February 11, 2009

Very well thought up. Good job. Makes sense

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

All galaxies are gravity bound and so cluster to a gravity sink.

People talk about galaxies moving away from each other. This occurs only when they are pulled away by gravity sinks.

Galaxies cluster, we observe this without question.

Notice the Milky Way and its dwarf galaxies around it clustering together, not moving away.

This MW group forms part of a local group of galaxies that cluster together.

This local group forms part of a huges clsuter of local clusters of galaxies.

This huge cluster forms part of a super cluster of huge clusters of clusters of galaxies.

Do you get the picture? 

 

 

 

 

Has anyone ever noticed that most of the people who offer alternatives to the BBT, and who populate websites about varrious explainations for the evidence are never the scientists who are actually doing the work?  Probably because the vast majority of the scientists are too busy gathering real data and applying real science instead of picking fantasies out of the air.

zachsdad:

Has anyone ever noticed that most of the people who offer alternatives to the BBT, and who populate websites about varrious explainations for the evidence are never the scientists who are actually doing the work?  Probably because the vast majority of the scientists are too busy gathering real data and applying real science instead of picking fantasies out of the air.

ooo harsh. but right

Yes. And the theory of relativity was created by a patent office clerk that had no connections with the mainstream scientists of the day.

 Most likely, if Einstein had been studying with the mainstream, instead of looking at the big picture, we might never have heard of him.

I digress. The point of my website isn't to claim 'the answer'. It's simply to point out that other explanations exist for the creation of the universe. 

If you rail alternative ideas without examining them in depth, you are not much better than Christians that can't take the time to examine evolution, don't you think?

Instead of attacking me in this post, why not submit a critque of why my theory is wrong?

I would like someone to disprove it. Really. Then I'd be able to go on to other things.

http://www.thebigcollapse.net/submit-criticism.php

Einstein certainly was a gifted man. His clarity of vision definitely helped to put us forward in our understanding of the universe. In fact in some of his calculations, he came to understand that under the influence of gravity, the universe would eventually collapse on it’s own. The universe cannot be static if gravity is around. To offset this obviously unstable condition, he put in a cosmological constant. A repellent force that would offset this collapse. Later, Hubble through his telescope saw that the universe is expanding. This brought Einstein to say that his cosmological constant idea was the biggest blunder of his life. You didn’t need a c.c. if the universe is expanding. But now even his cosmological constant idea may be shown to be right. Yet despite this man’s incredible insights, there are still people today who don’t want to except what these people have discovered almost a century ago. Isn’t that incredible? People still want to ignore the genius of Einstein, and the true discoveries of Hubble, just to promote some completely unprovable conjectures, like “A Big Collapse Process Theory”. I don’t understand. Why would someone want to ignore some of the most intelligent people of our time, and put forth a theory that tries to debunk some of the greatest discoveries of our time, which were accepted by scientists like Einstein? Why would you pretend to honor the insight of this man in one sentence, and yet pretend that there is not enough proof to except what he understood to be true, almost 80 years ago? If you can’t except the proofs given for the current understandings of cosmology based on Einstein’s work as well as other real scientists, then you will just have to remain in the dark, and trudge along in the muck that you wish to believe in. Here’s an idea. The website that doesn’t claim to be “the answer”, can’t make this claim, because it isn’t!!! Is that a new thought?

Einstein's cosmological constant works fine with my theory. I don't consider it to be his "greatest blunder". Actually, no one thought that the universe would collapse when looking at Einstein's calculations, until Hubble discovered red shift. Then people began to think that it would eventually collapse into a singularity. It was Oppenheimer and Snyder that first came up with the idea of black holes, Einstein did not even believe in them, even though his calculations could predict them.

Interestingly, E=mc^2 says that if all the matter was condensed into a singularity, there would be no force known that could make it expand into the known universe. Do the calculations if you don't believe it. 

While Hubble certainly discovered a phenomenon that makes the universe appear to be expanding, it is not proven, it is simply a very large assumption accepted by most. There are other explanations as to why the universe appears to be expanding. Mine may not be correct, I'm not that it is. I'm simply saying that making assumptions in science is what leads to incorrect science that eventually leads to a paradigm shift when the time is right. For decades, we believed that the sun was circling the earth. Then we believed that planets orbited in perfect circles. Illusions in science can persist for generations.

While the universe certainly appears to be expanding, red shift does not prove that the universe is expanding.

We have many mundane examples in life of optical illusions that everyone accepts as real. Or do you really think you are seeing a computer screen before you instead of electro-chemical reactions in your brain that represent the computer screen?

Thank you for your response.

The cosmological constant that Einstein put into his calculations, was to cancel out the effects of gravitation on a static universe. We are not talking about Black Holes. Gravity attracts, and under that influence alone the universe would start to collapse. This was before Hubble. Hubble's observation showed that there was no need for a c.c. which is why Einstein retracted his repulsive force to counteract the force of gravity. E=MC2 is an energy to mass conversion formulae. It doesn’t describe singularities or gravity in any sense. It wasn’t science to believe that the sun circles the earth. It was science that proved (by observation) that it was the other way around. It is observation that drives science, and observation indicates that the universe is expanding too.

Gentlemen!

If you look you will see that poster M.C.Malkemus has only posted here about 3 times. I do believe he is trying to stir controversy and establish an un-winnable debate. A reminder to not feed trolls. Your responses and inability to prove or disprove their improbable conjectures are what they thrive on. If you feel you must, then carry on.

JJ   

 At least one negative blogger has the courage to say what he has to say using his real name. That's refreshing for a blog.

I came here hoping to get some intelligent feedback on my ideas, some critique on my theory. Not criticism filled with sarcasm. Many of you believe so strongly in BBT, that you react like I'm attacking your religion. 

 

 Best regards.

M.C.Malkemus 

G'day from the land of ozzzz

JJ said

 

Gentlemen!

If you look you will see that poster M.C.Malkemus has only posted here about 3 times. I do believe he is trying to stir controversy and establish an un-winnable debate. A reminder to not feed trolls. Your responses and inability to prove or disprove their improbable conjectures are what they thrive on. If you feel you must, then carry on.

JJ 

What a silly statement. It is people like you that make Forums dead.

Its through discussions that people learn and sometimes correct their thinking. 

 

 

 

 

OK guys, we're not here to attack other members. Discuss, agree, and disagree on the topics if you must, but a continuation of this thread in the direction it is going will be cause for me or another moderator to lock it. Get yourselves back on track if you're going to discuss the topic in question. Thanks. 

M.C.Malkemus : I appreciate your post  it is interesting, and has relativistic possibilities. I say this with the Knowledge of Mr. Kip Thornes concept of Mass to space-time potential energy.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

What are the problems with the BBT?

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm

 Growth of the debate about cosmological models.

Work on alternative theories

Evidence and theories about intrinsic redshifts in quasars

The Bottom line is, what the heck is going on out there and why the world scientists cannot get their heads around a scientific model without using ad hoc ideas. I could understand one hundred years ago using ad hoc ideas, but not today with all the scientific tools at hand.

 

I appreciate johnJohnson’s remark and I will try to remember it. “Do not feed the trolls.” For many of the posts, that’s easy because they are so over the top, that there really is no meaningful comment that can be made to them, and maybe this post was one of those. I am not trying to cause a situation. I do enjoy learning and teaching though.

For just a brief moment let us consider that this was a website that dealt with health and nutrition. And you hoped that people would come to this site to learn about how to be healthy. In fact you enjoy helping people learn about health and nutrition, but then you get people who come to the site, and post stuff such as:

“A diet of beer and potato chips along with spoonfuls of sugar is good for you.”

You would hope that people going to this forum to learn, would not run into such bad information. In fact you may even try to show that the information posted is incorrect or misleading.

This is not an attack on a person or people so much as it is an attempt to explain to others what is correct. And to explain things correctly means that sometimes you have to make clear that what some people are expressing is wrong.

The moderator's point here, DM, is that you should be swatting at the idea and not at the person promoting the idea (which you just did again, in a left-handed sort of way).

As moderators, we try very hard to keep order with a light hand. We may not agree with a member's ideas, but even when that is true we are here to ensure that the member gets fair treatment.

You are not the only member who replied in that fashion, so let's all take this message to heart:

     It's okay to attack an idea ...

     ... it's not okay to attack a member.

Point taken, I agree.

 Thank you Primordial.

 

I will look up  Kip Thorne's concept of Mass to space-time potential energy and study it.

It seems that some of the members here have taken the stance that I am insisting my view is correct. Far from it. I'm simply saying that big bang theory has many problems, and the time has come to investigate alternative cosmologies. Five years ago, I used to believe everything about big bang theory. Now, too many factors are leading aways from it as a viable explanation. We need to approach cosmology from fresh perspectives more in line with the observational findings.

 Thank you chipdatajeffB
.

I would hope that people would attack my ideas. I want the truth of cosmology, and if anyone can provide a better explanation than BB theory, which is looking more antiquated by the year, I am fully open to it.

When they attack me, I find that immature and a bore.