Jump to content

Is the big bang fact or fiction


leon Bowler
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2978 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

The big bang was put together after some noticed a red shift in distant stars, to say it was caused by things moving away from us at ridiculous speeds is a bit of a fantasy.

Here is another explanation of red shift.

Red shift =  the changing wave length of light as it passes though space fill with cold plasma(dark matter) that is changing in pressure due to a standing pressure wave that resonates within the universe proving that light is a wave and not a particle and that the big bang is wrong.

That space is in fact filled with cold plasma, it is under pressure and that matter is the condensation of that cold plasma, also that this cold plasma is a conductor thus making an electro mechanical universe that drives the motion of the planets and stars.

Also that things like electrons orbiting a nucleus is a fantasy, that all condensed balls of plasma vibrate and that peaks and troughs are formed on the surface, a peak is what people call an electron, as the ball is heated so those peaks get higher and the tip breaks of creating a free electron.

An element is just a ball that is vibrating at a harmonic relative to its radius, the peaks and troughs idea now allows bonds and on how the bonds are formed according to its radius, so makes the idea of electrons spinning around a nucleus wrong.

I think the above theory explains every thing that is observed and is the ultimate unification theory.

Do you agree with the above?

Can you disprove it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting, but I think before any1 can really comment or make an argument, we'd need a bit more information. I've always found the subject fasinating, but this is the first I've heard of what you arguing here. Where are you getting this info from? Can you give us some links?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my theory, I developed it 20 years ago, it has been talked about in other places, as yet no one has managed to disprove it, if you know how to work out the harmonics of a sphere, you will see that points appear in a pattern on its surface, and that prime numbers make the most stable with one group having its radius times 6(alkaline) and a equal group of primes having its radius times 6 plus 6(acid).

You can also see the bond points and how crystals are made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main reason the theory was not excepted as it gives no role to god, whereas the big bang does and if you look at the direction it is going they will soon declare that god started the big bang, I can only guess as senior academics would not even listen, or read any papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those proposing a change to the current knowledge base are obligated to prove that their hypothesis has merit, not require that others disprove it.  YOU are obligated to show work demonstrating that your hypothesis does a better job of explaining the observable facts than the big bang.

So, in 20 years have you ever demonstrated that your proposal has scientific merit, that it is more than idle musing?  Have you published or presented your hypothesis to an appropriate professional audience?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did publish it and asked others to read, at the time I was developing ultra sonic body scanners(that I have patents for) I was even offered a meeting with Steven Hawkins that I turned down as I don;t see how you can have any meaningful chat with him as it all has to be prerecorded as all his replies are(bet you didn't know that), so I felt I was being setup from the start, seems some don't want this idea out.

Link to post
Share on other sites


leon Bowler wrote:

I think the main reason the theory was not excepted as it gives no role to god, whereas the big bang does and if you look at the direction it is going they will soon declare that god started the big bang, I can only guess as senior academics would not even listen, or read any papers.

Huh?  You need to go get some more scientific background.  Science is the study of the natural world...God is part of the supernatural--there is no place for God in science.  You will never see scientific texts declaring God to be the source cause of the big bang. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


leon Bowler wrote:

I did publish it and asked others to read, at the time I was developing ultra sonic body scanners(that I have patents for) I was even offered a meeting with Steven Hawkins that I turned down as I don;t see how you can have any meaningful chat with him as it all has to be prerecorded as all his replies are(bet you didn't know that), so I felt I was being setup from the start, seems some don't want this idea out.

Okay, you published and no one paid any attention.  Time to move on or get more training in physics so you can try to work out why no one is paying you any attention.  Again, you need to provide the reason for folks to take you hypothesis seriously, to show how it provides a better explanation of the facts than the big bang.  It is not the job of others to disprove that which they do no believe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the big bang theory has been, in some ways, discounted as "the beginning", and merely an event. Even in some recent videos with Steven Hawkings the theory is talked about and used as simply a reference for an event, and that there was no real bang. Of course, I'm just some guy who has a mild interest in it all, and not any1 who could make any arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that strikes me is that you could substitute the term "aether" for "cold plasma" -- aether is the traditional term for "the stuff that empty space is filled with." It would be a better term, because plasma is an actual something that someone could go out and collect in a jar of some sort.

