various astronomical objects emit radiation in the form of radio waves. Radioastronomy has grown in significance and is now a very important complement to classical optical astronomy. The radiation is emitted in various ways; for example, hydrogen clouds in the Galaxy radiate when excited, and cosmic ray electrons radiate when spiralling in the weak magnetic fields of interstellar space.

    Various objects, such as single stars, galaxies and - quasars, have been found to emit radio waves. In order to study these radio sources, it is, of course, necessary that their radiation show up over the general background radiation. The composition and origin of this background were for a long time not well understood; it was assumed to consist of the integrated radiation from a great number of sources, both galactic and extragalactic.

    The study of cosmic microwave radiation, and especially of the weak background radiation, obviously requires the use of a very sensitive receiver. Such an apparatus was built in the beginning of the 1960s at Bell Telephone Laboratories in the USA. It was originally used for radio communications with the satellites Echo and Telstar. When this instrument became available for research, the two radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, decided to use it for the study of microwave background radiation. It was very well suited for this purpose: the instrument noise, i.e., the radiation created by the instrument itself, was very low; furthermore, it was tuned to a wavelength of 7 centimeters.

    It was already known that the intensity of cosmic microwaves decreases with decreasing wavelength; hence, the intensity at 7 centimeters would be expected to be quite low. However, to their surprise, Penzias and Wilson found a comparatively high intensity. They suspected at first that this radiation must originate either in the instrument or in the atmosphere. However, by painstaking testing, they showed that it came from outer space and that its intensity was the same in all directions. Hence, their measurements allowed the surprising conclusion that the universe is filled uniformly with microwave radiation.

    These two researchers made no suggestions about the origin of this mysterious radiation. When their discovery became known, however, it was found that speculations had already been made about the existence of a weak, microwave background radiation. The starting-point for these speculations had been a number of attempts, made during the 1940s, to explain the synthesis of chemical elements.

    A theory developed by the American physicist Gamow and his associates suggested that this synthesis took place at the beginning of the existence of the universe. It is known from studies of the spectra of stars and galaxies that the universe is at present expanding uniformly.

    This means that at a certain point, 15 billion years ago, the universe was very compact; it is thus tempting to assume that the universe was created by a cosmic explosion, or 'big bang', although other explanations are possible. This 'big bang' theory implies the occurrence of very high temperatures, of about 10 billion degrees. Only at those temperatures can various nuclear reactions take place such that chemical elements could be built up from the elementary particles assumed to be present from the very beginning.

    It also implies the release of a large amount of radiation, whose spectrum extends from the X-ray region, through visible light, to radio waves. After this hypothetical explosion, the temperature would decrease rapidly (the whole 'creation' is assumed to have been completed in a few minutes).

    The question then remains of what would have happened to the debris of the explosion: matter, consisting of hydrogen, helium and various other light elements, would have expanded as a hot cloud of gas which would gradually have cooled down to form condensations, which developed into galaxies and stars. But what about the radiation?

    Since the universe is virtually transparent to radiation of these wavelengths, nothing would really have happened to it: the radiation would expand in universe at the same rate as the universe is expanding. The question is whether it still exists and, if so, whether it can be detected. The difficulty here is that because of the expansion of the universe, the wavelength of the radiation has decreased, in the same way that light from distant galaxies is 'red-shifted' Instead of the 'hard' radiation that would have been emitted during the 'big bang', the radiation that might be detected now would correspond to that emitted by a body with a temperature of 3 degrees above absolute zero.

    No visible light is emitted at such a low temperature, and the radiation emitted falls : entirely within the microwave region, with a maximum intensity of about 0.1 centimeters. It was because of these difficulties that the early predictions were forgotten: it was assumed that it would be impossible to detect such weak radiation in the cosmic noise

    When Penzias and Wilson discovered cosmic microwave background radiation, it was reasonable to suspect that it was fossil radiation from the 'big bang'. Support for this interpretation came from a number of investigations of the shape of the spectrum, which soon showed that it was indeed that which would be expected for a body with a temperature of 3 degrees.

    This provided solid support for the view that background radiation is the fossil remains of the 'big bang'; other interpretations are possible, however, even if they lack detailed theoretical backgrounds. The discovery of Penzias and Wilson was a fundamental one: it has made it possible to obtain information about cosmic processes that took place a very long time ago, at the time of the creation of the universe.

    Recently, investigation of this radiation has been extended. Due to the fact that it fills the entire universe and interacts with interstellar and intergalactic matter, it can be used as a measuring probe. During the last few years it has been found that this radiation is not quite uniform and that its intensity has a certain directional dependence; this can be interpreted as an effect of the motion of the earth and of the solar system relative to the radiation field, and its variation can be used to measure that motion.

    Since the distribution of the intensity of the radiation reflects the distribution of matter in the universe, the possibility is opened up of defining absolute motion in space. Thus, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson has marked an important stage in the science of cosmogony."
    Last edited by Bob; 11th May 2014 at 19:23.

  9. Link to Post #6
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,400
    Thanks
    12,061
    Thanked 30,974 times in 5,003 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)
    And what about the universal background noise, 3 degrees Kelvin, where does that come from? (I believe that drives zeropoint froth vibration another story...)

    Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the source of "noise radiation" present coming from the universe as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna pointed skywards.

    In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.
    Paul LaViolette's subquantum kinetics is a continuous creation model. In Subquantum Kinetics p.168-9, he has this to say about the 2.73 K microwave background radiation:

    Quote The proposal that the microwave background is of big bang origin is premised on the ad hoc assumption that the fireball was expanding at just the right velocity to cause its blackbody radiation field to become redshifted by a factor of [more or less] 1500 down to its presently observed temperature. (…) Since the big bang hypothesis makes no rigid prediction as to the precise magnitude of the fireball expansion velocity, a big bang origin for the microwave background should no longer be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
    (…) One theory suggests that the radiation might come from a jungle of magnetized plasma filaments distributed throughout intergalactic space, which develop a thermalized microwave spectrum by repeatedly absorbing and reradiating microwaves. (…) The observed 2.73 K blackbody temperature could be entirely accounted for if 4 percent of the ambient cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed.
    Tom van Flandern sees the source of this radiation as being closer to home (Dark Matter…, p.101):
    Quote note that any fireball remnant which surrounds us would produce almost exactly the same type of spectrum. If a supernova in our part of the galaxy exploded in the past, its fireball would eventually encompass us. Once inside, we would see a blackbody spectrum coming uniformly from all directions in the sky. This would inevitably cool to thermal equilibrium with the interstellar environment, which happens to be about 3 degrees Kelvin.
    And still closer to home, he reckons his exploded planet theory would account for a similar effect just within the solar system.


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Bob (11th May 2014), Chris Gilbert (12th May 2014)

  11. Link to Post #7
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)
    And what about the universal background noise, 3 degrees Kelvin, where does that come from? (I believe that drives zeropoint froth vibration another story...)

    Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the source of "noise radiation" present coming from the universe as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna pointed skywards.

    In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.
    Paul LaViolette's subquantum kinetics is a continuous creation model. In Subquantum Kinetics p.168-9, he has this to say about the 2.73 K microwave background radiation:

    Quote The proposal that the microwave background is of big bang origin is premised on the ad hoc assumption that the fireball was expanding at just the right velocity to cause its blackbody radiation field to become redshifted by a factor of [more or less] 1500 down to its presently observed temperature. (…) Since the big bang hypothesis makes no rigid prediction as to the precise magnitude of the fireball expansion velocity, a big bang origin for the microwave background should no longer be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
    (…) One theory suggests that the radiation might come from a jungle of magnetized plasma filaments distributed throughout intergalactic space, which develop a thermalized microwave spectrum by repeatedly absorbing and reradiating microwaves. (…) The observed 2.73 K blackbody temperature could be entirely accounted for if 4 percent of the ambient cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed.
    Tom van Flandern sees the source of this radiation as being closer to home (Dark Matter…, p.101):
    Quote note that any fireball remnant which surrounds us would produce almost exactly the same type of spectrum. If a supernova in our part of the galaxy exploded in the past, its fireball would eventually encompass us. Once inside, we would see a blackbody spectrum coming uniformly from all directions in the sky. This would inevitably cool to thermal equilibrium with the interstellar environment, which happens to be about 3 degrees Kelvin.
    And still closer to home, he reckons his exploded planet theory would account for a similar effect just within the solar system.
    Continuous creation eh? What drives that, where does the external energy come from to overcome system losses.

    Wonder why the Nobel Committee ignored Paul LaViolette ?

  12. Link to Post #8
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,400
    Thanks
    12,061
    Thanked 30,974 times in 5,003 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)

    Continuous creation eh? What drives that, where does the external energy come from to overcome system losses.

    Wonder why the Nobel Committee ignored Paul LaViolette ?
    He says:

    Quote the ether’s zero-point energy continuum spawns the creation of matter.
    Why no Nobel Prize? Because the implications of cosmic free energy on the earth scale are a bib no-no for the PTB. Basically he is saying that ‘matter is created in regions of high material density’, which fits in neatly with his theory that everything grows from small to large (moon to planet to star to blue star being only a part of the picture) and eventually produces offspring. Hence also the main source of creation of matter is the galactic core, which fits in neatly with his theory of the galactic superwave.


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Bob (11th May 2014)

  14. Link to Post #9
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)

    Continuous creation eh? What drives that, where does the external energy come from to overcome system losses.

    Wonder why the Nobel Committee ignored Paul LaViolette ?
    He says:

    Quote the ether’s zero-point energy continuum spawns the creation of matter.
    Why no Nobel Prize? Because the implications of cosmic free energy on the earth scale are a bib no-no for the PTB. Basically he is saying that ‘matter is created in regions of high material density’, which fits in neatly with his theory that everything grows from small to large (moon to planet to star to blue star being only a part of the picture) and eventually produces offspring. Hence also the main source of creation of matter is the galactic core, which fits in neatly with his theory of the galactic superwave.
    So what is not clearly explained is why systems go from more energy to less, or why systems don't explode in a big bang with a constant creation system. Or what creates stability if more energy is happening than less in a system. Or why we can't create free energy systems using his theories? (like let's build on the theory). I think Einstein was saying something along the lines of there is a macro world and a micro world, and he had a lot of issues with why in the quantum world, reality no longer held up. Possibly cause of the logic systems he had to deal with, (another story..)

    Of course thermodynamics would be all wrong then with that logic, right? Everything we have built on in the world is all wrong then, but he doesn't have anything he has built technologically? Hmm.. Theories it seems to me, are great right if one can build from them, or it seems to me, they make for great poetry. State something that can't be proved not in anyone's lifetime, and gee, a whole charismatic movement could be created I suppose.. I guess I am more interested in what I can build these days..

    I build on microwave background radiation theory in designing microwave low noise amplifiers which have to deal with things as the "noise", including Shott Noise, barrier point noise. None of the systems continue to gain energy, they loose energy. Explanation ? I am all ears 7 centimeter ones at that.. (that's another story, like how come so many body parts are multiples of 7 centimeters, oh, can't explain that? Can't explain how wavelengths with nodes cause charges to flow along the lines of force, and 7 centimeters and 21 centimeters happens to be key wavelengths which life grew up in?

    Hmm.. questions questions. I did see the Camelot interview thankyou very much.

    This is what makes good science in my opinion, when such can be duplicated, when it can be built upon, physically. If the theory can't be demonstrated it is that, theory. Back to my first post in the discussion, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the source of "noise radiation", and used hardware, verified, and numerous other scientists duplicated and verified. And the Nobel Committee felt that was solid science...

    Just curious wondering why the universe seems to be depleting not building, and radiation is given off, not being created spontaneously. If that could be solved I think free energy could be built upon. As is a constant creation contradicts all known accepted physics about matter/energy not being able to be created, only transformed with a net LOSS, not a gain in any reaction.

    Here is a good primer on basic thermodynamics in case anyone needs to understand physics from a very simple and easy to comprehend way:

    http://web.mst.edu/~gbert/basic/thermo.html - University of Missouri-Rolla webpage

  15. Link to Post #10
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)
    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)

    Continuous creation eh? What drives that, where does the external energy come from to overcome system losses.

    Wonder why the Nobel Committee ignored Paul LaViolette ?
    He says:

    Quote the ether’s zero-point energy continuum spawns the creation of matter.
    Why no Nobel Prize? Because the implications of cosmic free energy on the earth scale are a bib no-no for the PTB. Basically he is saying that ‘matter is created in regions of high material density’, which fits in neatly with his theory that everything grows from small to large (moon to planet to star to blue star being only a part of the picture) and eventually produces offspring. Hence also the main source of creation of matter is the galactic core, which fits in neatly with his theory of the galactic superwave.
    So what is not clearly explained is why systems go from more energy to less, or why systems don't explode in a big bang with a constant creation system. Or what creates stability if more energy is happening than less in a system. Or why we can't create free energy systems using his theories? (like let's build on the theory). I think Einstein was saying something along the lines of there is a macro world and a micro world, and he had a lot of issues with why in the quantum world, reality no longer held up. Possibly cause of the logic systems he had to deal with, (another story..)

    Of course thermodynamics would be all wrong then with that logic, right? Everything we have built on in the world is all wrong then, but he doesn't have anything he has built technologically? Hmm.. Theories it seems to me, are great right if one can build from them, or it seems to me, they make for great poetry. State something that can't be proved not in anyone's lifetime, and gee, a whole charismatic movement could be created I suppose.. I guess I am more interested in what I can build these days..

    I build on microwave background radiation theory in designing microwave low noise amplifiers which have to deal with things as the "noise", including Shott Noise, barrier point noise. None of the systems continue to gain energy, they loose energy. Explanation ? I am all ears 7 centimeter ones at that.. (that's another story, like how come so many body parts are multiples of 7 centimeters, oh, can't explain that? Can't explain how wavelengths with nodes cause charges to flow along the lines of force, and 7 centimeters and 21 centimeters happens to be key wavelengths which life grew up in?

    Hmm.. questions questions. I did see the Camelot interview thankyou very much.

    This is what makes good science in my opinion, when such can be duplicated, when it can be built upon, physically. If the theory can't be demonstrated it is that, theory. Back to my first post in the discussion, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the source of "noise radiation", and used hardware, verified, and numerous other scientists duplicated and verified. And the Nobel Committee felt that was solid science...

    Just curious wondering why the universe seems to be depleting not building, and radiation is given off, not being created spontaneously. If that could be solved I think free energy could be built upon. As is a constant creation contradicts all known accepted physics about matter/energy not being able to be created, only transformed with a net LOSS, not a gain in any reaction.

    Here is a good primer on basic thermodynamics in case anyone needs to understand physics from a very simple and easy to comprehend way:

    http://web.mst.edu/~gbert/basic/thermo.html - University of Missouri-Rolla webpage
    POST UPDATE:
    Scientists from Harvard and MIT have simulated the evolution of the cosmos, showing how the first galaxies were formed around blocs of dark matter, which, with dark energy, are believed to make up 94 percent of the universe.

    The computer simulation provides the highest-resolution model of cosmic evolution ever. The study has just been published in the journal Nature.

    The model was based on accepted theories and delved into the data on events following the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. One can traverse the period of powerful explosions and the formation of black holes to the emergence of the first galaxies and expansion of the universe.

    A special computer program had to be developed to translate the theories into code and make them 3-D.

    “This project is much more than a visual product depicting cosmic evolution,” Dr. Shy Genel, an Israeli physicist doing postdoctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, told Haaretz. “It helps us get a sense of how the universe works, but we only did this part at the end of a three-year project. The bulk of the work was about taking the equations and getting the computer to solve them correctly,” said Genel, a member of the team that developed the simulation.

    “Cosmic evolution involves a number of basic processes such as the force of gravity, the flow of gas, explosions of stars and the collapse of gas into black holes. We took these processes and did two things. In the first stage we formulated these processes as equations, and in the second stage we wrote computer code that could solve these equations.”

    Astrophysicists have been doing similar work since the 1990s. “The computer models and the computer power of the ‘90s weren’t that strong,” Genel said. “You couldn’t aim that high; for example, to make such realistic models of galaxies.”

    A video less than seven minutes long illustrates the high level of simulation. The full simulation consists of 250 terabytes and is saved on Harvard’s supercomputers.

    “Twenty researchers are analyzing the information, and we expect many articles based on this information to be published in the coming years,” Genel said. “This will let researches analyze the virtual universe from many, many directions.”

    The computer simulation doesn't present a new theory, it simply creates a coherent picture of existing theories on the various stages of the universe's evolution.

