Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 03:57 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
My friend ask Mike Huttner of Rational Scientific Method. You can find this group at the Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/groups/Rational...p_activity . The group accept Bill Gaede's Rope Theory btw instead of Relativity, Big Bang theory, etc. My friend ask,
Quote:do you mean that our intellect can accurately explain everything if we just think critically or Or do you mean we are certainly correct if we got a rational explanation regarding everything?


Mike Huttner answered,
Quote:I am speaking in terms of neither accuracy (which requires a standard) nor certainty (which is a state of mind).

Explanations are only rational or irrational... meaning they are non-contradictory and therefore intelligible & possible, or not.

The concepts of accuracy & certainty have nothing to do with the evaluation of a Scientific Theory which stands alone and is evaluated based on it's clarity & consistency with all of our assumptions.

Then, he said,
Quote:Here's what I mean by non-contradictory:

Let's assume frequency & wavelength are inversely proportional with light phenomena.

Wavelength necessarily drops when frequency increases and vice versa light is torsion down a two-strand rope. This is a rational explanation as to why frequency goes up when wavelength goes down.

If you wish to contradict that then you MUST either A. show how a two-strand, taut rope does not perform this action or B. come up with an alternative model that performs the same phenomena with equal or better explanatory power (i.e. it explains more hypotheses).

[Image: 553119_10153442729385515_1216127512_n.jpg]

Can someone refute this? Anyone?
Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 08:26 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(30-10-2013 03:57 AM)Mike Wrote:  Can someone refute this? Anyone?

Quote:The Complete Falsification of the Rope Hypothesis
Jeffrey J Wolynski
Jeffrey.wolynski@yahoo.com
Cocoa, FL 32922
May 28, 2013
Abstract:
One observation falsifies the Rope Hypothesis as instituted by a Mr. Bill Gaede.
When a hypothesis is considered it must be encompassing to the structures and objects which it refers to. If there is a conflicting observation to the hypothesis then we must throw the hypothesis out and start over again. This single conflicting observation is that silver has physical presence in the crust of the Earth. In order for the Rope Hypothesis to be correct then the ropes it is comprised of should have torsioned all the silver into the center of the Earth. The center of the Earth should contain according to the Rope Hypothesis only the heaviest elements first and then work their way outwards the further out we get from the center. Since silver is in the crust of the Earth and not where it is supposed to be in the center of the Earth, as well as other elements that are heavier than iron, we can conclude that the Rope Hypothesis has been effectively falsified and can be thrown in the trash.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0166v1.pdf

Went with looking for a refutation before researching what it was supposed to be...





...lasted a minute before headdesk. Tongue

From what little I've seen, there doesn't seem to even be enough science for any actual scientists to bother to give a full refutation. I was gonna run my neck on youtube, but comments are disabled. Big surprise. Dodgy

The best refutation for this kinda thing is to ignore it and hope it goes away. Thumbsup

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-10-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(30-10-2013 03:57 AM)Mike Wrote:  [Image: 553119_10153442729385515_1216127512_n.jpg]

Can someone refute this? Anyone?

Common sense isn't sufficient?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 08:52 PM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
So if BBT don't claim that space are created at the moment of the Big Bang occurred, then space is eternal and non-finite. Right?
Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(07-11-2013 08:52 PM)Mike Wrote:  So if BBT don't claim that space are created at the moment of the Big Bang occurred, then space is eternal and non-finite. Right?

It could be either way, we can't say whether the energy, space and time of this universe came into existence at the initial moment of the big bang or if it was around simply in some other form (say, a previous universe collapsing into a black hole).

You can't say the negative is true simply because the positive isn't claimed to be true in the theory (if that makes sense). It's not claimed because it can't be known, at least at this time it appears that way.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 08:28 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(07-11-2013 09:59 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 08:52 PM)Mike Wrote:  So if BBT don't claim that space are created at the moment of the Big Bang occurred, then space is eternal and non-finite. Right?

It could be either way, we can't say whether the energy, space and time of this universe came into existence at the initial moment of the big bang or if it was around simply in some other form (say, a previous universe collapsing into a black hole).

You can't say the negative is true simply because the positive isn't claimed to be true in the theory (if that makes sense). It's not claimed because it can't be known, at least at this time it appears that way.

But you see, the past generations of human civilization have been gone for decades. But what remain unchanged and always remain, is matter (atoms) and space. So we know if humans (or anything else) going to extinct or gone or etc., atoms and space are always remain and thus eternal. Right?
Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 01:42 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(12-11-2013 08:28 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 09:59 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  It could be either way, we can't say whether the energy, space and time of this universe came into existence at the initial moment of the big bang or if it was around simply in some other form (say, a previous universe collapsing into a black hole).

You can't say the negative is true simply because the positive isn't claimed to be true in the theory (if that makes sense). It's not claimed because it can't be known, at least at this time it appears that way.

But you see, the past generations of human civilization have been gone for decades. But what remain unchanged and always remain, is matter (atoms) and space. So we know if humans (or anything else) going to extinct or gone or etc., atoms and space are always remain and thus eternal. Right?

No.. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. Examples of periods in which matter, space and time persisted isn't evidence that it has always done so. At least not in my mind.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
After an initial "Big Bang," which brought matter into existence out of nothing, stars later resulted from "the solidifying of gas," Later still, you and I were the result.

"It may come as a shock to learn that nearly all the atoms in your body and in the earth were once part of a star that exploded. "— *K.F. Weaver, "The Incredible Universe, " in National Geographic, 145 (1974), p. 609.

Although this may sound convincing to some, it does not square with scientific facts.

STELLAR EVOLUTION—The theory goes something like this:

In violation of the laws of physics, gas pushed itself together and formed a "young star. " Fueled by hydrogen explosions, gradually the star burned out and became a red giant. in doing so, it had expanded hundreds of times in size and become somewhat cooler.

Next it either exploded as a supernova, or it slowly collapsed into a small, hot white dwarf star. The entire cycle is said to require millions of years.

The public is told that all the facts of science indicate that the incredibly precisioned and complex structures of orbiting moons; planets, stars, and galaxies,—all came from gas and dust which pushed itself together.

"Throughout the Milky Way, and in space between the galaxies, are huge clouds of gases and dust. New stars are formed when portions of the gases and dust join together and begin to contract under the force of gravity. "— "*Sun," World Book Encyclopedia (1972 ed.), Vol. 18, p. 784a.

1 - SIXTEEN FATAL FLAWS

SIXTEEN FLAWS IN THE THEORY—"Stellar evolution" is a totally unworkable theory for a number of reasons. Here are several of them:

(1) Where did the theorized gasses come from? The Big Bang does not provide an adequate explanation for their origin.

(2) How could they, by chance, develop into all their present carefully-designed rotational and revolutionary patterns?

(3) The birth of a star has never been observed. It is not happening today. Yet, according to stellar evolution, it should be happening all the time.

(4) Considering that there are billions times billions of stars in space, and billions times billions of explosions are required to make them all,—we should see exploding stars ("supernovas," they are called) forming all the time. The theory of stellar evolution requires it. But only rarely does a super-nova occur, and its explosion only releases about 10 percent of its matter.

There are few events in outer space as obvious as the explosion of a star. They become very bright for a time, and should be quite easy to see, especially now that we have telescopes which can scan distant places in the universe. Yet they are hardly ever seen. Few astronomers have ever seen such an event..

In relation to the frequency of stellar explosions that had to occur in order to satisfy the requirements of the Big Bang theory, and with 100 billion stars just in our own galaxy, at least 500,000 stars should explode yearly in our own galactic system. And this would be a low estimate. Yet we observe only one a century.

(5) There is no physical mechanism in the near-vacuum of outer space to compress gas into a ball. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a small enough size so that gravity can dominate it. For example, our own sun is a stable sphere of gas. But what force could initially press it into a ball? Scientists have no answer. Experiments indicate that it would be next to impossible for floating gas molecules out in space to clump together. There is nothing to compress it. How could the stars evolve from floating gasses? Gravity is not a sufficient mechanism to do this. In outer space, the gas is millions of times more expansive than the critical compressed size needed for gravity to hold it as a stable star. Because of this, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to keep spreading outward! They do not pull together, but instead gradually move outward. In spite of all the starry theories of the evolutionists, the fact remains that gas in outer space always has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! How could such rarified hydrogen "push itself" into planets and stars?.

"Few cosmologists [theorists about the origin of matter and the universe] today would dispute the view that our expanding universe began with a bang—a big hot bang—about 18 billion years ago. Paradoxically, no cosmologist could now tell you how the Big Bang ultimately gave rise to galaxies, stars, and other cosmic lumps.

"As one sky scientist, IBM's Philip E. Seiden, put it, 'The Standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind . .

"How then did the lumps [the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and asteroids] get there? No one can say, at least not yet and perhaps not ever." —*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" in Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

(6) It is said that an explosion of a super-nova would compress nearby gasses into stars. But all a super-nova would do is to blow everything outward from a common center! It would not compress the gasses into a condensed mass. A super-nova explosion would push, not squeeze.

(7) The great distance between stars is another problem. Most are at a distance of at least 10 light-years from each other. How could the explosion of one distant star compress another, or influence one another's origin in any way?

(8) There is not enough time in the evolutionary time table for stars to form.

"There has not been enough time since the beginning [when the Big Bang supposedly took place] for such an agglomeration [of stars] to gather together out of an originally homogeneous universe [of evenly-spread, thin gas]."—*Science News, 1979.

(9) Both physical laws and observation of stars indicate that there is a universal trend toward star degeneration, not star formation. And that would be in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

(10) There are various types of stars, and each one differs from all others in various ways. Throughout space we see variety in the stars and galaxies. If they had all formed in the same way, they should all be alike. But instead, we find many types of stars. In addition, each star has its own spectral fingerprint.

(11) There is also an extremely delicate and detailed order in the stars and galaxies. How could all the complicated order of the moons, planets, stars, and galaxies come from a confusion of explosions? One of the most astounding facts in all the universe is the complicated orbits within orbits that we find in solar systems and galaxies.

Everything should collide or fly apart, and yet all this myriad of spheres are maintained in their perfect balancings and ideal distances from one another.

It does seem that there is more to the fantastic order of the universe than merely an explosion! Even the gravity that holds the universe together cannot be explained. Even gravity itself cannot properly explain these delicate balancings. No one still has any idea what gravity is! Three centuries ago, Isaac Newton identified it, but no one still knows what it is. Although powerful in its effect on large bodies, gravity is actually the weakest force in the universe. No scientist can explain it. A similar type of puzzle is the nuclear (sub-atomic) orbits within the atoms. The tiny electrons whirl around the nucleus in the center of each atom. But what keeps them in orbit? Why do they not fall into the center? Why do they not fly outward? Why do they whirl around at all? The same question applies to moons, planets, stars, and galactic systems.

(Interestingly enough, in the case of the subatomic particles, they are so small that gravity is not the force that holds them together in their orbits. Instead, something far stronger keeps them together. It is called the "nuclear force," but no one can explain this second of the four natural forces either. Why do the outer particles orbit furiously around the central nucleus, thus balancing nuclear force by centrifugal force? No one can explain that either.)

(13) Stellar evolution is keyed to the theory that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). It is thought that hydrogen is converted to helium, releasing some of the energy in the nucleus. The amount of mass/energy that it would have to lose daily amounts to four million tons a second.

But the problem here is that, along with heat and light, the fusion process should produce a multitude of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos. . . . . If the stars are fueled by hydrogen explosions, each square inch of earth's surface would be hit by a trillion neutrinos each second, day and night! Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and regularly measure neutrinos coming in from space. But relatively few arrive. This fact alone disproves the hydrogen theory of solar energy. (See Paul Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun", June 1980, pp. 60-64.)

It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear fission theory of starlight was developed by * Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains only a theory, for contrary evidence indicates solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

(14) The "missing neutrinos" problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy." (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) *Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:

"At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors."—*John N. Bahcall, "Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics," Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).

It is hoped that some type of "barrier" will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos—which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory "has to be correct"—will yet be discovered. But *Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

"The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. "—*Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.

Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation—for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

(15) What then causes the stars to shine? The main alternative explanation to fusion is called "solar collapse. . . . . " The scientific basis for this was worked out a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz (18211894) and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be released all the time. But there is a reason why scientists dare not accept solar collapse as the cause of sun and star shine: It would mean the universe is much younger than theorized. It would also mean that the earth is much younger! The long-age framework of modern evolutionary theory requires hydrogen explosions as the fuel, instead of solar collapse. Nuclear fusion will give billions of years for a star's life, solar collapse only a few million years.

A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun's actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet per hour (.27 cm). It is not easy to take the necessary measurements that would confirm or deny this shrinkage, but some scientists believe that they have already succeeded in producing evidence that an actual shrinkage of our sun is steadily occurring.

One major study was done by *John A. Eddy (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado) and *Aram A. Boornazian (a Boston mathematician):

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John Gribbiri, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," in New Scientist,, March 3, 1983,

Evidence has shown that: ". . the sun has been contracting about 0.1 % per century. . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*Gloria B. Lubkin, in Physics Today, vol. 32, no. 17, 1979.

Analyzing measurements of solar transits made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846 (for the original purpose of determining exactly when is high noon), they calculated that the sun is apparently shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1 percent per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed observations of solar eclipses for the past four centuries.

*Ronald Gilliland did a separate study into this, which confirmed Eddy and Boornazian's report:

"[Gilliland's] first conclusion, from a battery of statistical tests, was that the over-all decline in solar diameter of about 0.1 seconds of arc per century since the early 1700s is real. "—*Op. cit., p. 594,

This would indicate that our sun's output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage, and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. In addition, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, then we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos, but careful measurements reveal that they are arriving much more sparsely.

Without hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion) as the cause of solar energy and light, the entire theory of the Big Bang is undercut.

A separate evidence comes from the largest planet in our solar system. It is of interest that the giant planet Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the sun! A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for the large planet Saturn.

"Jupiter. . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—"Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.

"Saturn emits 50 percent more heat than it absorbs from the sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February, 1991.

Weighing the two possibilities, evolutionists have accepted nuclear fusion as the cause of sunshine. The reason given is simple enough: It is the only possibility which fits in with evolutionary theory.

"Gravitational contraction [solar collapse] can sustain the Sun at its present luminosity for only 15 million years; some other energy source must be sought if we are to account for billions of years of sunshine." —*Michael Zeilik and Elske V .P. Smith, Introductory Astronomy and Physics (1987), p. 274.

"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [of earth] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the Sun is at least as old as the Earth . . We must conclude that, although gravitational collapse may play an important role during short phases of stellar evolution, another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star. "—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Thus we see that the nuclear fusion theory of sunshine has a shaky foundation. In connection with this, it is of interest to note that spectrographic analysis of light from the sun, stars and galaxies does not match the spectrum from hydrogen explosions detonated by mankind. If the sun and stars were fueled by fusion, then their spectra should be the same as spectra of hydrogen bombs. But this is not the case; there are decided differences.

(16) Solar shock waves. An interesting effect that was not accepted by all solar scientists was discovered back in 1976 (see `,Nature 259:87-9, p. 87). These were 160-minute oscillations on the sun's surface. These oscillations tend to agree with solar collapse and negate the fusion theory of solar energy.

"As further evidence against fusion, and for contraction, Steidl mentions what is now famous in solar physics as the 160 minute oscillation. This was detected via Doppler shifts of the solar surface which were interpreted as radial pulsations.

"The long period implies conditions in the sun's interior which do not fit into modern solar theory. (Deep shock waves would efficiently transmit energy, setting up a lower temperature gradient.) The discoverers say bluntly: 'The interpretation of this phenomena seems to cause much theoretical difficulty.' "—Donald B DeYoung and David E. Rush, "Is the Sun an Age Indicator?", September 1989, p. 51.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:24 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
A mish-mash cut-and-paste of things of which you don't have any real understanding.
[Image: giphy.gif]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Holy AIG copy pasta batman! Hobo

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: