What if Hubble’s original premise was flawed? What if redshift is really a red herring? Where then shall we turn for an explanation of what we observe?
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
Well, they see me as an outsider,
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
![Image](http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/0-0-0-0-cosmic+microwave+background+radiation.jpg)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
of a sphere..?.
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
What if Hubble’s original premise was flawed? What if redshift is really a red herring? Where then shall we turn for an explanation of what we observe?
And to what good end do such beliefs bring you.?But I am probably completely insane. I don't have a problem thinking a universe could exist within an atom, and that our universe is nothing more than an atom of another universe.
Frantic:Scientific knowledge and the rules that govern it are inextricably bound to empirical evidence. It is always and forever subject to falsification as the knowledge base expands almost exponentially with new discoveries. It is therefore hard-wired into the method that no theory can be held with complete certainty, and by implication, that it does not allow sacred cows in any shape, size, or form. The method employed by scientists does indeed have built-in self-correcting mechanisms, and by design acknowledges any anomalies that might arise. Sadly, scientists themselves are not nearly so magnanimous or scrupulously honest.
Don't seem to..Some know. It will take a little more time for EU to be proven to those with their heads in the sand.Current moving through plasma is not included in any current mainstream theories as a source of radiation?
Is it uniform?...I would not expect currents to be constant.Given the uniformity of the radiation, would that imply currents flowing through interstellar hydrogen fillaments are constant?
The scientists have told us for a long time the CBMR is uniform, when they found irregularities they were explained by quantum fluctuations in the inflation field. Right, you believe its all uniform don't you Sparky, are you saying they are wrong? shockIs it uniform?...I would not expect currents to be constant.
that's correct.......for several reasons...The observation is that redshift does not correlate to speed toward or away from the observer
yes, .... http://www.plasmaredshift.org//Article_Archive.html remember that there is a great deal of energy in some objects.The theory is intrinsic redshift as a property of matter. Is there observational evidence to suggest this?
yes, the standard model is in error.CBMR is uniform, when they found irregularities they were explained by quantum fluctuations in the inflation field. Right, you believe its all uniform don't you Sparky, are you saying they are wrong?
either that or the Big Bang is still Banging!birth, not doom and gloom.
Correct.Frantic wrote:I have the same question. As I understand it(and I don't) we are on the surface, and we see everything expanding away.
So, my completely amateur thoughts on the big bang theory and a lot of questions :
It seems in all directions there is light and stars around us, or is that incorrect?
Yes, that's the theory. We are allegedly on a "2D plane" only. But wait.... there are 3 spatial dimensions observed and experienced.Frantic wrote:Yet according to big bang theory we are on the surface of an inflating bubble so large it actually appears a flat plane to us.
Well if we were truly in 2D then we couldn't see anything at all. We couldn't perceive depth of any kind as our view would be immediately blocked by the first thing "in front of" our faces (which would be completely flat, too, so we would not have any eyes or bodies). Part and parcel to depth perception is being able to see around, through, and above/below objects. None of that would exist in 2D perception. Mind you this is a theoretical non-state. Human beings cannot exist in 2D.Frantic wrote: Would we not see all the stars and light around us arranged on a plane?
That's right. Even if we accept that the alleged expanding "bubble" is 3D, and we are on it's surface, we couldn't see through the bubble to the other side anyway, not at any point. The theory prohibits anything being "inside" this so-called expanding bubble. Therefore were this true we couldn't know the extent of the universe anyway, not ever. We would only be able to see the "local" area of "flatness."Frantic wrote:Our area of observation is so small and flat on the sphere we could not see down to another side or through in anyway.
You are correct in your thinking. The big bang is nonsense. The likelihood of it being true is slim to zero.Frantic wrote:The observable universe does not appear one plane of matter. The theory logically seems invalid unless some of my above assumptions are incorrect.
You're "pointing" out another issue: the whole conundrum of the "singularity." Phyiscs however vehemently rejects having anything to do with it. Cosmology falls silent, deaf, and dumb and just states "physics is not responsible for explaining that. We are explaining down to the first nano-moment of the big bang, not before it." And this way they are off the hook. You then counter them by stating "but the only conclusion to draw from the big bang theory is that it rewinds back to a singularity--what other conclusion can possibly be drawn?" And then they say "no, not necessarily. It need not imply it reduces back to a singularity." And they never explain it.Frantic wrote:Additionally the usually ignored curvature of space would be more important in understanding the physics of the alleged big bang as it deals with times when the universe was as small as a point particle. The changes in curvature of space alone could violate all their expectations of light and redshift. How can they account for space curvature, gravitational lensing, dust and plasma interactions, etc. with so little empirical data?
Yes. And you are pointing out yet another conundrum within the big bang theory. Theorists are vague when explaining it but the big bang theory presupposes that the alleged moment of expansion renders a shell of expansion only with nothing in the center (from a super tiny "point" that is never explained). That is, the "surface" of the cosmos remains only that--a "2D surface" that expands like a balloon or spherical shape. But wait.... that requires there be a 3D object--a sphere. But wait.... they insist that it is a "2D surface" only that is expanding. How can this be? Clearly, when observing reality, we live in 3D everywhere. Therefore, were the expansion taking place in a "2D" reality then there would never have been a 3D x, y, z spatial dimension from the very beginning. And the moment of expansion, the "explosion" would only have been 2-dimensional. A spherical "surface" couldn't exist without a 3-dimensional space for it to exist in. So the idea of the cosmos expanding as a "flat plane" is entirely erroneous and false. It is so false that is it "not even wrong." It is beyond wrong.Frantic wrote:If the universe is a sphere, then the explosion powered the inflation from within a pre-existing space, as an explosion cannot create a sphere of space(at least in observation). The space would have had to exist before the explosion, if space exists why is the matter in a point particle? The explosion would have been 3D in nature while the proposed universe seems to be a 2D shell.
Ok but the Universe is not expanding into anything. It just "is"--suspiciously metaphysically sounding (which is ok by me but mainstream science denies it). For some reason "modern science" must avoid spirituality, consciousness as Source, and God at all costs which I find silly.CosmicLettuce wrote:The only way to exist in a 3D expanding universe is to have a 4th spacial dimension within which the 3D universe expands into. I can't account for an expanding universe therefore I can't accept the notion of 4D space, either. And yes, general relativity requires four spacial dimensions which is called "space-time". A very horrible term, indeed.
In a static universe, 3D is all that's apparently needed. In a static universe, time has no meaning and at best is much more a measurement of "duration" rather than a vector like the spacial dimensions. So "time" is to "seconds" as "length" is to "meter".
Anyhow, in a universe where time has no meaning (it doesn't actually exist) then things like "infinite velocity" is indeed possible which is what the EU theory also says. Groovy! There's something to this when you consider one can "instantly" visit a particular time and place in your memory. That does indeed appear to be a form of travel. But this is a lot of "woo woo" so I'll quit while I'm ahead.![]()
Peace, CL
p.s. singularities are math tricks, along with the concept of "zero" and "infinity" and many many others. BTW, did you know that according to our beautiful mathematics, the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. How is this possible? Calculus -- the mathematics of infinity. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww. The really interesting thing is that this sum is fundamental to string theory!
Infinite velocity does not exist....sorrry...Anyhow, in a universe where time has no meaning (it doesn't actually exist) then things like "infinite velocity" is indeed possible which is what the EU theory also says
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests