Harry, that is an amazing link you provided.

It says a lot about the shortcomings of BB theory I haven't been able to come up with myself.

Their cultural observation is appropriate: "Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding."

Thank you.

Mick

Thank you TeleTaurus7.

While well thought up, big collapse theory is probably as incorrect as BB theory seems to be.

That we need a new cosmology is becoming more evident all the time.

If any part of my theory is correct, I consider it just good luck from my research on the Net and the ability to put some of it together. Probably most of the pieces are available to us, we just need a new perspective on cosmology.

Mick

Thank you Kevin.

Some of the members have provided excellent information for me to consider, and I'm researching their guidance now. Also, I've tried to reiterate that I am in no way trying to prove myself right... just looking for alternatives to the short-comings of BB theory. I honestly could care less about 'being right', I just want for all of us to find the right theory of cosmology, together.

I would suggest that it wasn't some of the member's faults for attacking me... they are probably just following the lead of the current culture of intolerance for questioning BB theory that exists in research circles today.

Two things in particular have helped me to think in new ways: the link http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm from Harry Costas and also Kip Thorne's concept of Mass to space-time potential energy from Primordial.

Some good has come of it... some open minded intellectual discussion. I think more good will come of it too...

Best wishes,
Mick

 

M.C.Malkemus : You might find Mr. Stephen Hawking's new concept of absolute event horizon interesting. It is something I called the virtual event horizon at one time.

M.C.Malkemus : There was another idea I woudered about that may have some bearing on this subject it was an existance of a barycentre event horizon of the visible universe and with it being dynamic just how it could affect the location of this point in our universe as it moved through. Just think about it.

M.C.Malkemus:

Thank you TeleTaurus7.

While well thought up, big collapse theory is probably as incorrect as BB theory seems to be.

That we need a new cosmology is becoming more evident all the time.

If any part of my theory is correct, I consider it just good luck from my research on the Net and the ability to put some of it together. Probably most of the pieces are available to us, we just need a new perspective on cosmology.

Mick

Thanks for what? I don't have a dog in this race LOL

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

The observable universe does not show expansion or acceleration one way or another.

It does show a clustering affect.

The clustering produces areas of high density such as large galaxies and centres of clusters of galaxies that produce  extremely large jets and Star that produce extremely small jets. This process of ejecting matter and reforming star and galaxies is a main player in the universe.

A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2003/highlight0308_e.html

The blowtorch jet in the radio galaxy NGC 6251
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/ngc6251.html

One important lesson from radio galaxies is that the central engine continues to eject material in nearly the same direction for at least several million years, based on the fact that the tiny parsec-scale jets in the core regions point in the same direction as the very extended radio structure which may stretch several million light-years (and thus took at least that many years to form).

Photo Release - heic0804: Gargantuan galaxy NGC 1132 - a cosmic fossil?
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0804.html

The Origin of the Brightest Cluster Galaxies
http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~dubinski/bcg/

Giant Galaxy's Violent Past Comes Into Focus
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/04_releases/press_051004.html

and

Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_releases/press_060600pic.html

M87:
Chandra Reviews Black Hole Musical: Epic But Off-Key
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/

The processes show a two part, one part contracting pulling in star matter into dense regions and the other part ejecting the matter back into space reforming not just star areas but galaxies afar.

M.C.Malkemus:

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

Not true.  While Einstein did work at the Swiss patent office for a time after receiving his college degree, by the time he did his work on relativity he was a full professor with many published papers to his credit.

 It does appear to be this way...

According to my research, you are not quite correct.

"In 1905, Einstein published the special theory of relativity. By 1909 Einstein was recognised as a leading scientific thinker and in that year he resigned from the patent office. He was appointed a full professor at the Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague in 1911."

He was not a professor when he published in 1905, he did work in the patent office during this time.  Of course, he did publish many papers after becoming a professor. 

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Einstein.html

 Yes, I can understand not having "a dog in the race".

Many people think of scientific pursuit as a race. I always thought of it as a collaboration.

 

Yes, I've noticed, but I've also noticed many respected scientists using real data that don't subscribe to BBT. Here are some fine examples:

http://www.haltonarp.com/bio

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html#

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p7.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

Just because they don't have time to post in forums, doesn't mean they aren't doing the hard work of helping to debunk an apparently outdated theory like BBT.

 

Would you classify this? I hope not as "beer and potato chips are good for you".

"Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance. Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the Big Bang theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined!

"http://www.haltonarp.com/bioI mostly agree with you BTW, my website mostly is a "beer and potato chips is good for you" site, at this time (I am continuing to research, update, and improve it, mainly through collaboration of others). However, so is any site that claims that BBT is the only theory. Much data does not fit the standard model, the latest scientific findings point towards something other than a 'big bang'.

As an engineer I have to consider the improbable. Even if all the information I am given is "pure" there is a probability that a bit of it was (corrupt) not uninterrupted right. These are things the scientific community has to consider. The science is not all in. The science will not ever be in. We consider our selves's to be educated. This is a miss-nomer. If you think the internet is education..and a place to grow a hypothesis.or even a theory on the beginning of everything then I beg to differ.

The universe is expanding and we can not stop it. I do not care about the math. It is a fact that we can not stop it...what will we do? Figure that out and I will vote for your Nobel Prize.

JJ

 

I agree with some of your points. Not those listed below. The Nobel Prize? I think that anyone aiming to win that has something fundamentally wrong with his or her ego. Egas Moniz won it for the frontal lobotomy, and that turned out to be a disaster. Rosalind Franklin helped in the discovery of the structure of DNA,
although Franklin and Crick absconded with work in order to arrive at their conclusions.

The Internet is not only a viable part of modern education, but also the main way many people keep current in their field after earning a degree. In addition, most modern universities offer online degrees now exclusively via distance education.

In my opinion, bringing together bona fide research done in academia is a perfectly valid way to conceive of a putative hypothesis, otherwise, the knowledge gleaned from all that hard work would be nothing more than useless.

You make a blanket statement that the universe is expanding, and that was unquestionable even five years ago for the most part. Today however, much data is showing contraindications of this conclusion:

    * In 2003, a survey of clusters of galaxies made using data acquired by the ROSAT x-ray satellite showed what seems to be a huge concentration of matter some 12 billion light years across. A concentration of this size could not possibly have formed during the time since the supposed Big Bang (10-20 billion years).
    * Discoveries announced at the January, 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting showed that the Universe looks very similar billions of years ago (i.e. at high redshifts), to its appearance today, in contraction to the Big Bang idea that the Universe looked quite different in the past. For example, galaxies from 10-billion-years-ago appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar spectrum of chemical elements produced by stars as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang had really happened, these galaxies should appear much younger, with fewer heavy metals and mostly young stars. Instead they look much the same as today.
    * The ARP Controversy over Galaxy NGC 7603, already reported on this website

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

MCM you are on track, it is like swimming up stream against the main stream.

I have read the links you posted and I fully agree with them.

I don't know if you have read through this link but its very informitive.

 http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

and

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

 Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/08/colossal-void-may-spell-trouble-for.html

 Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm

Quote

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

 Re: re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

http://www.mailarchive.ca/lists/alt.astronomy/2003-11/0867.html

 

"EXPANDING UNIVERSE"-THE GREATEST
MATHEMATICAL DECEPTION IN 20-TH CENTURY PHYSICS

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/BIGBANG.HTML

 

Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

 http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000822000001000060000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

 

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I could go on and list a few hundred more.

The point is I could list 1000 papers and if they are not supported by science they mean nothing.

So! look at the science, don't be married to the MOB.

Thanks for the links Harry.

Some I've seen, many I haven't. I'll look into them.

Exciting times we live in. The evidence against BBT is piling up, and the pundits just can't let it go... yet. I think we'll see a major paradigm shift within five years. I can't blame the majority that still hold to BBT... If I had researched something for 20 or more years, I'd be reluctant to give it up too.

Mick

M.C.Malkemus:

According to my research, you are not quite correct.

"In 1905, Einstein published the special theory of relativity. By 1909 Einstein was recognised as a leading scientific thinker and in that year he resigned from the patent office. He was appointed a full professor at the Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague in 1911."

He was not a professor when he published in 1905, he did work in the patent office during this time.  Of course, he did publish many papers after becoming a professor. 

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Einstein.html

I'll split the difference with you, I was referring to General relativity which he published in 1916.  Regardless he was not a patent clerk doing physics, but a trained mathematician and physicist working in a patent office while he looked for work as a teacher.  But, either way, my point is that his concepts were the results of his math.  He didn't simply accumulate other's ideas and package them into a theory, which is what the internet has made so easy.

 Deal.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Is that "Deal or no deal" 

I was just going to post more evidence against the BBT.

I will hold off for now.