Big-Bang Theory Disproved

jacob navia wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...

J. Scott Miller wrote:

jacob navia wrote:


The big bang is disproved by the observation of a galaxy
eight times the mily way at only 800 million years
away from the supposed bang

See the references I have indicated in my answer to that
post above.
More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:



As I thought, you have no clue what you are talking about. No, this
discovery does not disprove the big bang theory. At best it will cause
a rethink in galaxy formation theory. But thanks for playing.


Of course I have "no clue".

I just use logic, what a stupid...

How can you explain that only 800 million years after
the supposed big bang an old, quiscent galaxy exists?

How about efficient star formation. Gas collapses, fragments, further
collapses, fragments more, each fragment forming stars in one fell swoop. We
see starburst galaxies in the UDF and other surveys. Efficient conversion of
matter into stars would result in massive stars forming in time periods of 10s
of 1000s of years, and moderate mass stars forming in 100s of 1000s of years,
reaching maturity in time periods well less than the 800 million or so years
mentioned in the article. This is one working hypothesis for elliptical
galaxies, for example, where efficient star formation accounts for the paucity
of gas and dust seen within them.

[comments deleted for brevity]


No. I do not have any "alternative theory". I just hate this
Big Bang since the pope approved it, and all religious crooks
see it as the confirmation of the "hand of god"

Down with it!!!

What a crock. Just because folks want to believe a supernatural being played a
role in the beginning of the universe does not discount a scientific theory. If
that is your only problem - obviously you have no merit scientifically, then you
are simply wasting all of our time.

[rest deleted]

J. Scott Miller wrote:

No. I do not have any "alternative theory". I just hate this
Big Bang since the pope approved it, and all religious crooks
see it as the confirmation of the "hand of god"

Down with it!!!


What a crock. Just because folks want to believe a supernatural being
played a role in the beginning of the universe does not discount a
scientific theory. If that is your only problem - obviously you have no
merit scientifically, then you are simply wasting all of our time.

[rest deleted]

[rest deleted] ... the easy way out.

I am honest enough to tell here the motivations behind my reject of
that theory. There are other ones:
o Space created "out of nothing"
o Evidence from all telescopes pointing to objects too old to
fit into the model.
1: A huge galaxy cluster at 1.600 million years from the BB
2: The VLT discovers galaxies containing stars at least 1000 to 2000
million years old 10 000 million years away from the BB
o An italian researcher discovers that nuclear reactions in stars are
slower than previously assumed, what makes everything in the
universe much older than we thought.

You will not tell the motivations for believing in a theory that
is increasingly being rejected by scientists all over the world.

There was a conference about alternative theories to the BB.
For a report about that conference see:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/d...-Ratcliffe.pdf

* jacob navia:

800 million years is NOTHING at this scales. Our own galaxy
makes only 3 turns in that time.

That is a good point.

3 turns gives a good way to visualize the process.

How fast can matter accrete into a galaxy, and how much matter was presumably
around for that according to BB theory?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

In article ,
jacob navia writes:
o Evidence from all telescopes pointing to objects too old to
fit into the model.
1: A huge galaxy cluster at 1.600 million years from the BB
2: The VLT discovers galaxies containing stars at least 1000 to 2000
million years old 10 000 million years away from the BB
o An italian researcher discovers that nuclear reactions in stars are
slower than previously assumed, what makes everything in the
universe much older than we thought.

Can you provide references to any of the above? (Press releases
don't count.) And why, exactly, is number 1 or number 2 a problem?
As to the last, why do you think a change in nuclear reaction rates
changes stellar ages? We had a thread on that very subject not long
ago. Stellar ages are controlled by luminosity, which has very
weak dependence on nuclear reaction rates.

You will not tell the motivations for believing in a theory that
is increasingly being rejected by scientists all over the world.

Can you name even one scientist who formerly accepted but now rejects
the Big Bang?

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

jacob navia wrote:
J. Scott Miller wrote:


No. I do not have any "alternative theory". I just hate this
Big Bang since the pope approved it, and all religious crooks
see it as the confirmation of the "hand of god"

Down with it!!!



What a crock. Just because folks want to believe a supernatural being
played a role in the beginning of the universe does not discount a
scientific theory. If that is your only problem - obviously you have
no merit scientifically, then you are simply wasting all of our time.

[rest deleted]


[rest deleted] ... the easy way out.

Well, I could have left Greg Neill's thrashing of your ideas in the post, but
thought it redundant.


I am honest enough to tell here the motivations behind my reject of
that theory. There are other ones:
o Space created "out of nothing"
o Evidence from all telescopes pointing to objects too old to
fit into the model.
1: A huge galaxy cluster at 1.600 million years from the BB
2: The VLT discovers galaxies containing stars at least 1000 to 2000
million years old 10 000 million years away from the BB
o An italian researcher discovers that nuclear reactions in stars are
slower than previously assumed, what makes everything in the
universe much older than we thought.

You will not tell the motivations for believing in a theory that
is increasingly being rejected by scientists all over the world.

Interesting, because a discussion of cosmology by an active group at the
University of Chicago a couple of years ago found no incompatibilities with the
current premise. The details remain ever changing in light of new discoveries,
but nothing would indicate in my discussions with them a rejection of the basic
premise behind the Big Bang.

It would seem far more likely you don't understand that premise, reject it on
theological rather than physics grounds, and blindly accept any alternative
because it suits your preconceived notions of it.

Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
jacob navia writes:

o Evidence from all telescopes pointing to objects too old to
fit into the model.
1: A huge galaxy cluster at 1.600 million years from the BB
2: The VLT discovers galaxies containing stars at least 1000 to 2000
million years old 10 000 million years away from the BB
o An italian researcher discovers that nuclear reactions in stars are
slower than previously assumed, what makes everything in the
universe much older than we thought.


Can you provide references to any of the above? (Press releases
don't count.)

A large population of ’Lyman-break’
galaxies in a protocluster at redshift z=4.1

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p...01/0401034.pdf

Press release that doesn't count because (whatever)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-084108-8564r

Another interesting observation that I forgot to mention
above is that our galaxy has the same age as the universe,
according to the BB theory: 13.7 billion years.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-20-04.html

Of course press releases do not count, even if they are issued
by such a prestigiuous institution like the VLT. Here is the
scientific paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0407524

And why, exactly, is number 1 or number 2 a problem?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

A CLUSTER of galaxies forms in 1.600 million years, no problem.

Our galaxy takes 250 million years to make a single turn. In that time
(1 600 million years) it makes around seven turns only.
A single interaction between two giant galaxies like our own
and Andromeda takes around 4 000 million years to
happen. And that is a single galaxy collision. Interactions between
single galaxies go at least for 1 billion years...

And a CLUSTER of galaxies forms in only 1600 million years. Imagine,
we are not speaking about just a collision but an INTERACTION where
the galaxies have to come together and GROUP in a huge cluster, that
looks very similar to our own cluster (Virgo) by the way.

And you see NO PROBLEM.

OK. Then, go ahead. There is NO PROBLEM AT ALL. Your sight is
deeply affected by bigbanitis: There is no blinder person as the
one that doesn't want to see.

As to the last, why do you think a change in nuclear reaction rates
changes stellar ages?

Because if those reactions take longer, a star, fueled by those
reactions is then older than we thought.

We had a thread on that very subject not long
ago. Stellar ages are controlled by luminosity, which has very
weak dependence on nuclear reaction rates.


Interesting. I thought that were precisely those reactions that
fuel the star giving its luminosity... but OK.


You will not tell the motivations for believing in a theory that
is increasingly being rejected by scientists all over the world.


Can you name even one scientist who formerly accepted but now rejects
the Big Bang?


There is no alternative to the BB. That is why nobody dares to
speak openly against it. Besides, anyone speaking against the
BB is treated as a crook, not a scientist, and banned from all
research. See what happened to Halton Arp.

J. Scott Miller wrote:
It would seem far more likely you don't understand that premise, reject
it on theological rather than physics grounds, and blindly accept any
alternative because it suits your preconceived notions of it.

Can you read?

I have said SEVERAL TIMES that I do not accept any alternative.
There is no comprehensive theory of the universe other than the
big bang.

The big bang didn't happen, so there is NO theory of the
universe at all.

Why should humans have a "theory of the universe" ???

We?

A small species barely above the animals that has a history span of just
a few thousand years ???

Of course WE NEED a theory of the universe but that need is
WRONG. We can make a theory about stars, galaxies, clusters,
etc. We can observe the heavens and try to figure out what
is in there.

That is SCIENCE.

But making theories of the universe is BEYOND science and
belongs to the human activity called metaphysics, i.e.
what is BEYOND physics.

There is NO PLACE for cosmology in science. We have just
not enough data to figure out what is a star, we do not know even
how much matter there is in the milky way, and 80 or 90 % of the mass in
the observable universe is unknown to us. ("dark matter",
"dark energy"...) too many "dark" things around that we have no clue
about.

In this situation, when space observations have only 20-30 years
it is completely RIDICULOUS to start making theories about the
universe, that anyway we will never observe, since we can only
observe the OBSERVABLE portion of it.

The universe is surely bigger than we can ever observe.

For ANY being "B" there is always a thing called its HORIZON,
i.e. the distance where his observing powers END.

This is a consequence of any being being FINITE, in contrast to
the UNIVERSE that is INFINITE.

Let's come back to reality. We can't understand the whole
universe. Period.

Cosmology is the oldest human philosophical question.

What is the Universe?

We are asking that since we left our caves and still today
WE HAVE NO CLUE!!!

Let's face it then: The UNIVERSE in all its immensity is beyond
our powers of comprehension and observation. We can only
try to understand the small part of it that we can see.

jacob

Gentlemen,
With all due regards, I wish to bring to your attention: Cosmology has
the origins through Vedas.
The Big-Bang theory has many contradictions.Let us accept in-adequacies
as part of Scientific RESEARCH.
The time scales projections through Vedas mention:
10^14 years and even 10^17 Years. The solar Galactic plane is only 10^9
scale.
A lot more research helps to resolve COSMOLOGY CRISIS.
Science needs to advance in UNIFICATION:

1.SOURCE 2 Fields 3 Flows and 4. Reflectors
as concepts to integrate Cosmic Functions
that constitute PRIME SOURCE
WELCOME TO SUPPORT:EAST-WEST interaction
COSMOLOGY FOR WORLD PEACE

jacob navia wrote:

J. Scott Miller wrote:
It would seem far more likely you don't understand that premise, reject
it on theological rather than physics grounds, and blindly accept any
alternative because it suits your preconceived notions of it.

Can you read?

I have said SEVERAL TIMES that I do not accept any alternative.
There is no comprehensive theory of the universe other than the
big bang.

The big bang didn't happen, so there is NO theory of the
universe at all.

Why should humans have a "theory of the universe" ???

We?

A small species barely above the animals that has a history span of just
a few thousand years ???

Of course WE NEED a theory of the universe but that need is
WRONG. We can make a theory about stars, galaxies, clusters,
etc. We can observe the heavens and try to figure out what
is in there.

That is SCIENCE.

But making theories of the universe is BEYOND science and
belongs to the human activity called metaphysics, i.e.
what is BEYOND physics.

There is NO PLACE for cosmology in science. We have just
not enough data to figure out what is a star, we do not know even
how much matter there is in the milky way, and 80 or 90 % of the mass in
the observable universe is unknown to us. ("dark matter",
"dark energy"...) too many "dark" things around that we have no clue
about.

In this situation, when space observations have only 20-30 years
it is completely RIDICULOUS to start making theories about the
universe, that anyway we will never observe, since we can only
observe the OBSERVABLE portion of it.

The universe is surely bigger than we can ever observe.

For ANY being "B" there is always a thing called its HORIZON,
i.e. the distance where his observing powers END.

This is a consequence of any being being FINITE, in contrast to
the UNIVERSE that is INFINITE.

Let's come back to reality. We can't understand the whole
universe. Period.

Cosmology is the oldest human philosophical question.

What is the Universe?

We are asking that since we left our caves and still today
WE HAVE NO CLUE!!!

Let's face it then: The UNIVERSE in all its immensity is beyond
our powers of comprehension and observation. We can only
try to understand the small part of it that we can see.


The universe is indeed beyond our powers of comprehension and
should be expected to be so. Most of us can comprehend that much.
But that's about where it all ends.

This excerpt from http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
provides an alternative universe to the big bang universe that can
only make sense if one keeps VERY firmly fixed in mind that the
universe is going to be incomprehendable from where we fit into
it's framework. Why (in hell) should it be otherwise?

----------------

The concept is based on a universe which has evolved as a consequence
of a very simple origin. Apart from postulating that origin, no
postulates
at all are required. Changes to the interpretation of some experimental
evidence are necessary to align with the predictions of the concept, but
it passes every test.

Apparently, from the one simple postulate describing the origin, every
detail of the entire universe is expected to be explained. Never before
have such unbounded parameters been placed on a postulate. But not to
worry, it's well up to the task. But do try to realize that I too am
having a hell of a time understanding the consequences of the proposed
origin. I tend to waffle on in some areas because I'm still trying to
explain the thing to myself. I can't always get it right and that should
be expected. I'm not the Oracle.

Anyway, try testing some of your own thoughts if you don't like mine.

The basis of the concept is that the universe has evolved from an
origin of absolutely nothing. No time, no dimension, no energy-matter.
It has evolved from absolute non existence. Every attempt at trying to
comprehend the pre-universe always breaks down because there is
absolutely
nothing to comprehend. But trying to comprehend infinite dimension is no
less of a challenge.

From an origin of non existence, by default, an eternity has elapsed
just to start time moving from the stationary time rate of non
existence.
The universe, right from the very origin, was always of infinite
proportions because of the always infinite distance to the zero origin.

From this almost incomprehendable origin, in order to create the very
first infinitesimally minor signs of existence, there would need to have
been some offset in the nothingness, and everything in the universe,
including the (always relative) dimension of the universe itself, has
developed around this disturbance over an eternity. Whatever the cause
of
the initial disturbance it cannot possibly be explained, but because of
its infinitesimally minor origin it is infinitely more logical than the
eternally existing "stuff" required by The Big Bang Theory.

If an offset to non existence (the zero "state") was a single value,
whatever this value, it had to be created and balanced about zero, so
the
elastic reaction surrounding its creation should draw the value back to
zero. But there are two components involved which both attract toward
each
other, creating an attraction dipole. The attraction to one end of the
dipole draws a positive tension from zero, while the other end draws a
negative tension from zero. Each side is drawing from the zero "state"
in
opposite directions, drawing toward each other. However, they should
still
return back to non existence because it would be expected that they be
created in circumstances which would provide a combined result of zero.
But if the attraction toward each opposite is exactly equal to the
attraction back to non existence, the pair will remain balanced between
the two opposing directions of attraction. The false attraction
direction
initially creates, and then maintains the pair in a state of existence
above the zero "state".

The zero origin universe is built entirely on stresses that distort the
symmetry of absolutely nothing. Each stress character is necessarily the
absolute opposite of its counterpart and necessarily point sized (from
our
perspective). Each is the origin of its own dimension, in the present.
The
only possible candidates for this role are obviously electrons and
positrons. They fill the roll with amazing precision. But I can't attach
the label of electron or positron to either stress character because I
have no idea which is which.

The positive stresses chase the negative stresses,
while the negative stresses chase the positive stresses, forever chasing
each other's tail in an endless loop.

The positive stress characters are drawn into the realm of the negative
stress characters and vise versa. The STATIONARY past is left
behind as each component eternally pursues its counterpart. The present
is
the moving component in the system. Because our existence is set from
this moving base the present appears to be stationary, while the past
retreats at light speed. This is what we are compelled to perceive.

Any alteration to the relationship between the stress characters will
be recorded and left behind in the past as the present advances onward
toward future destinations. The rate at which the past retreats from the
present is determined by the attraction rate between the stresses, and
that sets the speed of light (existence rate), which is infinitely
variable.

The negative dimension is extremely difficult to comprehend from a
viewpoint in the positive dimension because all relativity surrounding
the negative stresses is necessarily the reverse of that surrounding the
positive stresses. If the positive stress character is the point sized
origin of its created dimension, the negative stress character is the
infinite sized origin of its created dimension. Both are equally,
absolutely, removed from the past dimension that they each leave behind
in their wake.

To enable each negative stress character to contain all else within its
boundary the negative dimension must be seen in reverse from the
positive
dimension. This is a feasible argument because one would not expect to
see
a negative value from a positive viewpoint as would be seen from a
negative viewpoint, which is why the stress attraction direction is
false. The whole of the positive dimension, which will also be
reversed relative to a viewpoint from the negative dimension, can be
engulfed by each negative stress character in the negated dimension.
Both
dimensions can be seen as one from a positive or a negative viewpoint.
The
advancing front of the positive dimension is zero dimension, from which
the negative dimension begins. The negated value of the negative
dimension
seen through the window from the positive dimension will expand back
into
the positive dimension. The pasts in each dimension will be left to
expand
in apparently the same direction, running side by side. Thus a negative
existence becomes an integral part of our existence, in the positive.

The positive and negative dimensions are exact mirrors of each other.
Every change that occurs in one will equally and oppositely occur in the
other, but will only be perceived from the positive dimension (for
whatever reason).

Each person is the focal point of the universe. I am the focal point
from my viewpoint just as you are the focal point from your viewpoint.
Every instant of the present from each of us is recorded in the
stationary
past, and this recording will pass through all else in time. Clearly,
you
are in my future by the same margin that I am in your future, and you
are
also in my past by the same margin that I am in your past. Because I
remain in a reasonably constant time-distance relationship with you, I
am
advancing toward you at the same rate that you are retreating from me,
and
you are advancing toward me at the same rate that I am retreating from
you. The dual dimension is clearly evident.

An approaching beam of light is traveling simultaneously through your
past and through your future. You see it when it arrives in your
present.
Its origin was just as much in your past as it was in your future.

Recapping: A stress character only exists in the present at the point
of balance between its past and future. Relative to the positive stress
character, the past constantly expands away in a positive dimension
because the stress character is continuously advancing into a negative
void in pursuit of its counterpart, while always maintaining its
present status as the origin of its own dimension. For the
negative stress character, the past is left behind in a negative
dimension
within the continuously updated present status of the negative
stress character as it advances into a positive void in pursuit of its
counterpart. Opposite stresses are drawn in opposite directions from
zero
while drawing toward each other in the apparent direction that will
provide a complete association that will totally annul each stress
character. The attraction between the stresses continues indefinitely
because it's acting around a closed loop. Each stress, seen from the
viewpoint of the opposite stress, causes false directions of attraction.
Each attraction direction is the negative of the apparent.

Our perception of the universe is based entirely in the positive
dimension, where zero is the base of dimension throughout the universe.
However, the negative dimension is just as much a part of our reality as
the positive dimension, but we cannot visualize or comprehend its
existence. The base (origin of dimension) of the negative dimension is
infinity, with everything extending into dimension within that base.
Zero
is the incomprehendable distance in that realm. The negative dimension
is
the absolute opposite of the positive dimension.

Evidence of the existence of the negative dimension is all around us.
At any instant, the present right here is the present everywhere else in
the universe at this instant. It can't be denied that whatever is
happening at some place on (e.g.) Mars at this instant of my existence
is
happening in the present at that place on Mars. If it's happening at
some
time other than the present, then something else is happening there at
this instant, still in the present. Whatever the time rate in different
parts of the universe, the present is still the present. It's an
instantaneous event throughout the infinite negative dimension. The
absolute base is not any sort of radius or dimension, it's everywhere
across the positive dimension instantly, to infinity.

In the positive dimension, the point sized electron and point sized
positron are both noted to exist in that dimension. What is impossible
to
visualize is the fact that the same electrons and positrons are also
present as the infinite base of dimension in the negative dimension. In
each dimension, one of them is not as it seems. And that's exactly why
the
universe exists.

As the universe evolves, everything that exists is being slowly but
surely drawn into a deepening void of dimension, where both the speed of
light and the rate of the passage time, increase. Which is all almost
impossible to comprehend.

------------------

Lately I've been getting reports from folk being denied access to
my web pages. I don't know if that's still the case.

-----

Max Keon

In message , Max Keon
writes

The universe is indeed beyond our powers of comprehension and
should be expected to be so.

Sorry, pal, but you're no Einstein.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's
comprehensible".
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.