    “We’re using the standard model of the cosmos, which says that most of the universe began with a process of ‘cosmic inflation.’ Up to now, the evidence for the standard model came from a measure of hundreds of millions of light years, and many people in the scientific community said that maybe the standard model can provide a rough explanation of the behavior of the cosmos, but not at the level of individual galaxies,” Genel said.

    “In our work we showed that this model can create the structures that are formed in the cosmos – not just on a scale of hundreds of millions of light years, but on the level of the galaxy, of thousands of light years.”

    The processes that Genel describes do a lot better than the old-fashioned telescope, with which researchers simply study a fixed picture. According to Dr. Mark Vogelsberger of MIT, who led the study, the simulation supports many of the current theories on cosmology.

    “Many of the simulated galaxies agree very well with the galaxies in the real universe. It tells us that the basic understanding of how the universe works must be correct and complete,” he told the BBC, adding that dark matter is the scaffold on which the visible universe hangs. “If you don’t include dark matter [in the simulation], it will not look like the real universe.”


    I thought the video was very imaginative Again, MIT's work is speculation, and theory - who to believe western education or ? hmm that seems to be a micro macro question going on recently I suppose. I really want solid data that can be built on. Things that can get us all space drives, time travel, "universal unlimited energy", teleportation, instantaneous communications, matter creation (for real).. Ways to really violate the thermodynamics laws.. Is it possible ? The assumption according to LaViolette is that such violation can be created. I ask HOW, show me, I would gladly build.

    Reference - the update comes from Israel's Haaretz webpage

    http://www.haaretz.com/life/science-...emium-1.590015

  16. Link to Post #11
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    Bobd,

    The reason we can travel faster than light is because relativity is wrong. Teleportation is a separate issue. And LaViolette explains all of what you're asking, including free energy.

  17. Link to Post #12
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,400
    Thanks
    12,061
    Thanked 30,974 times in 5,003 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    Thanks Bobd

    Can’t help with the science I’m afraid. The statement “Many of the simulated galaxies agree very well with the galaxies in the real universe. It tells us that the basic understanding of how the universe works must be correct and complete,” suggests to me that that scientist’s understanding of how science works must be incorrect and incomplete.

    I was under the impression that there were already free energy systems out there with proof of concept? History would suggest that we are not moving towards free energy but away from it. It was more available in the past than it is now, e.g. for pyramid-building.

    What I mainly see is the way one can get things completely back to front and obtain a coherent picture, except that it is destructive instead of creative. (The big bang itself is an odd mixture of destruction and creation). Take a small child who sees its parents making love and thinks there is violence going on. Lack of understanding leads to total incomprehension. Perhaps the galaxies we are told are colliding are actually… making love? After all, we know that very few of the stars will collide with each other. And if we compare a spiral galaxy with a garden sprinkler, it suggests that matter is being propelled out, rather than sucked into a black hole – or more likely a combination of both. In that case, for all I know, some ‘colliding galaxies’ may actually be moving apart in the opposite direction, the one perhaps giving birth to the other.

    I also think of a Martin Amis novel, Time’s Arrow, which is told backwards – from the man’s death to his birth (and beyond). On this basis, you have a Nazi-type doctor who looks like a great humanist, because his patients arrive in a very sorry state, then after receiving his treatment, they leave the clinic in perfect health. This is not just a thought experiment: you can reverse things with the right technology. For example, if you record the breaking of an egg, you have a film that you can play backwards of a broken egg coming together again. An illusion of course, but a fair description of the matrix that real people are caught up in. It may be that technology is simply our approach in one direction, a materialistic approach, while spiritualists, looking in the opposite direction, will say, who needs a saucer when you can go out of body? I have no answer.

    My idea is that with Satanism, where everything is reversed, everything includes time. Just exploring this idea here. Astronomers say that by looking at the stars, we are looking backwards in time. This is in total contradiction with what others are saying, namely that they are man’s future: we are heading for the stars etc. But simply reversing ‘evil’ Satanism does not bring us to where we want to be. Life is a breathing mechanism and I don’t feel more alive when I’m breathing in than when I’m breathing out. Breathing out is not incompatible with a constant oxygen intake, it is an indispensable part of it. There is no entropy when a cyclical effect like this operates in synergy with other cycles (here trees reversing the oxygen CO2 process): you have a win-win situation where both trees and humans thrive in each other’s presence. In temporal terms, we are talking about living in the here and now.

    Obviously cosmology is such a slow-motion process that we can barely conceive of what is going on. The age of 46 billion years for the universe is probably just another timid approximation, some people (non-scientists) talk in trillions. Anyhow, the present 13-14 billion figure is only slightly better than the 6,000 years taught by the old kind religion. Paradoxically, living in the present means understanding that we have an endless past as well as an endless future. At the moment, we don’t have much of a past, and we don’t have much of a future.


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Bob (13th May 2014), ulli (12th May 2014)

  19. Link to Post #13
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    Quote Posted by ghostrider (here)
    our ET friends say the universe is 46 trillion years old , and expanding ... one day it will contract ... it has a twin called the Dal universe ... long ago a barrier/bridge was created between theirs and ours , they brought new technology and ideas to earth ... the information jump is no accident , they jump started the whole thing , a new epoch ... here is the rub- they say it all started by a flea sized piece of spiritual energy that explodes , creates , then one day contracts to the nameless nothing , then again explodes and the entire process begins anew ... they call it The Creation- a living energy consciousness of spiritual life filled with the memory of all living things that ever were , and we learn and evolve and take that knowledge back to the creation where it adds to the whole and makes it ever stronger and bigger for the next epoch of creation ...
    I'm not sure who "our ET friends" are n we have so few of them, if any. The Big Bang was in the Puranas of ancient India, too. The idea of continuous creation existed also in ancient times n there are ETs who support it. Regardless of the source, the Big Bang is necessarily false because it doesn't match reality.

  20. Link to Post #14
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    10th July 2013
    Location
    Project Avalon
    Posts
    3,649
    Thanks
    19,216
    Thanked 16,228 times in 3,216 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    Quote Posted by Pilote Tempête (here)
    LaViolette
    A few months ago, Paul Laviolette warned us about a galactic super-wave coming our way in May, he has just updated its status (as he often does):

    "[...] the chance of a companion being separated and ultimately crashing onto the galactic core is about 50 fold less than the 3% to 8% chance that we had previously estimated. Moreover in a subsequent posting, we will discuss a new computer simulation study that indicates that the G2 cloud’s present orbital trajectory is such that, even if the cloud did contain a binary system, it is extremely unlikely that the Galactic core would be able to capture and consume the companion body. Hence the risk of a superwave occurring within the next year or two is significantly reduced."

    http://etheric.com/g2-cloud-likely-c...ity-unchanged/

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Atlas For This Post:

    Christine (15th May 2014), Hervé (15th May 2014), Sierra (15th May 2014)

  22. Link to Post #15
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,566
    Thanks
    30,489
    Thanked 138,354 times in 21,475 posts

    Default Re: Real science

    Quote Posted by Bobd (here)
    And what about the universal background noise, 3 degrees Kelvin, where does that come from?
    Pierre-Marie Robitaille just made a good talk on this at the recent Electric Universe Conference (EU2014): The Cosmic Microwave Background.

    As for Paul LaViolette, I recommend you study his Subquantum Kinetics book with an open mind before purporting to disprove his work using standard model physics.

    If you want to go into more detail on your scepticism of the material presented in this thread, I recommend doing so on a separate thread.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Bob (15th May 2014), Christine (15th May 2014)

  24. Link to Post #16
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    15th March 2010
    Posts
    10,068
    Thanks
    12,891
    Thanked 32,308 times in 7,756 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    "Gravity's River" --New Black Hole Research Points to Gravity as a Fluid - http://



    Quote The accepted wisdom among gravitational researchers has been that spacetime cannot become turbulent. New research from Perimeter, though, shows that the accepted wisdom might be wrong. Gravity, it’s thought, can behave as a fluid. One of the characteristic behaviours of fluids is turbulence – that is, under certain conditions, they don’t move smoothly, but eddy and swirl.
    Perimeter Faculty member Luis Lehner explains why it might make sense to treat gravity as a fluid. “There’s a conjecture in physics – the holographic conjecture – which says gravity can be described as a field theory,” he says. “And we also know that at high energies, field theories can be described with the mathematical tools we use to describe fluids. So it’s a two-step dance: gravity equals field theory, and field theory equals fluids, so gravity equals fields equals fluids. That’s called the gravity/fluids duality.”

    The gravity/fluids duality is not new work – it’s been developing over the past six years. But hidden at the heart of it is a tension. If gravity can be treated as a fluid, then what about turbulence?

    “For many years, the folklore among physicists was that gravity could not be turbulent,” notes Lehner. The belief was that gravity is described by a set of equations that are sufficiently different from fluid dynamics equations, such that there would not be turbulence under any circumstances.

    Lehner highlights the emerging paradox: “Either there was a problem with the duality and gravity really can’t be fully captured by a fluid description, or there was a new phenomenon in gravity and turbulent gravity really can exist.” A team of researchers – Lehner, Huan Yang (Perimeter and the Institute for Quantum Computing), and Aaron Zimmerman (Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics) – set out to find out which.

    They had hints about what directions to go. Previous simulations at Perimeter, and independent work out of MIT, had hinted that there could be turbulence around the non-realistic case of black holes confined in anti-de Sitter space. “There might be turbulence if you confine gravity in a box, essentially,” says Lehner. “The deeper question is whether this can happen in a realistic situation.”

    The team decided to study fast-spinning black holes, because a fluid-dynamics description of such holes hints that the spacetime around them is less viscous than the spacetime around other kinds of black holes. Low viscosity increases the chance of turbulence – think of the way water is more swirly than molasses.

    The team also decided to study non-linear perturbations of the black holes. Gravitational systems are rarely analyzed at this level of detail, as the equations are fiendishly complex. But, knowing that turbulence is fundamentally non-linear, the team decided a non-linear perturbation analysis was exactly what was called for.

    They were stunned when their analysis showed that spacetime did become turbulent.

    “I was quite surprised,” says Yang, who has been studying general relativity (GR) – Einstein’s theory of gravity – since his PhD. “I never believed in turbulent behaviour in GR, and for good reason. No one had ever seen it in numerical simulations, even of dramatic things like binary black holes.”

    “Over the past few years, we have gone from a serious doubt about whether gravity can ever go turbulent, to pretty high confidence that it can,” says Lehner.

    How did this behaviour hide until now? “It was hidden because the analysis needed to see it has to go to non-linear orders,” says Yang. “People didn’t have enough motivation to do a non-linear study. But, this time, we knew what we were looking for. It gave us the motivation to do a more in-depth study. We had a target and we hit it.”

    This is theoretical work, but it might not stay that way. There are next-generation detectors about to come online which might soon be able to detect gravitational waves – ripples in the gravitational “fluid” that result from big events like the collision of two black holes. If gravitation can be turbulent, then those ripples might be a bit different than previous models suggest. Knowing about these differences may make gravitational waves easier to spot. And, of course, actually detecting these differences would be direct evidence of gravitational turbulence.

    “There are potential observational consequences of this discovery,” says Lehner. “LIGO or LISA or some future gravitational wave experiment may be able to detect them.”

    But one of the most exciting consequences of this research relates not to gravity, but to ordinary, Earth-bound turbulence. From hurricanes to cream stirred into coffee, from the bumblebee’s impossible flight to the vortices shearing off the end of airplane wings, turbulence is all around us. Yet we don’t fully understand it. It’s considered one of the greatest unsolved problems in classical physics.

    This research strengthens the idea that gravity can be treated as a fluid – which also means that fluids can be treated gravitationally.

    “We’ve been stuck for over 500 years on achieving a full understanding of turbulence,” says Lehner. “This gravity/fluid correspondence tells us that there is a way to use gravitational tools and gravitational intuition to take a fresh look at turbulence. We may end up as stuck as we are in our standard approach, or we may end up shedding completely new light that helps the field go forward. It’s very exciting.” link
    this helps explain why free energy devices and quantum energy developed down under don't work the same north of the equator

    a toilet spins counter clockwise in the north, clockwise in the south.

    this gravity is flowing into the black hole in a clockwise direction, if there was a plane between north and south, would we see it spinning in the opposite direction if it was on the north side of the plane...

    it is always spinning the same direction, it just looks different whether you are looking up into it, or down...

  25. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,937
    Thanks
    11,067
    Thanked 11,145 times in 2,998 posts

    Default Re: Bad Science - the Big Bang Theory

    What holds up the universe?

    A turtle.

    What holds up the turtle?

    Another turtle.

    What holds up that turtle?!

    Look man, it's turtles all the way down.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts