|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ooberman
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 56
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
| justellus wrote: | That is fine if others wish to ignore the evidence, and ignore those of us who are demonstrating the fallacies of the system.
When people have their mind made up, they don't even consider the facts and cannot see the errors being clearly shown with this evo thing.
It is evident they have no argument for their claims, ... |
A vast majority of scientists accept evolution. the claims are theirs, and they have backed up their research with peer-reviewed articles, decades of testing, independent confirmation, etc. - all the hallmarks of the Scientific process.
I am not a scientist and rely on experts. So far that has worked really well for me. For example: the computer, medicine, structural engineering (physics), etc...
I think your scientific understanding is based on your religious beliefs. And since you have no way of determining whether the religious sites you link are doing real science or not, i have to wonder what makes you so cocky about your position?
what qualifications do you have to claim that the scientists you support are right? i claim the scientific consensus, peer-review process, the scientific method (and quite a bit of reading about the subject, especially the bacteria flagellum) are better judges of what is probably true.
Prayer has never turned on a light in my house. Science has, though.
I prefer this Age, not the one where people thought epilepsy was demon possession, and that murder was an appropriate "cure".
As I said, you may believe what you want. Just don't expect other people to agree with you, or like you for trying to destroy all the hard work of scientists over the ages.
You can go and pray for a child to be cured of a disease.
I think it is infinitely more moral to actually DO something about it.
That is the stark difference between our positions.
_________________
A brick likes an arch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ober - quote -- what qualifications do you have to claim that the scientists you support are right? i claim the scientific consensus, peer-review process, the scientific method (and quite a bit of reading about the subject, especially the bacteria flagellum) are better judges of what is probably true. --->>>
Response -->>
Just read the science being presented. I am to busy demonstrating how other scientists are proving my theories, then to engage in a discussion with those who have no scientific insight into these subject matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ooberman
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| justellus wrote: | | I am to busy demonstrating how other scientists are proving my theories. |
I doubt very much they are proving YOUR theories.
I think they are testing THEIR hypotheses, and some of them happen to tangentially agree with your general view of the universe based on... well, I have no idea what you base your ideas on...
maybe slow down a second and carefully explain what theories you have. But when you make blanket assertions that 90% of scientists are wrong, one has to wonder what your agenda is.
_________________
A brick likes an arch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The new dimension is what the scientists are observing and describing as the grains, or ripples at the microscopic quantum level. When dark holes crash in on themselves, the information is not lost, under this view, but rather converted into a 2D planar of information. This 2D planar generates a type of holographic image which projects itself into the space-time continuum as observable energy and matter. At the planar level, it is the boundary between this dimension and the next dimensioin. At the universal limit point, it creates this boundary where the infinitely small quantum convulsions are pulling in matter, expounding the outer limit of our universe at an accelerating rate. It is at this planar level where the standard link between matter, energy and space is created. Beyond this planar, space has not yet been filled with dark matter and thus is "nothingness". In that region, light, matter and energy cannot enter. It is, if you will take it, the boundary past the fifth dimension.
Thus, it is not dark matter in itself creating this external tug on the universe, but the formation of matter, energy, light and new space as a result of the crash of dark matter into a 2D planar of information, which depends on the absorption of new dark matter to tug the universe out at an expanding rate. (It is possible this never ending process leads to sub-sequent gallaxy mergers and the birth of new gallaxies as well, as these forces are constantly re-shaping the stellar map and depending on the 2D planar location, the external tug may vary, as the rate of dark matter absorption by the 2D planar can also vary per planar coordinate. This explains also the pringle shape.) I believe also that the waves of this space-time continuum distortion at the planar boundary cast their waves throught our universe in a dense infinitely small string level, where dark matter exists. It is the presence of these strings that explains various observable phenomena. At the outer edges of the universe, this 2d planar can be detected as a type of background noise. This background noise is in essence a reflection of this microscopic infinitely small quantum level ripples of this continuum, where the same ceases to exist in it's present state.
Our interconnected mind can understand these concepts, once we enter into and embrace a fusion of mental energy towards this greater understanding of our cosmos.
The other related concepts have been described above in brief detail. Inspiration comes with both a scientific mind, knowledge of the sciences, the cosmos and current theories of science. It is this inter reaction and exchange of ideas that leads to the progress of science. It is however, the limited mind that depends on scientific opinion of a "consensus" to establish his world views. When we throw out these pre-established views, we are able to see science in a new objective light, and postulate new theories which can have also a revolutionary influence on the work of other scientists. Where they are getting their ideas from we can only speculate. But certainly they are thinking along the same line of thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And these are my own genuine, unique ideas, combined with what the scientists are also working on, into a new fusion of ideas, related to my previously presented ideas.
Further ideas have been posted along the last year on various other links referred to in other posts.
Again, todays link is here --->.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html
The original link I had referred to and discussed, quoted above, can be found here -->>
http://www.faqtup.com/browse.php/Oi8vd3d3/Lm1zbmJj/Lm1zbi5j/b20vaWQv/MjgyNTY1/MzQv/b13/
And as you well know, theory in science requires a scientific mind first to make the prediction. It is not always based on observed evidence. The scientific method may take years to test a theory and prove it.
Only those who are light years ahead in terms of creative thinking can dare to postulate on subject matters which many may not understand and consider to be wild science. But in the end, all theories will stand the chance of the test of time. Time will either prove or dis prove some of our scientific ideas. You see, science itself is advancing, but I would not use the word evolving, as this suggest the evo stuff again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When other scientists are beginning to only grasp these concepts, and trying to interpret what it means, we are taking another bold step further --->> advancing their ideas in words that the lay can understand, and explaining how these events are taking place with our own theories on this subject.
These are my theories on this subject matter and others are entitled to their own. But I believe these guys must be getting their ideas from some source, and truly they have not explained it with this depth of detail as I have done.
If you find some better or more in depth explanation let me know, as I would like to read up on it. We all can mutually benefit from this endeavor. Certainly these teams can as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a good one. in the mean time, from the same link - user remarks --->>>
| Quote: | Howie Rogers
Is it possible that the holographic cats only exist when we look at them? Schroedinger would be gutted to have wasted all that time only to find that the cats didn't really exist in the first place! |
Not that I fully accept the holographic application and all the 2D planer implications, as some of these truly are speculative, as can be seen in the above funny remark. I think this will have some musing however on the implications of the holographic concept.
However, we do know that at the quantum level there are indeed particles which spring into existence only when they are being observed. So in essence, this is another way to understand the holographic principle. Information transfer is necessary for quantum events. Quantum events are at the core of our universe. These quantum events translate themselves back into observable particles. Mental energy is information transfer. When our minds are inter-connected to the source of this energy transfer mechanism, so to speak, we can gain much insight into the same, as we become in a sense plugged into a sort of, well, what some call, universal mind. The implications of this are far reaching as well, and at times far fetched also.
In essence, the exterior planar can be seen as the universal space hologram, so to speak, where all the events of the space time continuum translate themselves into new information which is converted into this new dimension. Under this view, this new dimension translates itself back as a type of holographic projection as the mass, space and light - thus the universe as we know it. The exact design of this exterior information generation mechanism can only reach speculative level at some point, and can certainly lead also to the funny humor as postulated by this fellow human being who made the above remark.
Now, to assume we all are a fiction of some universal mind, or of our own mind, certainly is a wacky extension of the idea into realms of strange thinking indeed.
But if we see our existence as the materialization of this universal mind, then we have also a new way to view the information transfer process as a means designed into the system to allow for its survival. Without this exterior information transfer, the stability of our universe would not be guaranteed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And another great comment:
| Quote: | Thu Jan 15 22:39:06 GMT 2009 by mike
Hey, I know the comment was facetious, but perhaps there is a link between this and the "uncertainty principal". A hologram appears different according to where your eye is in space - perhaps the nature of the cat is that it appears dead or alive depending on very minute alterations in time and space. The cat's laid out in space time like a 4D checkerboard, black squares = gassed cat, white squares = relieved cat. |
This view would also suggest the ability of an infinite observer, who lives outside of space and time to view all events in history at the same time - past, present and future occurring as one big projection of the holographic space model.
and here is another good one, along similar lines:
| Quote: | Tue Jan 20 14:59:29 GMT 2009 by Boogey Man
If you walk around permanently wearing a pair of binoculars, you will trip over what is just under your feet...
In relation to the article, this makes perfect logical sense. It actually ratifies Loop Quantum Gravity which in my book has to be a good thing.
As space expands so does the hemisphere at the outer edge of the universe, which means that the volume within the sphere increases, this does not mean that the granulation of the data means that there will be a big rip however...
What it does mean is that all matter and energy becomes stretched in proportion to each other... the result??
There will be no noticeable change at all since everything changes by the same amount.
A hologram requires at least 3 points to focus, if you take the outer rim of the universe there will be in fact 3 places on this 2d surface with elements of the universe on it. Only when these elements are combined within the volume of the sphere do we get the 3 dimensions of space we experience.
Time is equivalent then to the data moving location on the surface of the 2D rim...
M-Theory is something that this reminds me of and I wonder how many people have hard time getting their heads around branes??
Anyway, All the best...
Tim, |
Now what this author refers to as "Loop Quantum Gravity" would be interesting to know.
From what I perceive, this could mean that gravity itself follows a loop created by these quantum events. Thus, it loops itself back towards other matter, at the extreme corners of the universe. And light as well follows this distortion path. Thus, standing at the edge of the universe, one would perceive the light from adjacent galaxies as coming from lateral displacement points along the 2D planar, rather then the conventional 3d perspective view possible within the standard 3D hologram. At the planar level, the 3D projection would be visible below, but above at the planar level only the fuzzy dots themselves would exist, and one can only speculate if they are even observable. My suggestion would be that at that planar all other directions exist below the planar in 3D but at the planar become distorted sideways so that the observer will be able to look each direction sideways or below, but not above the 2D planar. This, the result of the distortion of the space-time continuum at the planar level.
As requested, I have briefly shared a few more ideas on this subject. Others are welcome to do the same. A few ideas also can be gathered from the same commentaries section on the referred to link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1158
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your loosing it again usarender, slow down, focus now if your still with us. I'll just ask one question at a time for now on, as to not confuse the participants.
Are we related to chimps?
On another note:
I was disappointed for not getting the Nobel Prize for my "zennith event" theory explanation of the universe. There's always next year.
_________________
An event is to chaos as function is to form. n/a
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kalispell-MT/Swan-Woodworks/74815304856 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Sat Jan 17 04:29:27 GMT 2009 by garg
most of you would do well to remember that the vast majority of scientific theory is no more than over simplified ideas based on severly incomplete data!
That said, the whole field of quantum mechanics is useless given the current level of understanding. Maybe another century and we will be close to understanding the basics!
To think we have even the slightest clue as to the true nature of the universe or our ultimate fate is a gross error in judgement.
The truth is we just don't know and the odds are we wont know for a very long time to come.
Science is speculation built upon speculation reinforced by dogma and fed to the masses in oversimplified terms that appear to hold weight until you examine the principles involved.
It is there that you will find the glue holding the proverbial house of cards together. That glue always includes leaps in logic that are unverifiable-somthing religion is vilified for interestingly.
Face it- nobody has a clue. no matter how many equations they use to solidify that theory it is still based on an incomplete picture and therefor almost certainly wrong!
I believe that there is an inherant order to the universe. Call it intelligent design, or GOD, or whatever you like, but the fact remains that even the incomplete picture we have shows so much complexity and coordination that one has to wonder.
God cannot be summed up in one book, and the universe cannot be figured out in 2000 years. Those are the facts my freinds.
Everything else is speculation! |
And this guy has his own ideas to share:
Physicist and Consciousness reasercher Thomas Campbell claims:
(This guy sound likes the matrix movie.)
"What are the connections between physics, metaphysics, philosophy, and religion?
- They are all part of the same reality from different perspectives and from different beliefs - different assumptions.
- With a big picture perspective they all are easily understandable as individual shadows of one whole thing. One can see where and how each got stuck because of their limiting beliefs."
Consciousness is the computer. Parallel worlds don't exist, but they are only probability distributions.
http://www.my-big-toe.com/
http://br.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CE5EA05F1F683940
You can't handle the subjective objectively.
At least this guy has an open mind.
There is more beyond our universe and what we can perceive. You can't explain these things physically.
Low enthropy consciouness allows one to be aware of this greater reality.
"How do you develop a low enthropy consciousness? By eliminating belief, eliminating fear and ego, and by expanding one's awareness into the greater picure of existence. That is, by developing oneself spiritually."
| Quote: | About the Author About the Author
Tom Campbell began researching altered states of consciousness with Bob Monroe (Journeys Out Of The Body, Far Journeys, and The Ultimate Journey) at Monroe Laboratories in the early 1970s where he and a few others were instrumental in getting Monroe's laboratory for the study of consciousness up and running. These early drug-free consciousness pioneers helped design experiments, developed the technology for creating specific altered states, and were the main subjects of study (guinea pigs) all at the same time. Campbell has been experimenting with, and exploring the subjective and objective mind ever since. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of consciousness.
During that same time period, he has excelled as a working scientist, a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back the frontiers of cutting edge technology, large-system simulation, technology development and integration, and complex system vulnerability and risk analysis. Presently, and for the past 20 years, he has been at the heart of developing US missile defense systems.
Tom is the "TC (physicist)" described in Bob Monroe's second book Far Journeys and has been a serious explorer of the frontiers of reality, mind, consciousness, and psychic phenomena since the early 1970s. My Big TOE is a model of existence and reality that is based directly on Campbell's scientific research and first hand experience. It represents the results and conclusions of thirty years of careful scientific exploration of the boundaries and contents of reality from both the physical and metaphysical viewpoints. The author has made every effort to approach his explorations without bias or preconceived notions. There is no belief system, dogma, creed, or unusual assumptions at the root of My Big TOE.
By demanding high quality repeatable, empirical, evidential data to separate what's real (exists independently and externally) from what's imaginary or illusory; Campbell has scientifically derived this general model of reality. |
At least this guy has an excellent curricula going for him. And maybe each small "miracle" some are able to perform, by taking the "big leap", they still will not be able to re-create the knowledge of the future that we find in ancient Biblical writers, or the miracles of the master of all times, such as raising the dead and coming back from the dead. Only the author and creator of this "global conciousness" could perform such extraordinary feats. All human endeavour is but a small reflection of this greater reality, anyway you look at it.
So this author above has much going for him, however it would be interesting to see if he believes in God as the author of all this incredible physics and the knowledge of reality and consciousness that he claims. At least, if a guy like him were to come into this thread, certainly he would be clear and open minded and have no restrictions to accept all that has been presented. Whether he would accept God as the author of all this knowledge is uncertain. Howver, it is interesting to note also how is perceptions and understanding of reality are being influenced by his own framework or point of view as well. So reality tends to favor the framework one is working in. Thus, even this author canont claim to grasp the ultimate reality or theory of everything.
This holographic view of reality goes back to Talbot -->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot
| Quote: | Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
Author Talbot writes that ". . . there is evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it. . . are also only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own it is literally beyond both space and time." Hence, the title of his book. Beginning with the work of physicist David Bohm and neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, both of whom independently arrived at holographic theories or models of the universe, Talbot explains in clear terms the theory and physics of holography and its application, both in science and in explanation of the paranormal and psychic. His theory of reality accommodates this latest thinking in physics as well as many unresolved mind-body questions. This well-written and fascinating study is recommended for science collections.
- Hilary D. Burton, Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Livermore, Cal.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc. |
As can be seen, reality is to complex to grasp. The ultimate reality is the one we experience. Our faith is but a reflection of this greater reality. This reality does not cease to exist simply due to shifts in framework or points of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ooberman
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
justellus, you aren't trying to have a discussion, you are just vomiting links and pasting&cutting. I would be suprised if anyone is reading what you are posting.
You have no credibility, so why would someone read your posts?
Here is my response:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In gravida, elit a accumsan porta, libero ipsum convallis mi, nec fringilla enim ligula in erat. - forum abuse - sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Curabitur convallis augue. Praesent consequat mauris sit amet nisl. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec ac magna. Ut nec felis. Integer mattis, pede eget bibendum commodo, risus massa pharetra elit, vel viverra nunc velit eget lacus. Morbi facilisis tellus ac mauris. Vivamus euismod tincidunt metus. Nullam eu quam ac turpis pellentesque porttitor. Maecenas odio. Donec in metus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vivamus tortor. Duis sed justo condimentum lectus lacinia tincidunt. Proin ac dui.
Sed consequat accumsan tortor. In enim. Nullam sapien turpis, aliquet ac, lacinia nec, laoreet posuere, metus. Mauris lectus diam, congue a, porttitor in, auctor sed, ipsum. Phasellus non magna. Morbi purus quam, hendrerit non, pellentesque eget, volutpat in, dolor. Nunc sollicitudin. Aenean luctus. Nulla mi ipsum, elementum ut, iaculis ut, pharetra eget, turpis. - forum abuse - sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
In mattis fermentum libero. Vivamus ipsum. Fusce interdum libero sit amet magna. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In congue auctor massa. Suspendisse in tortor eu odio dignissim ultricies. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aenean condimentum, ipsum sit amet luctus pulvinar, enim mauris venenatis tellus, eget aliquet diam lacus sed tellus. Nulla sit amet arcu. Nam magna ipsum, congue id, vestibulum sed, eleifend non, nisl. Etiam ac libero. Curabitur et massa. Etiam in justo. In libero.
Quisque facilisis. Nulla felis. Mauris tempus vulputate odio. Integer et sapien at nisi tempus egestas. Aliquam ultricies sollicitudin neque. Cras venenatis justo vitae nulla. Fusce lacus pede, vulputate a, adipiscing in, consectetur nec, ante. Ut velit. Cras sapien tortor, sagittis nec, elementum a, sollicitudin in, magna. Donec lacinia. Suspendisse consequat fermentum ipsum. Quisque sapien. Praesent at nisi eget diam consequat rhoncus.
Maecenas nec lectus sed odio porttitor hendrerit. Duis adipiscing adipiscing leo. Vivamus quis dolor mollis dolor vulputate venenatis. Nunc euismod nunc. Duis tincidunt nulla ac ligula. Donec blandit aliquet mauris. Proin tempor tincidunt diam. Vestibulum feugiat elit sit amet dolor. Suspendisse potenti. Duis aliquet tortor ut arcu. Aliquam ac velit ac est accumsan consequat. Mauris sed lectus eget dolor suscipit ornare. Fusce facilisis dui. Nulla facilisi. Maecenas venenatis tellus ac arcu. Suspendisse vulputate laoreet augue.
Please. Try posting one cogent paragraph and give a chance for people to respond.
_________________
A brick likes an arch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just because some do not understand it does not mean it doesn't make sense. Obviously those with no scientific mind will not understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is some info to back-up my theories:
Microwave Background and The Edge of the Universe
| Quote: | | You can think of the source of the microwave background as a distant, spherical wall that surrounds us and delimits the observable universe. If an observer is moving with respect to the wall, then the spectrum of the radiation coming from the region of the wall that he is approaching will be shifted toward shorter wavelengths, while radiation from the opposite direction will be shifted toward longer wavelengths. Thus, the existence of the microwave background allows us to determine whether the solar system is moving with respect to a basic frame of reference in the universe. |
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/EP-177/ch4-9.html
The limit of the universe can be seen as a wall
This region of the wall, where the low wavelenghts exists, has not been amply studied by Nasa. It will require future studies with telecopes on satellites.
Interesting how for the rest of the universe, the cosmological constant applies, according to what they claim. However, when one reaches the edge, the distortion of the space time continuum produces the effect which I have previously described. So this is based on science, not lunacy. If someone would like to present more scientific evidence on this subject matter, they are free to do so.
Space Bends Back on itself at the limit of the universe
The best way to understand this is that there is so much matter in the universe that space is bent back on itself. Thus, as noted previously:
| Quote: | | From what I perceive, this could mean that gravity itself follows a loop created by these quantum events. Thus, it loops itself back towards other matter, at the extreme corners of the universe. And light as well follows this distortion path. Thus, standing at the edge of the universe, one would perceive the light from adjacent galaxies as coming from lateral displacement points along the 2D planar, rather then the conventional 3d perspective view possible within the standard 3D hologram. At the planar level, the 3D projection would be visible below, but above at the planar level only the fuzzy dots themselves would exist, and one can only speculate if they are even observable. My suggestion would be that at that planar all other directions exist below the planar in 3D but at the planar become distorted sideways so that the observer will be able to look each direction sideways or below, but not above the 2D planar. This, the result of the distortion of the space-time continuum at the planar level. |
As Nasa tells us, this region cannot be observed, but instead only the microwave radiation and infrared light can be seen. This is where we find the 2D planar, where the Z axis of the 3rd dimension ceases to exist, since space wraps back in on itself. Anyone able to understand this concept?
Interesting how up to this point, there has been none to take up the challenge and enter into an intelligent, scientific discussion and exchange of ideas to this point. Rather, it has limited itself to a few individuals who keep coming back to lauch attacks without any intelligent discussion in mind.
Now, here we have an image of the big baloon called the universe:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/cmbr_DMR.gif
Universe review, with the various possible theories and scenarios explained from a scientific point of view -->>
http://universe-review.ca/F02-cosmicbg.htm
CMBR fluctuations can be seen on this page.
There are various apparent problems with the big bang theory also, and these are presented very well here -->>
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/mar/crisisinthecosmo478/
*******************************************************
Note:
The models I have previously proposed as a new theory would explain away the inconsistencies of microwave background radiation, in that it is not associated with the Big Bang but rather with the 2D planar of the universe and how this planar is absorbing energy created by the implosion of black holes and in the creation of new space as the exterior boundary increases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 209
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Contradictions of Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory is suggesting that original matter must have travelled at enourmous speeds in the beginning, much greater then the speed of light. However, having matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light is totally devoid of any theoretical formulas, violates Dr. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and lacks astronomical observations to prove it. Nothing in the universe has been shown to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light except some forms of radiation.
Further, how can space have expanded at such incredible speed, and yet the matter in the universe expanded at very slow speed, as they claim? It would need to expand at a speed much less then the speed of light, according to Einstein's theories. So how long would it take to expand to it's current size?
These scientists are going at the problem backwards. The scientific formulas and laws must be developed to support the theory before the theory is accepted. Instead, the scientific community has accepted the Big Bang Theory without any supporting science or supporting observations. Now they are simply throwing out any wild idea imaginable in hopes of saving the Big Bang Theory from collapse, as demonstrated in this link:
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/mar/crisisinthecosmo478/
Discover Magazine! So what type of incongruencies and inconsistencies is science throwing at us after all?
| Quote: | Fewer than 70 years have passed since astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding. It’s been only 30 since they first detected the cosmic microwave background--the feeble, universe-wide glow that is the main evidence for the Big Bang. Yet for most of that time it has seemed as if they were making steady progress. Like the universe itself, our understanding of it, having begun with a bang in the twentieth century, seemed to be expanding constantly, rapidly, and inexorably. One could almost imagine a time when we would have figured it all out.
These days that goal looks distant indeed; these days cosmology seems to be collapsing in on itself. In the past few years two new discoveries have come along, observations so disconcerting that they threaten to shake the field to its foundation. The first is that galaxies in a huge chunk of the universe, a region at least 1 billion light-years across that includes our own Milky Way, appear to be moving, all in the same direction, at about 435 miles per second, or 1.56 million miles per hour. Even if you’re a cosmologist and are used to such ridiculous distances and speeds, you have trouble explaining that observation. The only force that could set such a large fraction of the universe in motion is gravity--and there just isn’t enough mass around to generate that much gravity. Even when cosmologists resort to their favorite deus ex machina and say that 90 percent of the universe is made of some invisible dark matter--identity unknown but full of gravity--they can’t get that many galaxies to move that fast.
The second observation, made with the newly repaired Hubble Space Telescope, is even more startling. The Hubble has allowed astronomers to make the most credible measurement to date of the age of the universe--of how long it’s been since the Big Bang. They have found that the universe is somewhere between 8 and 12 billion years old. Yet there is almost no doubt that the oldest stars in the Milky Way, which live in the globular star clusters that orbit the galaxy’s central bulge, are at least 14 billion years old, and probably even more ancient than that. A universe younger than the stars it contains is, to say the least, a fundamental contradiction.
Too little mass, too little time--either problem alone would be disturbing. Taken together they raise the specter of a scientific revolution, a shift in the cosmological worldview in which some fundamental assumptions in cosmological theory--perhaps even the Big Bang itself--will have to give. |
And they discovered that our galaxy, the Milky way, together with a cluster of adjacent galaxies, are all being carried off in the same direction which is not one that would be predicted by a big bang! There are rather being carried by some mysterious river or stream!
| Quote: | | The hundred or so galaxies they’ve observed are like so many boats--each with its own local motion, yet all being carried downstream. |
It has been since 1992 in Milan that this was discovered, and still to this day they have no clue to explain this.
And matters are getting even worse:
| Quote: | | Even before these distressing new observations came along, theorists faced a maddeningly long list of unanswered cosmological questions. What is the dark matter made of? How much of it is out there, and how is it distributed? How did the structure of the present-day universe evolve--the stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters and superclusters--from the smooth and uniform explosion of the Big Bang? Now they have two more questions: How can the universe be younger than its stars? And how can so much of it be charging off toward Orion? All these problems are intertwined. And a plausible solution to any one of them often has the unfortunate property of making a related problem worse. |
And there are further problems with dark matter.
"A universe younger than the stars it contains is, to say the least, a fundamental contradiction."
Regarding these measurements, and other unexplained data, one astronomer remarked that:
"It would be premature to panic... But if these results are confirmed, we theorists will be in big trouble. We really have no good ways of explaining these observations."
So what are these astronomers teaching us after all?
And regarding attempts to reconcile this age problem by stretching the theoretical formulas that (supposedly) prove such great ages for "old" stars, one astrophysicist said that:
| Quote: | | "Reports that the big bang is dead may be premature. But the theory that the universe originated in a single, gigantic explosion of matter has definitely been dealt some savage blows in recent years." |
and -->>
| Quote: | | "Observations of red supergiant stars in a nearby galaxy... suggest that the universe is less than 10 b.y. old... This is ... less than the ... age of some stars, posing an awkward problem for cosmologists." |
So Sandage and Tamman came up with an age of between 13-17 billion years for the universe, while Pierce, Ressler, and Sure came up with around 8 billion. Figure that?
And even the editors of New Scientist have remarked:
| Quote: | | "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations." And that: "... the big bang theory will definitely need some major modifications if it is to survive into the future." |
From Big Bang to Long, Continuous, Smooth Bang:
The Jan. 1997 issue of Discover stated that:
| Quote: | | "with the flood of (new) data, old ideas about galaxy formation are toppling. Particularly imperiled is the notion that virtually all galaxies came into existence at the same moment in the distant past, emitting a collective burst of light like some grand fireworks display." |
And that: | Quote: | | "Now...astronomers believe that galaxies..." (were created) "not all at once but continuously... over a period of billions of years." |
The article goes on to state:
| Quote: | | "The only thing the author didn't tell us is what it was that made astronomers change their "notion" about the "collective burst of light" (i.e. their former belief in the Big Bang) and why they now think that new galaxies are continually being created. However, the author did give a clue when she stated that astronomers: |
| Quote: | | "... figured there was a precise era when galaxies were first constructed, when all those islands of new stars 'turned on' in relative unison... (they) therefore were looking for signs of a sudden eruption of light in the distant cosmos." |
A sudden eruption of light? A time when all the start "turned on at once"? What type of non-sense is this? How could all the stars suddenly turn on all at once, as if they were one large Christmas tree? They would need billions of year to reach their positions moving at their current speed, before they could even "turn on".
So what do astronomers really know about our universe then? They are going every direction searching for answers now. Some seem to be confused as to whether it is really expanding or collapsing:
Consider the following remarks from Astronomy magazine:
| Quote: | Four years ago an ambitious pair of young astronomers ... looked deep into the ... sky trying to confirm a prediction made by every respectable cosmological theory. On very large scales, these theories said, the universe should be moving just one way -- outward..."
"That is not the way it worked out. Instead, Laur and Postman found that a huge chunk of the universe appears to be heading off ... toward some far off point in the direction of Virgo..."
Laur and Postman's results sent shock waves through the world of cosmology. If all that mass is moving away on so large a scale, then the big bang was not as smooth and uniform as virtually all modern cosmological theories demand. As one astronomer put it, 'If this result is true then we know less than nothing.'" |
So after all this talk that the Big Bang has been proven, now they are back to nothing.
Science does not even agree with science
Further, using explanation of the Redshift astronomers have found that the farthest away object that we have ever seen is
moving away at over 95% of the speed of light.
Yet nobody has stopped and asked if this is possible. According to Einstein, if an object approaches the speed of light, in caves in on itself under compression and becomes smashed and elongated! As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass tends towards infinity. So how could those objects be moving at that speed in the first place?
As some have stated:
| Quote: | However, in theoretical astronomy we have not been able to design any experiment to check these extra-
-science “truths” against scientific facts. However, we do know that they are inconsistent with the fundamental
laws and ideas of science, in particular the laws of thermodynamics. |
Here is an extra-science statement widely accepted in cosmology.
| Quote: | | The whole universe, stars, galaxies and everything else that we can and cannot see, in fact everything, started as a point. |
This, the essence of the big bang theory has no scientific foundation and has not been even proven.
So modern cosmology is in trouble. It is best summed up this way:
| Quote: |
And no one, it seems clear, has good explanations right now, not for any of the problems that bedevil cosmology, and certainly not for all of them at once. The field is in a troubled state, a disconcerting or an exciting one, depending on your personality--a state in which even the most basic assumptions seem open to question. Maybe the microwave background has nothing to do with the Big Bang after all but is due to some entirely different phenomenon. Maybe redshifts aren’t really due to recessional velocity, and the universe isn’t expanding. Maybe we don’t really understand gravity, which would throw all cosmological theories into the trash--even the Big Bang itself. Few cosmologists think that’s at all likely. But no reasonable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is the ultimate theory. With enough contradictions and inconsistencies, it could eventually be overthrown in favor of a model--perhaps a more complicated and difficult one--that better fits the facts. We like to think of the universe as simple and comprehensible, says Joel Primack, but the universe is under no obligation to live up to our expectations. |
More links and info on these contradictions here -->>
http://lyndonashmore.com/contradictions_in_the_big_bang_t.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
