[_ Old Earth _] no big bang

[alex_ro]

MORE FUNNY STORIES:


One of the problems in mainstream cosmology is the number 1. Don’t laugh, because you don’t know how much of a problem that number is for them. It even makes them lost in their geometries, or metrics…

There is this very important thing called the density parameter. They use fabricated things like dark matter to force the value of density parameter (which itself regards other very interesting things, especially the geometry of space) to get close to 1 (instead of throwing away their gravity-based methodology). And do you know why they do that? No, it’s not because the world is full of people who can testify for Euclid (and against all non-Euclidian geometries). It’s because of inflation (itself fabricated to “solve” some of the very big problems big bang had…).

And isn’t it funny that they once claim flat space, and next they claim Riemannian geometry?

And isn’t it yet again funny that, if inflation would be dropped, the next available explanation for those problems, like the flatness problem (talk about circles!), or the horizon problem, is a variable speed of light?

And isn’t it funny that those proponents were thus forced to alter Einstein’s special relativity (called extra-special relativity, or doubly special relativity)? (And that some of the workers on DSR actually arrived here on a different avenue?)

And isn’t it EXTREMELY funny that one of the proponents, Joao Magueijo, actually teaches ADVANCED RELATIVITY (Einsteinian) for postgraduates?

And yet again isn’t it funny that one of Magueijo’s partners in this bold project against mainstream FROM WITHIN mainstream is one of the big boys in the inflation theory (Andreas Albrecht)? Why exactly would Albrecht drop inflation and pursue other avenues?

Without inflation or alternative “explanations”, big bang is dead in the water (not that WITH inflation is alive and kicking, far from it…). But that didn’t stop them from actually TEACHING (exclusively!) big bang for half a century, did it?

And isn’t even FURTHER funny that another of Magueijo’s buddies in such a courageous attempt against mainstream, John Moffat, had quite a ride in Reinventing Gravity? The title of his book published in 2008, in which he explains galactic rotation curves without the fabricated thing called dark matter…

And coming back to the speed of light, isn’t it funny that its current value (for more than half of century now!) was obtained by a thorough critic of Einstein’s relativity, Louis Essen? And isn’t it ironic that Essen obtained his value for the speed of light (currently accepted !!) by using ELECTROMAGNETIC theory (thus being thoroughly criticized himself by mainstream, at that time)?

And isn’t it funny how currently mainstream uses Essen’s invention, the atomic clocks, to measure the speed of light? And isn’t it ironic that things like the Hafele-Keating experiment are claimed as proof for Einstein, while in fact the very inventor of those clocks said an entirely different thing?

By the way, Essen also gave us the second (time measurement) - so think for a second about all that… (pun intended)

Especially make sure you understand that, unlike Einstein (who pursued entirely imaginary avenues), Essen was a real SCIENTIST. One of the top. Dealing much less (or not at all) with IMAGINATION, and MORE (or entirely) with REAL THINGS.

As for the rest of experiments “proving” Einstein right, well, take a trip to any antirelativity site, and you’ll find explanations there. Starting with the very first experiment, the one whose (wrong!) interpretation allowed Einstein to come along with his theory: MMX itself. And isn’t it funny that, decades later, Einstein was trembling in his trousers each time Miller went on his mountain to measure a particular thing?

In fact so many physicists today are tired of the fantasy world of “uncle Albert” that they started to organize in associations for re-introducing REAL physics back into the schools. And would you guess where exactly the largest, to my knowledge, such organization is? Yes, in Einstein’s birth country. How ironic…

 

[alex_ro]

THE MOST PROFOUND PROBLEM IN PHYSICS:


Just wanted to give a quote to show how much of a problem is accelerated expansion for mainstream – in its own words:

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.u...y-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/

“In 1998 scientists discovered that the universe is not only expanding but that its expansion is accelerating. This TOTALLY UNEXPECTED BEHAVIOR has been called THE "MOST PROFOUND PROBLEM" IN PHYSICS, because our current understanding of GRAVITY says that attractions between mass in the universe should be causing the expansion to SLOW DOWN.”

(my emphases throughout)


But is accelerated expansion the most profound problem IN PHYSICS, as claimed? Of course not. It’s just the most profound problem in THEIR (wrong!) physics…

And now that they recently gave it a Nobel prize, they can’t go back on their word. It’s official, at the highest worldly level possible. At this point, the big bang cosmology unavoidably becomes THE LARGEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUD EVER…

How about the rest of the evolution? Well, I thought about a thread concerning the biological evolution

[ because I have noticed that people are in the end willing to give up cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, geological evolution and so on, but NEVER the biological evolution; why is that? isn’t it part of science? therefore, could it not be wrong? could anyone tell me how many former scientific things, once mainstream, are now laughed at? ]

but then I realized that anybody who would read my next thread, The Biblical cosmology, must realize that there can be no evolution - of any sort…

 

[alex_ro]

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE


How old is the universe? Well, we already know the formal claim, now let’s see if that’s true.

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
“The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the Universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant.”


Trust me, that’s only a TINY part of all the assumptions made. Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to ASSUME some of those things. I am a FREE individual (“the truth shall set you free”…). And WHY exactly I won’t assume some of those things? Because they are all derived from the MOTHER OF ALL ASSUMPTIONS: that evolution (cosmic, in this case) is actually true.

And isn’t it funny how lost they are in all their assumptions, to the point that even NORMAL MATTER becomes an assumption? Tell me, how ironic is that?


Or perhaps you prefer NASA? Let’s see:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

“Astronomers can place a lower limit to the age of the universe by studying globular clusters.”
“The life cycle of a star depends upon its mass.”
“These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old.”


Now be careful what they say:
“The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster).”


They are running in circles… So, in previous sentences NASA tells us how it works, and then tells us that it doesn’t work (because both mass and brightness are UNCERTAIN). But that’s only a “setting a range” game (billions against thousands). The true irony is here: “the life cycle”, or the mass, depends ON THE MODEL, and thus SCIENTIFICALLY has no actual bearing. Further, we already know that gravity DOESN’T WORK, so nobody can tell the actual mass of ANYTHING in the Universe.


Then NASA says (pay attention):

“If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars.
This contradiction implies that either
1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect,
2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or
3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate.”


As for me, I take option 2) anytime.

But even option 1) brings big problems to big bang (pun intended). And funny, the Hubble constant is not even a constant… (they keep modifying it…)

As for option 3), I already addressed their never-ending need to fabricate things…


What about the third alternative to calculate age (the one called in to settle things), does it work any better? Let’s see.

“How does WMAP data enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of 1%? The key to this is that by knowing the composition of matter and energy density in the universe, we can use Einstein's General Relativity to compute how fast the universe has been expanding in the past.”


All those things are WRONG. First, general relativity is wrong (already shown). Then, they DON’T KNOW “the composition of matter and energy density in the universe”. They think they can estimate those as derived from other assumptions, which are either wrong or never proven. Moreover, most of both energy & matter in THEIR universe (dark energy and dark matter) is fabricated. And that matter, supreme irony, was fabricated to keep those INITIAL assumptions in play (especially that the universe is gravitational). Thus, circles.

Moreover, WMAP data (CMB) proves formal cosmology wrong at the highest possible level (to be addressed in my next thread: The Biblical cosmology).

Oh and another funny thing: guess what exactly wikipedia sees as “independent source” for “the evidence for dark energy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Yep, the endless process of fabricating things to make their theories fit the reality:
“The theoretical need for a type of additional energy that is not matter or dark matter to form our observationally flat universe (absence of any detectable global curvature),”

And dark matter is also fabricated (a “theoretical need”…). And indeed more and more non-existent things are claimed to exist, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

Now, I hope you all know the direct connection, in formal cosmology, between the age and the size of the universe. If you don’t, let me just say that if one is wrong, so is the other – automatically and irrevocably. But I will address the size of the universe also separately, to see if by its own it makes any sense.

 

[alex_ro]

HOW FAR THE STARS REALLY ARE?


I won’t address this here in full, because it’s one of the most important things I will talk about in my next thread, The Biblical cosmology. But I can say here a few things.

There are 2 main things used for “measurement” of star distances: the triangle geometry (or the stellar parallax) for close stars, and the brightness comparison for the distant ones. Let me mostly address the first, because if that fails, the second would fail too (although the second would also fail by its own due to some unproven assumptions – and I will show one of them just further below).

The stellar distance given for the geometry to work is ABSURD. Most astronomers claim it only works up to a few hundreds of light years away. NASA boldly goes where no one has stepped before and pushes that, AT MOST, at a few thousands light years.

Now, the base for such triangle is the claimed diameter of the orbit of Earth around the Sun (it is customary to take it in Jan. and June/July). That’s 16.38 light minutes. Tell me, how many minutes one year has? And then tell me, how many years do thousands of years have? (the last one should be easy - sorry, I couldn’t resist it…)

So, all you big bang supporters, why don’t you actually draw on paper such a triangle, and see WITH YOUR OWN EYES if it works. You will see that you can’t. Not only that, but in fact you can’t draw even a triangle whose perpendicular to the base to be a hundred years (when the base is only about 17 minutes). Not only that, but you WILL BE surprised to see that, contrary to mainstream claims, you can’t even draw a triangle with a perpendicular of ONE LIGHT YEAR. The triangle would be so skinny that you CANNOT actually tell the 2 sides (lines) apart. No measurement (of any angle or distance) can actually be performed. But it is claimed to work nevertheless, isn’t it?

Well, I think I already said this: the big bang universe exists only in one place – in IMAGINATION…

But what do they use BEYOND the claimed range of geometry? Well, comparative brightness. There are many UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS here (including the type of star claimed to be exactly the same – the circle most round of them all, since they actually use that assumption to find out the distance…), but let’s ignore for the moment all of them except one.

So take a trip here:
http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/~harris/daophot_irafmanual.txt

and read this:
“The basic principle of aperture photometry is that you enclose the star in a circular aperture of some radius r, and add up all the light in that circle. Then, you subtract off the amount of light contributed by the sky background in that same area, and you are
left with the brightness of the star.”


Wait a second, aren’t these the VERY SAME FELLOWS who claim that whenever they use an improved telescope, they find new stars and galaxies, in spots where they previously saw darkness (empty space)? When they put Hubble up in space, what exactly it found? Yes, more stars, more galaxies…

So how can they “subtract off the amount of light contributed by the sky background”? They can’t. They will ALWAYS have to wait for the next generation of scopes, and not even THEN they can claim anything because, isn’t it so, who knows what the further NEXT generation of scopes would show…

Aren’t they running in circles… Indeed, it’s not science. It’s only an athletic competition - who makes most circles in a given time...

And they have the audacity to further claim:
“The big advantage of aperture photometry is that it gives you an "absolute" measurement of the star's brightness”.


Absolute MEASUREMENT? ABSOLUTE measurement? Really?

 

[alex_ro]

A SUPERNOVA WITH PROBLEMS


How about distances to supernovas? How do they determine those? Let’s take for example the most famous supernova: SN 1987A.

I will mostly address this .PDF:
http://www.astroex.org/english/exercise1/pdf/3-exercise1-low.pdf

but most of that text (pretty much all without some illustrations and the exercise parts) is also available here:
http://www.astroex.org/english/exercise1/introduction.php

Please note that that’s ESA/ESO site (i.e. a mainstream institution). Most of that text is also on The Hubble Heritage Project Website. So let’s see how they educate our kids (or their teachers, and thus, in the end, our kids yet again). Oh, and I hope that all of you here could notice that, throughout, I didn’t use a single Creationist link. Not one. Nor will I. Not even in my next thread, The Biblical cosmology (!!). They are all from mainstream. So never again accuse YECs of having their own, unreal, science… And never again claim that science is entirely on the evolution side…

Firstly, I will ask all of you mainstream supporters to tell me what exactly is wrong in this paragraph (let’s see if you indeed know even BASIC stuff about your universe):

“Supernova 1987A exploded on 1987 February 23, in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Because of its relative proximity to us (a mere 168,000 light years) SN 1987A is by far the best-studied supernova of all time. Immediately after the discovery was announced, literally every telescope in the southern hemisphere started observing this exciting new object.”


Now, let’s proceed with the scrutiny of the text.

1. “ Why there are very few supernovae” in the universe? How exactly does that fit cosmic evolution?


2. This is what they say:

“The determination of distances in the Universe is one of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS in astronomy.” (my emphasis)

And then they say this:
“An accurate measurement of the distance to SN 1987A, situated within the LMC, can be used to determine the distance to the LMC itself.”


Tell me, if “determination of distances” is a “FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM”, how exactly CAN they claim “an accurate measurement”?

Looking forward.


3. Then they say:

“All stars in the LMC are at approximately the same distance from us.”

I already addressed star distances.


4. Then they say:

“If the distance of the LMC can be measured more accurately, then more precise distance measurements can also be made for other more distant galaxies.”

Tell me, if something is ACCURATE, how exactly can it be MORE accurate?

And if something is PRECISE, how exactly can it be MORE precise?


5. About the ring they say:

“It must have been created earlier, probably as material from the dying star
was carried out by the stellar wind during the last few thousand years of its life.”

An UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION. Since it ALL relies on this, there’s really NO NEED to continue. We already left science and are into IMAGINATION.

However, let’s do continue and see if those are the only assumptions made.



6. “We will assume that the ring is a perfect circle”

Another ASSUMPTION. Later repeated in “Task 2”.



7. “If the ring were facing the observer”

Tell me, how exactly can you have a ring that’s facing the observer?

Please don’t say it’s when the observer sees a full circle (if the ring is indeed a circle), because one can easily claim that in that case the ring is facing directly AWAY from the observer…



8. “However, as the ring is inclined, the nearer rim appeared to light up first (due to the finite speed of light) and then the light seemed to move around the ring, lighting the farthest point last (see Fig. 6).”

Note that all this refers to an animation made by NASA…


9. “Figure 7: The rings If we could view SN 1987A from a different angle we would see three circular rings with SN 1987A at the centre of the smaller one and the two biggest in parallel planes (Fig. 7a). However, from Hubble’s point of view the three rings appear to be in the same plane (Fig. 7b).”

Nothing but a trip into imagination (as ADMITTED)…



10. “To do the next calculation we have to use another approximation”

I thought this was an ACCURATE measurement. Wasn’t that the word they used previously? And it gets even funnier, because later they say:


11. “If your answers are within a 20% margin of error, you have made accurate measurements as well as thorough calculations and can be very proud of your work.”


So, in their view, “20% margin of error” is “accurate measurement”. I see…

Well, in that case, I expect you (and the mainstream!) from today to reduce the claimed size of the universe by 20%...

Further, if a 20% cut means ACCURACY, then further taking away 20% from what’s left is also accurate. And then 20% of what’s left, and so on… And in the end (will it be an ending, in the first place?), be, as they say, “very proud of your work”…


Indeed, the mainstream universe is an IMAGINARY world. Can you show me examples of things in the REAL world where “20% margin of error” is “accurate measurement”? If you make a door for your car with 20% error, will you EVER be able to close it? If you build a house with 20% error, what exactly you’d call the result? And can you show me ANYBODY in the real world that would hire you to produce things with 20% error?

Bottom line: with so many either assumptions (and they are NOT all!) or obvious examples of lack of logic, how can you claim MEASUREMENT, let alone ACCURATE measurement?

But let’s continue, for that’s not all they are capable of:


12. “Had the inclination been 90 degrees, the ring would appear as a line. In this case the difference in time between the moment when we see the first light and the moment when we see the furthest edge light up is just the diameter of the ring divided by the speed of light.”

Tell me, how exactly COULD they see “the first light” and then “the furthest edge” if “THE RING WOULD APPEAR AS A LINE”?

Oh, and you big bang supporters please PROVE that the speed of light is constant on a COSMOLOGICAL scale. Looking forward. And make sure you bring in the cosmic vacuum (you know, the one that is not actually vacuum…).


13. “The question of the origin of the outer rings is a good example of a simple scientific question with no clear answer (these occur quite often in a front line science like astronomy).”

Keep that in your mind, and then read what they say below:

“The scientific community does not agree on their origin, but it is known that the rings were expelled from the progenitor star more than 20,000 years before it exploded as a supernova.”

Do you still have in your mind what they said previously? Can you see how foolish are these people that you believe in? The people that you think figured all out? In fact, if you read carefully, you’d see that you don’t even need the first sentence to see how foolish they are (that’s only reinforcement…).

And regardless, can they explain to me HOW that is “KNOWN”? How exactly would they KNOW something that happened “20,000 years” before their observation? Oh, by appealing to evolutionary models - I see. Again, they are telling us that they know how old something is by how old they think (BELIEVE) it is…



14. “Why they are so well defined is a complete mystery. It is believed that a red giant star normally ejects its outer layers uniformly in all directions.”

Another example where REALITY wipes the floor with their theories (i.e. their BELIEF, as clearly stated by themselves there)…

And if they are ALREADY PROVEN WRONG in their belief, why exactly would they STILL BELIEVE that (“it is believed”…)?

And are you big bang supporters even AWARE of the IMPLICATIONS of such an observation? Because it blows apart (pun intended) all your cosmology… Could you tell me why?

 

[alex_ro]

ARE THERE OTHER PLANETS OUT THERE?


There are usually two things claimed in favor of other planets out there (beyond our solar system). The wobble (or another expression with close meaning) of the star, claimed to be due to a planet orbiting it. And the reduction in brightness of the star at the moment of the claimed planet getting in front of it (as viewed from Earth).

The first one is easily debunked, because it presumes gravity, and we already know that gravity doesn’t work. But let’s see an actual article regarding such a discovery. And where to look for such an article if not on an astronomy website?

So, let’s read this, for example:
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2007/04/Planets found around twin stars.aspx

Look at that picture. This is what they say: “this simulation shows a twin-star sunset”.

Then they say: “Photo by NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC)”.

Well, it’s either a “photo” or a “simulation” - can’t be both (and we KNOW it isn’t a PHOTO, don’t we?). Indeed, NASA is in the dream manufacturing business… (to be shown with other occasions as well)

Now read the title:

“Planets found around twin stars
Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have found thriving planetary systems orbiting twin stars.”


Now read HOW exactly they found those claimed planets:

“Trilling and his colleagues used Spitzer's infrared, heat-seeking eyes to look not for planets, but for dusty disks in double-star systems. These so-called debris disks are made up of asteroid-like bits of leftover rock that never made it into rocky planets. Their presence indicates that the process of building planets has occurred around a star, or stars, possibly resulting in intact, mature planets.”


Now, is this a scientific report? Or is it a simple trip into imagination? Because once again they tell us that planets form (evolve) because they BELIEVE that planets form (evolve)…

And what’s the name of the site? astronomy.com… Well, this is NOT astronomy. And it’s not science. It’s only a contest of who believes more in evolution…

Indeed, EACH AND EVERY TIME they use evolutionary models. In other words, they tell us that stars (and planets etc.) evolve because they BELIEVE that stars (and planets etc.) evolve. If you think that’s not the case, I challenge all you evolutionists here to find me one, just ONE, example that is NOT based on evolutionary models (in other words a truly SCIENTIFIC, not biased, example).

The “dying” stars, or supernovas, are also a problem. Because there are very, VERY few of them. And if evolution is true and the universe is indeed that old, there should have been many orders of magnitude more of them…

 

[alex_ro]

IS IT TRUE THAT SCIENCE FIGURED EVERYTHING OUT?


Isn’t it ironic how evolutionists claim all the science is on their side? But do other “sciences” perform any better than their cosmology? Let’s see for example the economics (or finances). Yes, they claimed they figured economics all out too (exactly like in cosmology, biology etc.). But is that true? Or is it only another empty claim? Let’s see. I will only give a few famous examples, since it’s not the topic of this thread.


In 1973 the Black-Scholes model for derivative evaluation was claimed to be for finances what Einstein’s relativity was for physics (which is actually exactly zero, but the claim went, as usual, differently…).

And guess what led to the current (starting in 2007) global crisis? Yep, the derivatives…


Another example: in 2003, Robert Lucas, one of the world’s leading research economists, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, boldly claimed the “central problem of depression-prevention” as “solved, for all practical purposes".

Guess what exactly occurred only a few years later? Yep, a depression - “for all practical purposes”…

So now you know why YOUR pockets are empty: because of a wrong science… One that DOESN’T address REALITY. Much of today’s science is only an ILLUSION…

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, alex_ro

I am not a fan of Big Bang. Although you won't find an unqualified affirmation or testimony on my lips either for or against, it may be understood that in general, I just don't like it. Mostly because it is designed to add tremendous amounts of time to God's interaction with creation (man included) and this implies that we are not in the Final Days or the Last Days, not in the Last Years, not in the Last Decades, not in the Last Centuries, not in the Last Millennium or the last 1,000's of years, not in the last millions of years but instead we are doomed to live out our days apart from God until the sun dies of "natural causes". That's not what I understand from the Word of Truth and the Bang that is said to be Big seems opposed in this implicit fashion to what I have proven and will continue to hold fast and true.

Well, dark energy is antigravitational.

Is it? I do not know this. I've heard of 'dark matter' and of 'dark energy' before and do understand these unobserved things to have been proposed to satisfy mathematical deficiencies. Is it a commonly held belief that DE is also Anti-Grav? I've not read this before and like to have at least 2 reputable sources before I consider a thing that is new. Do ya gots something for me maybe?

Start with artificial satellites proving Einstein wrong:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstract...racts_1843.pdf

Sorry, Acrobat Reader crashes when I try to open your .pdf

When I turn to the next reference in that post, it appears that you have cited an abstract published by Cornell University that states, "We examine several dynamical effects, not modeled in the data analysis, in the framework of long-range modified models of gravity and of the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm." The abstract concludes, "Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open." I fail to find a general assertion that agrees with your summary statement of, "natural satellites proving both Newton and Einstein wrong..."

I am already familiar from private studies regarding "large scale contradicting homogeneity." I've not heard of "dark flow" primarily due to my need to stay current with the Science of today and not the Science of my day.
*************************

Just a quick thought about Gravity vs. Electricity. It's a question actually. Does the gravitational field (if it exists) exert force over distance in the same or similar manner to the force of an electro-magnetic field? In other words, could any electrical field be 'felt' by other objects as well as Gravity (at least in theory) may be 'felt'? My understanding of Gravity is that the force falls off according to the square of the distance, but of course, I would stand to be corrected on this if wrong. How does electricity and the bond between particulates of positive and negative charge fall off over distance. Are we speaking of the Near and Far nuclear force or would we need to consider basic electronics for this? Just a general question from an informally educated mind. Reading books from the library (the whole shelf) is my only experience, well that and Science Fiction, of course. :toofunny

****************************

Didn’t you notice what the “scientist†with the paper about the Moon did? What was his reaction, when he found out that the Moon contradicts both Newton & Einstein?

No, because I was only linked to the abstract. Did I miss something? Going back to check for an obscure hyperlink now...
Did your link refer ultimately to Oxford Journals, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, "On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon"? Because if it does (and I assume this to be the case) I will need to go to my University Library WebSite to access it. Here's the error when I try through a normal Google Search:

This item requires a subscription* to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

I'll need to pause here in my analysis to allow your reply.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[alex_ro]

Very interesting. Electricity, not gravity.

No. It’s not electricity per se (or electromagnetism, since they unified the two long time ago) what keeps planets in orbit, for example. But each time you hear some people claiming Einstein, take out your comb and a piece of paper and prove them wrong. And then tell them that you didn’t have to learn that at the Imperial College London (where Magueijo teaches!). Instead, tell them you learned that in the fifth grade, or whenever it was…

 

[alex_ro]

Still reading all those papers.

Why? Big bang is dead only because of accelerated expansion, no need for other evidence. Such evidence is only required if you want to find out which part of the physics is actually real.

So far I understand you belong to a group of people that, unlike mainstream science, rejects the Relativity Theories in favour of a modern relativistic aether theory.

No. And yes. Let me explain: I’m not usually part of any group. However, at this particular moment I am trying to put together a group: physicists, astronomers, geologists, biologists etc. - mainly to write a book about evolution. So far, I have only found an astronomer, and I’m in “negotiations” with a biologist.

But that group will not support a particular theory at the expense of another: will only reject any and all theories proven wrong.

However, I admit that LET presents a particular interest for me, and you’ll soon see that in its plenitude.

By the way, speaking of groups, there are many groups who reject Einstein and for example stick with Newton. Did you know that? I’m sorry, but I lost the link to the most prominent such group. I didn’t spend much time on their site (I think it was newtonians-something…), and it was quite some time ago, but they seemed able to explain, only by using Newton, quite a few of the things considered as explainable exclusively by Einstein.

I'm just wondering where the creationism vs science aspect comes in.

Why exactly would Creationism be against science? Unfortunately, the other way around is much true: a huge part of today’s science was postulated only to get rid of God… In regard to cosmology, that will be clearly, and I really mean clearly, shown in my next thread, The Biblical cosmology.

 

[alex_ro]

Turnorburn, who is it exactly that you’re talking to? Sorry, but can’t figure that out.

 

[Sparkey]

By the way, speaking of groups, there are many groups who reject Einstein and for example stick with Newton. Did you know that? I’m sorry, but I lost the link to the most prominent such group. I didn’t spend much time on their site (I think it was newtonians-something…), and it was quite some time ago, but they seemed able to explain, only by using Newton, quite a few of the things considered as explainable exclusively by Einstein.

Greetings alex_ro!

You may keep your eye out for a Member here who has Sir Issac Newton as his Profile Pic. The name of the Member is tim-from-pa and I can say without fear of contradiction that he is a big Newton fan. If you were to PM him, and say that I thought he'd be willing to discuss and share his research with you, he, if agreeable, would prove to be an excellent source of many and varied materials. He's also a bit of a nut when it comes to calendars and time. I would call him a "resident expert" and may also attest to his mathematical ability and talent.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[alex_ro]

Is it? I do not know this. I've heard of 'dark matter' and of 'dark energy' before and do understand these unobserved things to have been proposed to satisfy mathematical deficiencies. Is it a commonly held belief that DE is also Anti-Grav? I've not read this before and like to have at least 2 reputable sources before I consider a thing that is new. Do ya gots something for me maybe?

Welcome to the thread, Sparrowhawke. And thanks for allowing it to me.

Yes, it is. And mainstream is aware of their huge problem. I already gave a quote (and the respective link), I’m sure you can’t find many more by your own.

But in general, instead of believing one or the other, why don’t you use your own mind?

Sorry, Acrobat Reader crashes when I try to open your .pdf

Well, head for a scientific server such as arxiv, search for Ron (or Ronald) Hatch and you’ll eventually find it. Sorry - I had alternate links for Hatch’s papers, but I lost them all last year when my hard-drive crashed. I lost many things then, including links to NASA admitting they've never went to the Moon…

Easier, simply switch to a free .PDF reader (Adobe is famous for its bugs) such as CoolPDFreader (portable and quick) or Foxit PDF reader.

The abstract concludes, "Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open." I fail to find a general assertion that agrees with your summary statement of, "natural satellites proving both Newton and Einstein wrong..."

Well, you’d have to read the actual paper. So press the PDF button in the top-right corner and download the actual scientific paper.

But be aware that you’ll almost NEVER find a scientific paper stating something like: “Thus I proved Einstein wrong”. Instead, you’ll have to do some reasoning of your own. Although there are indeed a few bold exceptions (hence the “almost”), like Hatch. But they needed Hatch to make those GPS satellites to work, so they allowed him that…

I am already familiar from private studies regarding "large scale contradicting homogeneity."

“Private” studies? Well, I’m not familiar with any such study. Do you have any links?

I've not heard of "dark flow" primarily due to my need to stay current with the Science of today and not the Science of my day.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your statement.

Does the gravitational field (if it exists) exert force over distance in the same or similar manner to the force of an electro-magnetic field? In other words, could any electrical field be 'felt' by other objects as well as Gravity (at least in theory) may be 'felt'?

I think I’m the wrong person to be asked anything like that…

No, because I was only linked to the abstract. Did I miss something?

Yes, the entire paper. See above, about the PDF. You are new to scientific servers, aren’t you? Well, don’t worry, you’ll learn.

Now, in regard to tim-from-pa, the Newton fan, I’m sorry, but this thread is bad news for him too…

 

[Sparkey]

Welcome to the thread, Sparrowhawke.

Thank you!

I am already familiar from private studies regarding "large scale contradicting homogeneity."

Private studies? Well, I'm not familiar with any such study. Do you have any links?

By "private studies" what I mean is that many, many years ago I was challenged by a best friend to consider "hard science" as opposed to what he called "soft science" because he wanted to sponsor a duel-of-the minds and because I liked Psychology and Sociology and other fields of interest. What was that? 25 years ago? He was newly graduated and wanted to put his fierce mind to good use. Probably. Thus launched the path of this one called 'Sparrow' who was at that time a Knowledge Seeker --down an informal educational trajectory toward the field of Quantum Mechanics. Private should be better said as 'personal' studies. Yes, there are many (too many) links but none that are esoteric in nature sufficient enough that you would be expected to profit thereby.

Now, in regard to tim-from-pa, the Newton fan, I'm sorry, but this thread is bad news for him too.

No need to apologize. It's your loss. Not mine and not his. He is an excellent source.

Thanks again for your suggestions. There are other resources available should I choose to use them, but frankly I wanted to intro myself, make a general observation and get your feedback. We're still newly met and I like getting to know people. You are familiar with the full-time student life already. Mine includes a midterm next Tuesday, two papers due on Wednesday, a research project to support a 15 page essay and other stuffs.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Adam]

Gish gallop.

 

[Sparkey]

Gish gallop.

Easy enough to Google up a search on this one. Thanks for teaching me a term. A technique of "Starting ten fires in ten minutes,"

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

 

[alex_ro]

Gish gallop.

Is that all? You threatened me in the old big bang thread that you will come here and show my "logical fallacies" and in general where I'm wrong, and then you just say "Gish gallop"? Really? Is this your logic? And is this your science? Well, in that case, I'm not surprised that you have what appears to be a blind belief in mainstream...

 

[alex_ro]

UNFAIR GAME: PUTTING THE BLAME ON PEOPLE


In its endless patching of their big bang cosmology, mainstream, instead of admitting that some of the previous assumptions or postulations were wrong, alters its cosmology behind closed doors, and then claim that their model has always been so.

Each time they change their theory, they put the old assumption in the section “myths about big bang” (just check how many such webpages there are). So, instead of admitting that they were wrong, they suggest that we, the public, were fools and did not comprehend it.

For example, until 15 years ago or so, mainstream considered that the universe is cyclic, an endless series of bangs and contractions. Apparently initially formulated by Einstein, the idea stays within consideration, but not within mainstream anymore. Instead of multiple singularities (?!), they moved towards multiple universes and\or dimensions (like string theory - M-theory).

Another example: prior to a few decades ago, they said space has always existed. Then Stephen Hawking (together with other cosmologists: George Ellis and Roger Penrose) came with the idea that matter didn’t expand into space, but it was space itself which expanded.


______________________


ABOUT PINK UNICORNS


Perhaps you’d like to find out about dark matter (DM) – or rather that it’s still nothing to find out about it (just that they are certain that it is there, instead of throwing Einstein away):
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html

Quote from conclusion (my emphases):
“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, IF DARK MATTER IS NOT PRESENT WHERE WE EXPECTED IT, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found. Our results CONTRADICT THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MODELS. The mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious.“

How about their other major pink unicorn - dark energy (DE)?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/NG_news.Smoller.pdf

So, isn’t it hugely ironic that one of the explanations called in to figure things out without dark energy (the largest embarrassment of formal cosmology, the unicorn most pink of them all) places the Earth in a privileged location? Nothing evolutionists would want less...

Also please note that the Copernican principle is called an “assumption” - in other words, it’s unproven, to this day…

And how ironic that the expression “pink unicorn” was invented to ridicule Creationists when they don’t have a physical (naturalistic) explanation for some things… But how could they have, since they believe in God’s Creation…

__________________


ANOMALIES


What’s an anomaly? Well, reality that contradicts the theory. For example, this one:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf110/sf110p03.htm

In fact, why don’t you check out this list:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-astr.htm

Tell me how long it took for you to scroll down to the end of it - let alone reading it. I’m sure they never mentioned those things in your schools… While for some they have found “fixes”, they have also found new anomalies.

When you’re done with those, check the left-side buttons for anomalies in other areas (like biology etc.). And there are so many sites out there with such “anomalies”, ten lifetimes won’t be enough to research them all…

So tell me again how mainstream has figured the entire universe out, and that what we’re taught in schools is actually true…


______________


ABOUT THE TRIPS INTO FANTASYLAND


Hannes Alfven, awarded Nobel prize in physics, said about the audacious jumps into the fantasy-land:
“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”

From the wikipedia page about Alfven:
“Alfven believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena.”


As Paul Dirac put it (“On methods in theoretical physics”, 1968, my emphases throughout):

"One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are VERY FEW HARD FACTS to go on, but THEORETICAL WORKERS have been busy constructing various models for the universe, BASED ON ANY ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY FANCY. These models are probably ALL WRONG."


_____________________


ANOTHER FUNNY STORY


What’s the standard model? Lambda-CDM. What’s Lambda? Dark energy (the only candidate). What’s that? “A hypothetical form of energy” (wikipedia). And what’s CDM? Cold dark matter. What’s that? “A hypothetical form of matter” (wikipedia).

What does “hypothetical” mean? Well, synonyms for it are: imaginary, speculative, etc.

And antonyms for it are: real, true, confirmed, actual…

Wait a second: they state two UNREAL THINGS and then they claim their cosmology refers to REALITY? Yes, that’s exactly what they do.

Well, compared to THIS, someone claiming a “spaghetti monster” would be half-SCIENTIFIC. Because the spaghetti is real, you know…

But let’s keep going, it’s only getting funnier.

While some dark things are called in to make the model work, other dark things say the model doesn’t work - for example dark flow (which alone disproves the model, no need to look for other evidence).

Now, it’s already getting too dark in here… A logical person would simply turn on the light, banishing all the darkness (i.e. dropping the model altogether).

But do you think it stops here? Nope. For example, they bring in WIMPs to make dark matter work (which in turn was brought in to make gravity work). And what are WIMPs? “HYPOTHETICAL particles serving as one possible solution to the dark matter problem” (wiki, my emphasis).

And do you think this entirely imaginary stuff concerns only the present? No. For example, phantom energy concerns the future. And by now you would know of course that it can only be a HYPOTHETICAL form of dark energy (wiki), which in turn, as you already know, is a HYPOTHETICAL form of energy.

And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on (all hypothetical things), and it never really stops…

And they all hold to such absurd model so dearly and tight as if it was their baby, or something… Regardless, it surely isn’t SCIENCE. When at pretty much EVERY STEP they find something wrong with their model, they should have dropped that model ages ago.

In the end, what does the BB model explain? Well, 5% of the universe (the rest, DM & DE, being unexplained; just invoked). And they dare to call that a COSMOLOGICAL model? Even the STANDARD model? Really?

And do you know how they call it when they hit a wall with their model? Well, how about this as example:
“While this remains an unsolved problem for astronomers, it does not necessarily mean that the Lambda-CDM model is completely wrong, but rather that it REQUIRES FURTHER REFINEMENT to accurately reproduce the population of galaxies in the universe.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
(my emphasis)


So it doesn’t mean the model is “COMPLETELY wrong”, it only means it’s 95% wrong. I see…

The bottom line: the entire mainstream physics is in disarray, whether they admit it or not. Not only what they claim on macro scale doesn’t actually work, but what they claim on macro scale doesn’t work on micro scale, and vice versa. For quantum mechanics to be true, the cosmology (GR) must be wrong. And the other way around.

To be honest, and SCIENTIFIC, they should drop one of them. Which one? Well, how about the one to which they already added so much fantasy (all the “dark” stuff)? But they won’t do that, would they? What do they do, instead? As always with evolutionists, they wait for time to fix all problems, so they wait for the theory of everything (ToE).

But despite the high hopes of THEORETICAL physicists, the efforts to make their physics stick whatever the scale won’t work, because there is something fundamentally flawed. From the very beginning. And, by not dropping the model altogether, they can only add to the original flaw. Until nothing works. Pretty much like today.

And speaking of quantum gravity, how interesting that we get back to aether…
http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/129


_____________________


DOUBTING EINSTEIN:


Einstein is under attack on many fronts, not only from outside mainstream, and, within mainstream, not only from Magueijo et al.

From example, ESA:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/H..._Research/Atomic_Clock_Ensemble_in_Space_ACES

”ACES will test Einstein’s general relativity AND ALTERNATIVE theories of gravitation.”
(my emphases)


When you’re still testing Einstein’s relativity, a hundred years later, that can only mean SERIOUS DOUBTS about its validity. When you’re also testing ALTERNATIVE theories, the expression “serious doubts” suddenly becomes very mild.

However, I’m sure their tests will be wrong (that is, interpreted wrongly). Not only they are stubborn in claiming gravity/gravitation, but atomic clocks are subject to external influences (see next section).

Also note that sometimes even mainstream institutions manage to be honest. Like here (quote from the same ESA page):
“The most precise measurement of time yet – in space – will be used to probe our knowledge of the fundamental laws of physics ruling the Universe.”


Although, a question must be asked: why do they TEACH IN SCHOOL, right now, in this moment, physics that they admit they’re NOT sure about?

Another example of ESA’s honesty:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/So_how_did_everything_start
“This is the most accepted theory. For many scientists, this period is 'speculative'. There are no observations to confirm or disprove the theories.”


Nota bene, that SPECULATION concerns not only inflation, but also “the forces of nature”, “the elementary particles that are the building blocks of matter”, etc.

All those things are UNPROVEN by ESA’s own admission. But then, why do they claim them? Why do they teach them in schools?


________________


ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT:


There is the unavoidable problem of the actual measurement of the speed of light: all that they have measured has been in the round trip (there has been NO one-way speed of light measurement EVER).

What aggravates this problem is that the atomic clocks are influenced by the nearby cosmic environment - this time during eclipses:
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/zhou/zhou-2.pdf

[ note this:
“During solar eclipse, some physical phenomena appeared to be abnormal, which cannot be interpreted in the frame of present gravitational theories.”

translation: someone throw Newton & Einstein away, please… ]


and, in general, the radioactive decay of several elements is influenced by the Sun:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html


After such INDEPENDENT evidence, it may be, again, that physical constants are not, after all, constant.

And I’ll let you to consider by your own the implications of radioactive decay influenced by the Sun (and possibly other celestial objects) on the dating process – you know, the one claimed as supporting the evolution, with its billions of years…


_______________


FINAL THOUGHTS:


Even the Russians are aware that big bang cosmology is done with:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/20-04-2006/79383-universe-0/

- the axis of evil “casts doubts on all contemporary concepts of the nature and development of the universe”
- “even the Einstein theory of relativity seems obsolete now”
- it means “a considerably smaller-sized universe”
- it also means a “scenario written beforehand” (i.e. design).

Check also Magueijo’s opinion on big bang (translated “Magoeio” in Russian and then wrongly written back into Latin letters by Pravda staff).


All that I mentioned in this thread shows that mainstream has a LONG road ahead before they could have a cosmological model with any significant resemblance to reality. Less than 5% simply doesn’t cut it. More importantly, it also means they should learn the value of modesty, before claiming anything. A decent scientist would have strong hesitations even at 95%, before going public. The fact that the mainstream “scientists” claim things only when they “know” 5% of their universe speaks (loudly!) not only about the quality of their “science”, but also about their character. And these are the fellows who teach our children…



Next, I will start working on my new thread - “The Biblical cosmology”.

 

[Sparkey]

Gish gallop.

Is that all? You threatened me in the old big bang thread that you will come here and show my "logical fallacies" and in general where I'm wrong, and then you just say "Gish gallop"? Really? Is this your logic? And is this your science? Well, in that case, I'm not surprised that you have what appears to be a blind belief in mainstream...

Guys? I have mixed feelings about this type of thing. It seems to fail the test of "to the subject?" vs. "to the man?" and my tendency is to just delete the post here and consider a Warning. But no, another part of my mind reasons, because we are dealing with a new Member. So then this, my post (also off-topic), appears.

[MENTION=96614]alex_ro[/MENTION] I've read both threads and have noticed that you invited the contribution. This is tantamount to disregarding a directive in the Terms that every Member had agreed to in exchange for the peaceful enjoyment of the Service provided here at ChristianForums.net. Here's the part that I'm talking about:

Section 2: Specific Rules, Guidelines and Processes (the “meat” of the ToS)
...
2.7: Do not "call out" other members by name who you have a disagreement with in the OP of a new thread or in a thread they are not already in. Members should not be put in the position of having to defend themselves in a discussion they have not yet chosen to participate in. The staff reserves the right to wave this term if it is deemed to be good-natured fun.

When I saw the "calling out" in one thread by a Member (newly registered) to another my thought was, "The 'Good nature'd fun' exception applies here." But then when I see that the response is depicted as "

You threatened me in the old big bang thread that you will come here and show my "logical fallacies"

I begin to question the goodness of this 'fun'. Further, this post seems to be addressed "to the man" more so than to the subject at large.

You will do well to keep this, my admonition, in mind for all future posts and save me the trouble of mentioning it again.

Cordially,
Your Moderator

 

[Adam]

Gish gallop.

Is that all? You threatened me in the old big bang thread that you will come here and show my "logical fallacies" and in general where I'm wrong, and then you just say "Gish gallop"? Really? Is this your logic? And is this your science? Well, in that case, I'm not surprised that you have what appears to be a blind belief in mainstream...

Gish gallop sums it up perfectly. But if you want me to name the specific fallacies within the scope of the all-encompassing fallacy you are comitting, I can.