We experience red shift in ordinary life, for example, in the way a klaxon drops in pitch when a car passes us. If you're correct, wouldn't the klaxon always have the same frequency? And if you allow that drop in frequency, how do you explain why it doesn't apply to starlight?

Would we detect the cold-plasma shift if someone bounced a laser beam off a mirror on the moon? I'm not a scientist, but I think the beam would accumulate twice the amount of shift expected, since it would happen on the way up AND on the way back -- in other words, it would be twice what one would expect from ordinary red-shift.

Also, you say that light is a wave, not particles, but there are rather simple experiments that demonstrate that it behaves like both. How do you explain that?

Finally, just because it tickles me and I never get a chance to repeat it: Karl Pilkington had idea that the big bang only *seemed* big because everything else was so quiet at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, it is a theory at least!

Other then that, I can't prove or disprove. This is such a complex matter that people like me just believe or don't believe a certain theory, almost like it was religion. What I do know, that all theories are based upon the current knowledge man has. So things can look very plausible now, in 23 years some unknown particle is discovered which makes all the theories worthless. Remember, once we thought Earth was the center of the universe and even was flat.

So if it is up to me, all theories are plausible, as long as they fit my way of thinking and the way I see the world and life.

Link to post
Share on other sites


leon Bowler wrote:

Please look at the idea and don't get abusive, now do you think it could be so or not.

 

And if not say why, that is all, no need to get upset by it, it is a simple idea try to stick to that.

I don't think he was being abusive. He may have been blunt but not abusive.

He has a valid question. You say you published but where did you publish. Did you publish in a scientific journal or did you publish on your own website.

I personally think there is some merit to your hypothesis but I'm not ready to beleive it until you provide more evidence to support it. You will probably need help with that which is why most scientists work in groups.

I don't fully beleive in the Big Bang theory either. The Big Bang has more evidence than your hypothesis does but there are some big questions that the Big Bang theory fails to answer. If I have trouble accepting the Big Bang theory with all the evidence behind it, do you expect me to accept your hypothesis based on even less evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites


leon Bowler wrote:

I think the main reason the theory was not excepted as it gives no role to god, whereas the big bang does and if you look at the direction it is going they will soon declare that god started the big bang, I can only guess as senior academics would not even listen, or read any papers.

While there is an interrelation between cosmology and cosmogony, I don't believe that any cosmological study or theory is in and of itself going to answer any questions a cosmogonical (is that a word?) discussion may raise.

One branch deals more with the cause, the other more with the effect.

When I was in College I did a paper on 'The Theodicy Of The Gnostics As It Pertains To The Emanation of The Demiurge.'  There are still people today who hold to this and it is amazing how many current Theological tenets have their roots in this.

A fun discussion perhaps, but overall, I hate debating religion.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a scientist nor really into this type of theorizing. Theories of a highly scientific nature should be presented to an audience that is qualified to understand your theory, the reasons behind it, and have a deep knowledge of the different fields of science that applies to it.

I'm sure there are residents of Second Life that have this type of knowledge, but no harm in letting others see and respond to your theory.

One good place would be the Bad Astronomy Forums, which is now the Cosmoquest Forum http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php?s=90de1d7adf55fbfa60d0f1b637e448e5 . There are many experts there in many different fields of science and astronomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites


leon Bowler wrote:

The big bang was put together after some noticed a red shift in distant stars, to say it was caused by things moving away from us at ridiculous speeds is a bit of a fantasy.

If it's a fantasy, it's backed up by a heck of a lot of experimental observation, including experiments done on Earth, where red-shift has been observed in particle accelerators.

Here is another explanation of red shift.

Red shift =  the changing wave length of light as it passes though space fill with cold plasma(dark matter) that is changing in pressure due to a standing pressure wave that resonates within the universe proving that light is a wave and not a particle and that the big bang is wrong.

You will not be the first person to reject the wave/particle duality of Quantum Mechanics because it doesn't comport with your macro view of physics. If the wavelength of light changed after passing through matter, we'd observe it in lenses. We don't. I believe that's enough proof that it doesn't happen.

Geoffrey Taylor (in 1909 using photons) and Claus Jonsson ( in 1961 using electrons) performed double slit experiments providing direct evidence that electrons and photons are simultaneously particles and waves. The experimental evidence disproves your theory that light is not a particle.

That space is in fact filled with cold plasma, it is under pressure and that matter is the condensation of that cold plasma, also that this cold plasma is a conductor thus making an electro mechanical universe that drives the motion of the planets and stars.

Also that things like electrons orbiting a nucleus is a fantasy, that all condensed balls of plasma vibrate and that peaks and troughs are formed on the surface, a peak is what people call an electron, as the ball is heated so those peaks get higher and the tip breaks of creating a free electron.

The idea of "orbit" has been recognized as a "fantasy" for 100 years. The electron is real, but it does not orbit" the nucleus. Its existence is better described as a probability density around the nucleus.

An element is just a ball that is vibrating at a harmonic relative to its radius, the peaks and troughs idea now allows bonds and on how the bonds are formed according to its radius, so makes the idea of electrons spinning around a nucleus wrong.

Bond formation is much more a function of the configuration of an atom's electrons than the "radius" of the atom (in fact, the definition of atomic radius depends on the bond configuration of interest).  Look at these
 (click the "Previous Table" and "Next Table" links to the right of the table to see the various radii under different circumstances) and give me a theory of how bonds are formed according to radius. The definition of atomic radius depends on what property of the atom you are interested in, whether it be co-valent bonding, crystal/molecule packing density, etc. Your description of "element" is quaint... and just plain wrong.

I think the above theory explains every thing that is observed and is the ultimate unification theory.

Your theory not only does not explain everying I have observed, it contradicts things I have observed.

Do you agree with the above?

No.

Can you disprove it?

All of the evidence I have presented, and which (to me) disproves your theory has been available indirectly via books for more than a century and some of it has been available for direct observation to me personally since I was a child.

I directly observe the doppler red-shift of light emitted from hydrogen atoms in solar prominences every time I take out my solar telescope.  That telescope contains an interferometer (a very precise optical filter) that can be tuned around the most visible hydrogen emission line ("Hydrogen Alpha"). There is detectable doppler shift in prominences that face the earth, as hydrogen atoms are accelerated by magnetic loops reaching out through the Sun's chromosphere. I am able to selectively tune my way from that portion of the prominence that is moving towards me (and is blue shifted), through the top of the arc, and back to the end of the prominence that is returning to the surface of  the Sun (and is red shifted).

It's a lovely thing to witness, particularly when contemplating all the physics at work in my telescope and the history of intellectual advancement that made it possible.

Much larger and more sophisticated telescopes are capable of seeing the minute doppler shifts produced by the "wobble" of distant stars that are either one of a binary pair, or have planets. If your theorized "aether" existed, the planet hunters would have discovered its effect long ago.

I don't expect any of the evidence I've cited to affect you, as it's been in front of you for at least the bulk of your lifetime. As we all do, you've done your best to reduce cognitive dissonance. We can do that by altering our beliefs to match our observations, or discounting observations that clash with our beliefs. We all do both in varying proportions depending on the circumstance. I'll leave it to others to believe what they will about your theory and my observations.

Meanwhile, to the best of my ability, I'll continue to observe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Madelaine said :)

 

But seriously... remember how long it took String Theory to gain a good degree of acceptance. It was coceived in the 60s, became a failure, and was then resurrected in the late 80 and 90s. Even if your ideas have been considered and rejected by people who are able to realistically evaluate them, don't lose heart - that's what happened to string theory for a long time. However, theories come and fail. E.g. Lee Smolin, a respected theoretical physicist, came up with a good one ("cosmological natural selection") in the 90s, but it wasn't accepted by his peers. It failed - so far.

Personally, I dislike the particularity of light idea for one simple reason. If if stand and look at a star in the cloudless night sky, I see light from it, if I move a fraction to the right, I still see light from it. If I move a fraction more, I still the light. I can move to an infinite number of points in any direction and I always see the light from the star. For that to happen, either the star must emit an infinite amount of light all the time, which is impossible, or what it does emit must cause spreading waves in some medium - like the waves of water when a pebble is dropped into a pond. The pebble doesn't spread - the medium does.

So, for decades, I've been of the opinion that space is such a medium, that photons are the waves in that medium that are caused by the star, and that it is those waves that hit my retinas rather than some substance that was originally emitted by the star. I can't account for the experimental results that Madelaine mentioned, but there is a lot of physics that can't yet be accounted for, or that is re-evaluated in the future. So I was well pleased when I first heard of the Higgs Ocean idea. It suited my thinking down to the ground :)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

What Madelaine said
:)

 

But seriously... remember how long it took String Theory to gain a good degree of acceptance. It was coceived in the 60s, became a failure, and was then resurrected in the late 80 and 90s. Even if your ideas have been considered and rejected by people who are able to realistically evaluate them, don't lose heart - that's what happened to string theory for a long time. However, theories come and fail. E.g. Lee Smolin, a respected theoretical physicist, came up with a good one ("cosmological natural selection") in the 90s, but it wasn't accepted by his peers. It failed - so far.

Personally, I dislike the particularity of light idea for one simple reason. If if stand and look at a star in the cloudless night sky, I see light from it, if I move a fraction to the right, I still see light from it. If I move a fraction more, I still the light. I can move to an infinite number of points in any direction and I always see the light from the star. For that to happen, either the star must emit an infinite amount of light all the time, which is impossible, or what it does emit must cause spreading waves in some medium - like the waves of water when a pebble is dropped into a pond. The pebble doesn't spread - the medium does.

So, for decades, I've been of the opinion that space is such a medium, that photons are the waves in that medium that are caused by the star, and that it is those waves that hit my retinas rather than some substance that was originally emitted by the star. I can't account for the experimental results that Madelaine mentioned, but there is a lot of physics that can't yet be accounted for, or that is re-evaluated in the future. So I was well pleased when I first heard of the Higgs Ocean idea. It suited my thinking down to the ground
:)

The entrance pupil of a fully dilated eye is about 6mm, for an entrance area of about 30mm^2. The retina can detect single photons, but neural filters will only trip when 5-10 photons strike within a tenth of a second. This filtering takes place because seeing individual photons would clutter our field of vision with noise. So, a star need only flood the Earth's surface with 10 photons per 30mm^2 every tenth of a second to be seen by humans. That's less than one photon per square millimeter, every tenth of a second.

Photomultiplier tubes, which have been around in present form since 1937, are capable of detecting single photons in "geiger mode". Cheaper solid state diodes can now do the same thing. You can buy single photon counters on eBay. It's great fun to hear the "click click click" of photons entering such a thing after passing through "opaque" objects.

A star like the Sun (there are far brighter stars) emits somewhere around 10^44 visible photons every 10th of a second (more are emitted at wavelengths we can't see). Let's imagine that star is 100 light years away, so at that distance, those photons spread to cover a spherical surface area of 4/3*pi*100ly^2, converted to mm^2.

100 ly ~= 10^21mm

Square that to get ~10^42mm^2

that times 4/3*pi is ~10^43mm^2

So, we've got about 10^44 photons every tenth of a second flooding an area of about 10^43mm^2. That's about 10 photons per square milliimeter, every tenth of a second, which is hardly infinite and clearly visible. No matter where you move your eye, your pupil will intercept enough photons.

Astronomical numbers are called that for a reason, Phil!

;-)

ETA: This reminds me of MIT's recent work with "femtophotography" which requires an exquisitely fast and sensitive camera...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...