[_ Old Earth _] no big bang

[alex_ro]

In this thread I will prove that the formal cosmology (big bang) is wrong. Thus, I will show that:


1. the standard model is self-contradictory at almost EACH AND EVERY STEP, starting with the title


2. the Universe is NOT gravitational

as shown even by a very simple experiment that ANYBODY can do (an experiment usually learned in a very early grade, although I’m not sure about that lately, since the degradation of education due to evolution brought into schools)


3. general relativity is wrong on multiple accounts:

- as proven by artificial satellites
- as proven by natural satellites
- as proven by the entire quantum realm
- as proven by the fact that the Universe is NOT gravitational
- as proven by peculiar velocities
- since there’s no space-time
etc.

without general relativity, there’s no such thing as a formal cosmology anymore


4. the Cosmological principle is wrong, as proven both by observations and also the fact that general relativity is wrong (and vice versa!)


5. some evidence usually claimed in support of big bang (BB) is actually evidence AGAINST it


6. no cosmic evolution, and therefore the rest of evolution (for example chemical or biological) is also wrong (evolution is NOT the rule of things)


I will also do many other things, such as showing that the claimed empty cosmic space is not empty AT ALL, and putting under scrutiny the formal claims for both the age and the size of the Universe. I will also advance a candidate for ToE.

I expect each and every participant to state if (s)he is or not a big bang fan, so that I will know who I am talking with. If you don’t believe in BB, then please state what you do believe in (your cosmology). Thank you. I’m a YEC, by the way.

I will try to be as simple in my statements as possible, so that everybody can understand them. Because this is very important.

After I’m done with big bang, I will start a new thread: The Biblical cosmology. That should be of high interest especially for YECs.

So, is big bang true? Let’s see. I will actually show not only that big bang isn’t true, but in fact it CANNOT be true. I will also show there is NO REAL SCIENCE in big bang. At the core, it’s only mathematics (not physics, but maths) and an endless series of empty claims.

 

[alex_ro]

NO FORMAL UNIVERSE:


As already proposed in the old big bang thread, let’s start with the very title of the standard model.

Well, sorry for you big bang fans, but the title contradicts both itself and the content.

How is your universe? Gravitational. Well, dark energy is antigravitational. Thus you’re left with no cosmology. Really no other evidence required. And by the way, that would be the rule of all the evidence I present in this thread. Each (read that again: EACH) of these things is LETHAL to formal cosmology by its own. Really no other evidence required. Taken together, well…

As for the title itself, well, one half of the title disproves the other half (dark energy clearly contradicts ANY KIND of dark matter, which was “fabricated” to make gravity appear to work). So, at this point you don’t even have a title for your cosmology, let alone a cosmology per se…

Thus you’re left with no universe – in less than a minute (I type fast…). But let’s continue, for things will get even more interesting. And, at times, very FUNNY.

 

[alex_ro]

THE FUNNY STORY OF a AND b:


I was interested WHEN dark energy, within formal cosmology, took a grip on things (you’ll see why in a second). So I found out what appears to be the mainstream answer: about nine billions years ago…

When I saw that, I immediately started to laugh. Big time. For about half an hour. Do you know why? Well, think about the claimed age of the earth…

Did you get it? If not: think about 2 specks of dust, A and B, desperately trying to come together and form what will eventually be a planet. And the conditions are EXTREMELY NOT favorable. A shouts to B: “give me your hand! let’s stick together! there will be billions of people counting on us! they will really love evolution!” B tries that frantically, but the space between them irrevocably expands, drifting them further apart.

And the situation gets even more desperate with time… So billions of years (if true), far from proving cosmic evolution, would actually be FURTHER proof AGAINST evolution. In the context of dark energy, billions of years are exactly what YOU DON’T WANT…

And the funny thing is that even WITHOUT dark energy (accelerated expansion), the simple expansion is PROOF AGAINST cosmic evolution. The space between A and B will expand no matter if expansion is accelerated, constant or decelerated. They will simply NEVER get together to form ANYTHING. Let alone an entire planet…

Thus, no cosmic evolution. NONE. Even the very TITLE of YOUR cosmology is PROOF in that regard. Really no other evidence required.


Further, what was claimed as evidence for big bang (the expansion), is actually INDISPUTABLE PROOF AGAINST big bang: simply because of its acceleration (expansion should have been DECELERATING if big bang was true…). So again, the VERY TITLE of formal cosmological model thoroughly and irrevocably DISPROVES the content (the very same cosmology). Tell me, how ironic is that?

 

[alex_ro]

NO GENIUS OF MANKIND:


Let’s move over to other things within formal cosmology. What’s its technical describer? Einstein’s relativity. Is Einstein’s relativity true? Let’s see.

Start with artificial satellites proving Einstein wrong:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1843.pdf

[ GPS is the only REAL thing claimed by evolutionists in support of Einstein. All of Einstein’s “science” is theoretical, except (as claimed) GPS. How much of an irony is then that GPS actually disproves Einstein? ]

[ In another of his papers, Hatch proves wrong a fundamental principle of general relativity: acceleration indistinguishable from gravity. So there you are, yet again left without Einstein, even taking a different avenue. Which means you don’t have your universe anymore either…]


Then move to natural satellites proving both Newton and Einstein wrong:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212

(and yet they are both still taught in schools, while every night, actually all the time, the Moon tells a different story !)


Then move to large scale things contradicting homogeneity (for example cosmic voids, really HUGE),

then move to large scale formations with movement that clearly contradicts any “natural law” you can think of (for example dark flow - only this and it’s enough to throw mainstream cosmology away)…

Well, I’m sure you can take it from here, can’t you?

 

[alex_ro]

A GAME OF IMAGINATION:


Speaking of dark flow, do you know what explanation they ALWAYS (each and every time) bring when this Universe proves them wrong? Yes, other universes…

No surprise then, since they’ve believed for so long they are in a balloon, that they eventually started imagining multiple bubble universes (or strings, or whatever)…

Why does this universe look as if it was tuned precisely for mankind? Well, you know, there are multiple universes out there, and this is only one of them, and the others look differently…

How could life come from non-life? Well, you know, there are an INFINITE number of universes out there, and thus the chances of life appearing from non-life are suddenly not zero…

Why does gravity NOT work in this universe? Well, you know, there are multiple universes out there, and somehow this compensates for the extreme weakness of gravity in this universe…

(meanwhile THIS universe is of course taught in schools as being gravitational…)


Why does the micro (quantum) contradict the macro (especially GR)? Well, if one simply starts imagining other universes, a theory of everything is not far off…

Do they really call all this science? Yes, they do. Well, they obviously didn’t hear about Occam’s razor. Now THAT’s indeed science…

 

[alex_ro]

CONTINUING THE ENDLESS JOURNEY OF FABRICATING THINGS:


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? Did he think about throwing the theories of those fellows in the trash? No. He instead FABRICATED an entire planet in the solar system… Which nobody (not even him) can see. And even that DIDN’T WORK…

This is their entire cosmological “science”: a FABRICATION process…

What do they do when the Universe shows gravity wrong? They fabricate 5 times more matter to make it work. But does THEN work? No, they MUST further tune things, like WIMPs, to make gravity work. But does THEN work? No, they MUST fabricate a multitude of OTHER UNIVERSES to “explain” why it DOESN’T work….

Do they call this science? Yes, they do. They even teach it in schools…

Do they believe we all are in the bi-dimensional surface of a balloon? Yes, they do. Well, what does that say about THEM?

But why would they say that, in the first place? Well, they MUST claim it, otherwise a very different cosmology becomes true... (you’ll be very surprised which one!)

 

[alex_ro]

ARE WE REALLY IN A BALLOON?


If you had any doubt - no, we are not:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf

Those among you with skills in cosmology and relativity are welcome to tell me ON HOW MANY LEVELS this paper is LETHAL to the formal cosmology…

By the way, I will start my next thread, the Biblical cosmology (the first part: the Biblical cosmogony), exactly with this paper. I wonder if there’s anybody here who can tell me why…

 

[alex_ro]

SO HOW IS THE UNIVERSE, AFTER ALL?


Big bang supporters, your universe should be (mandatory) isotropic and homogeneous. However, some observations contradict that. Not only huge (VERY huge) cosmic voids, but also peculiar velocities, and so on. Therefore, the Cosmological principle is just another one in an endless series of EMPTY claims.

When you have to FABRICATE 95.5% of the entire Universe to either “explain” observations or to make it look as if your laws work (instead of throwing them away and finding others), then something is very wrong with formal science. One thing for sure: IT’S NOT SCIENCE. Instead, it’s IMAGINATION. Nothing more than wishful thinking.

Moreover, the rest of the universe (the REAL matter) is mostly, BY FAR, plasma, not solid matter… (why don’t you find by yourselves what BY FAR actually means…)

And this “fabrication” process is COMMON in formal cosmology. No matter what they do, they will never throw away their precious theories. Instead they’ll keep fabricating things to make them (appear to) work…

But how is the REAL universe? Well, for one, throw gravity away (both gravitation & gravity, i.e. Newton & Einstein). But does that mean that the universe is electric (plasmic)? Well, not in the sense of Halton Arp’s. That particular cosmology is also wrong. To be exact: no, it doesn’t mean that the universe is NECESSARILY electric, it only means that an electric universe is BY FAR a more rational (and scientific!) premise than a gravitational universe…

Certainly (even mainstream admits this) electromagnetism is MUCH (by orders of magnitude !!) stronger than gravity. And how is it that the WEAKEST FORCE in the Universe (even by THEIR recognition) is claimed as the strongest (since they claim a gravitational universe)?

So, how is the Universe after all? Well, let’s keep that for another thread (the Biblical cosmology), shall we?

 

[alex_ro]

ALWAYS USE YOUR OWN MIND (and hands!) TO VERIFY MAINSTREAM CLAIMS:


Why don’t you make a simple experiment: take a piece of paper and a thing of plastic (like your comb, or whatever). Put the paper on the table. Now rub the comb a bit, and then get it close to the paper. What will you see? That the electricity is MUCH STRONGER than gravitation. Magnets will show that too (using instead a piece of metal).

So there you are, claiming that the universe is gravitational, while REALITY shows an entirely different thing: your mighty gravitation can’t keep the paper on the table when a small, VERY SMALL (static) electricity gets close… So tell me again how colossal is gravitation/gravity. Tell me again how planets are kept in orbit by it. Tell me again how the entire universe is gravitational and obeys Newton & Einstein…

Yet again, MAINSTREAM CLAIMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY. Keep this in mind: whenever you hear mainstreamers claiming something, you should immediately think of the opposite, and you’ll be FAR CLOSER to the truth.

Do you hear billions of years? Immediately you should think of thousands…

Do they claim the cosmic space is empty (void)? Immediately you should think it’s not empty (at all !), and even that it’s more like a solid…

And you know what? You’ll actually be ENTIRELY right… Here:

“It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that SPACE IS MORE LIKE A PIECE OF WINDOW GLASS than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

Robert Laughlin, “A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down”, 2005, p. 120 (my emphasis)
also quoted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories



Now, surely you wouldn’t want to contradict the 1993 Nobel laureate in physics, would you? I mean, isn’t this the kind of authority you bow to?

But why exactly did I even bother with that quote? Isn’t the very name of YOUR cosmology shouting out that space is NOT empty? And isn’t dark energy more than 70% of YOUR entire universe? And isn’t dark energy ANTIgravitational? So why exactly would they ‘teach” you Newton & Einstein? And how COULD there have appeared the conditions for a single planet to get together and form itself, in the background of a powerful antigravitational “thing” pulling EVERYTHING APART? So much for cosmic evolution…

 

[alex_ro]

THINGS THEY DON’T USUALLY SPEAK ABOUT:


There are many things they won’t usually teach you in their schools. For example that the maths are similar for SR (special relativity) and LET (Lorentz Ether Theory). And that’s an understatement. In fact, you can safely accuse Einstein of plagiarism… (many people did, many still do…)

Also, they are indistinguishable in experiments - that’s what mainstream claims anyway. Only that LET can explain WHY, while SR maths only happen to roughly agree, but as Ron Hatch shows in his GPS paper (link already given), cannot explain WHY (if nothing else, just check how many times Hatch uses the term “magic”, in all his papers, in regard to Einstein’s relativity). SR is only maths (not physics), i.e. a game of numbers, which magically happens to agree with real physics.

Moreover, even the relativity MATHS don’t entirely work (as proven for example by the Moon).

Further, are Einstein and Lorentz really indistinguishable by experiments, as mainstream claims? Let’s see.

(Let’s ignore for the moment that the entire GPS satellite network is already evidence against that claim…)

 

[alex_ro]

A CENTURY OLD THEORY OF EVERYTHING:


Mainstream is so desperate to unify micro with macro that I won’t be surprised if they will give, to the physicist doing that, the Nobel prize - FOR A HUNDRED YEARS IN A ROW…

But is it true that currently there’s no theory of everything - ToE? Let’s see. (We should check each and every mainstream claim, shouldn’t we? Isn’t that SCIENTIFIC?)

Contrary to what mainstream indicates, REAL science is not dead. Not all of current science is pseudo-science. Some of it still takes place in REALITY. Dealing with REAL things.

For example, read this recent paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4253

It’s educational on several levels.

Firstly, it’s so elegant it’s a dream. You simply don’t feel brainwashed reading it – instead, you feel rewarded. Very few scientific papers nowadays make you feel like that. (They mostly propose bubble or string universes and other fantasies, to explain why their theories don’t work, instead of throwing their theories away…)

Secondly, it shows how in a SCIENTIFIC PAPER you don’t have to quote the entire paragraph (and several paragraphs prior or later). So from now on DON’T ASK ANYBODY to not give selective quotes (i.e. don’t ask YECs to NOT give quotes from evolutionary sources against evolution). Selective quoting is ENTIRELY SCIENTIFIC. Moreover, it’s a NECESSITY, since you can’t quote an entire book (i.e. the entire context).

Thirdly, it speaks about aether. Contrary to what you were “taught” in “schools”, EVERYBODY (that is, anybody interested in REAL science) knows that the claimed empty space (void) is not empty AT ALL. On the contrary.

Read it entirely. It’s very interesting. Read also what it says about spacetime (no, no spacetime, sorry…).

But to return to topic:

“One of these consequences is that the Einstein’s relativity is experimentally-distinguishable from the Lorentz-Poincare’s relativity and the experiment unambiguously supports the latter.”


So much for the mainstream claim. How long we’ll keep Einstein in schools, tell me?

Moreover - what…? The micro world supports Lorentz too? Isn’t that interesting? (I already linked Ron Hatch’s paper with his Modified LET, proving that the macro world also supports Lorentz and doesn’t support Einstein.)

Now, why are they STILL looking for a theory of everything, explaining both micro & macro scales? THEY ALREADY HAVE A CANDIDATE. Wait, it’s not the one that they WANT. Because it includes aether. And we know the direct implications of aether, don’t we? They should throw you off your chair, that’s how huge those implications are…

So, mister Michio Kaku, the famous mister fantasizer, firstly stop spreading the lies that you are at the front of mainstream’s efforts in looking for a ToE - you’re not. Your claim that you are in charge of continuing Einstein’s dream is entirely delusional (not that pursuing any of Einstein’s dreams is any worth… or any science). Secondly, you already have a ToE candidate, working on both scales. Thirdly, throw away ALL your entirely imaginary things (anything that includes “string” in it) and become a REAL scientist. That’s what you’re paid for. You can fantasize about your precious non-existent strings in your free time. As long as you keep your mouth shut in front of other people, especially the kids you’re paid to educate, not to indoctrinate as in the former communist countries…

 

[alex_ro]

THE (NON)DETECTION GAME:


You can’t consider formal cosmology without the “thing” called spacetime. No spacetime would automatically and irrevocably mean no formal cosmology – it’s that simple. So, is spacetime real, or just another empty claim? Let’s see.

The famous gravitational waves: a firm prediction by Einstein’s relativity, nobody can find them. They spent HUGE amounts of money for equipment built ONLY for this purpose: to detect gravitational waves. And they already started spending HUGE amounts of MORE money to improve (upgrade) that equipment…

But have they detected those gravitational waves? Nope. Each and every time there’s an explosion out there, they direct their EXPENSIVE equipment to that location. And each and every time they report NONdetection.

But HOW do they actually do the reporting, each and every time, of NONdetection? Let’s see:

"Having achieved its design goals two years ago, LIGO is now producing significant scientific results.”
http://www.caltech.edu/content/ligo-sheds-light-cosmic-event


Wait a second: “significant scientific results”? How about NO RESULTS? None. NADA.

They lie to your face. And you bow to these people, you even call them scientists. While they spend YOUR money, in pursue of their FANTASY…


Let’s see further:

“The nondetection of a signal from GRB070201 is an important step toward a very productive synergy between gravitational-wave and other astronomical communities that will contribute to our understanding of the most energetic events in the cosmos."


NONdetection - an “important step” towards understanding events in cosmos? Do they call this SCIENCE? Really?

Well, if they want to understand ANYTHING about the Universe, they should throw Einstein in the trash. It’s that simple. Moreover, it’s NECESSARY.

The NONdetection alone disproves Einstein and therefore the formal universe - no other proof is required. To this very day, there was not a single detection. Not one. They actually were so bored at one time that they SIMULATED a detection, to see if their equipment actually works or the staff actually pays attention. Yep, it works. Yep, they pay attention. But there’s NOTHING to detect…


How do other mainstream sources, like wikipedia, explain all these? Let’s see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Direct_detection_of_gravitational_waves


Note the subtitle: “Direct detection of gravitational waves”.


Then read what it ACTUALLY says in the text:
“So far, there has not been a single detection event by any of the existing detectors.”
and:
“These detectors have not yet found any gravitational waves.”


Wait a second, what does the title say? Let’s read it again:
“Direct detection of gravitational waves”.


THEY LIE TO YOUR FACE. And they call this SCIENCE? Really?

Meanwhile, with all of their NONdetections, how do they spend their time and OUR money? Let’s see:
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
“Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes: A Caltech-Cornell Project's simulation of black holes and other extreme spacetimes”


SIMULATION? Really? Further more, simulation of NON-EXISTENT things like black holes? Really? How about spacetime, does that exist? Nope – it exists only in their IMAGINATION (no gravitational waves, therefore no spacetime - it’s that simple). So almost all the things in that ONE title are NON-EXISTENT things. Do they call this science? Really?

And throughout all this (non!)detection game, Einstein is still taught in all the classrooms in the world… They even bow to his brain, as he’s considered the genius of mankind…

So now we KNOW there’s no Einsteinian relativity in the universe. None. Not a single trace of it.

 

[alex_ro]

Conclusion:


Big bang fails at each and every level.

Observationally: cosmic voids (what exactly would convince matter to gather preferentially? there can be NOTHING preferential in the formal universe!), peculiar velocities (what exactly would convince certain matter to move differently?), expansion (should decelerate instead of accelerating if big bang is true), CMB low poles (cannot exist in a big bang universe), spin direction of galaxies (what exactly would convince galaxies to spin preferentially? preferred direction means violation of formal cosmology), etc. etc.

Supreme irony, expansion was the first “proof” for big bang… Now we know it actually disproves BB. Another supreme irony, in recent times CMB was also claimed as proof for big bang, while in fact disproves it most categorically. But CMB evidence will be part of my new thread, The Biblical cosmology, so I’ll address it there.

Technically: Einstein’s relativity is proven wrong (on multiple levels). Moreover, contrary to mainstream claim, the universe is NOT gravitational. That’s one thing you can claim with 100% ACCURACY…

At this point, tell me, is there ANYTHING left in your cosmology?

But let’s not end before another story.

 

[alex_ro]

THE FUNNY STORY OF BIG BANG:


This story is quite popular among YECs (pity if you aren’t one, you’d have so much fun at the expense of evolution in general!).

When Lemaitre put together his big bang (by the way it’s not his at all, but another time about that), he was reported as claiming that what exploded was only a few light years in diameter.

By mid-1960s, that figure was reduced to a few hundred million miles. Next decade, to less than 100 million miles. Only 2 years later, to about 50.000 miles.

The next decade (early 1980s), the thing that exploded was further reduced to much less than a proton.


And finally, as shown in this quote:

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything."
Discover magazine, April 2002, article "Where did everything come from?"
(also found in many places, including books.google)


the thing that exploded was NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. NADA. Moreover, “as it got bigger”, this nothing “became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere”…

In other words, one day nothing exploded, and here we are…

Now, you are of course free to believe in all this nonsense. BUT DON’T CALL IT SCIENCE. It’s not even LOGIC. You know what? It’s not even COMMON SENSE…

See you next time, when I’ll talk about the age of the universe and the other things left unaddressed.

 

[Vaccine]

:crazy
Very interesting. Electricity, not gravity. Very interesting.

 

[Matthew G]

Very interesting. Good stuff. Very much looking forward to the next thread.

I've always found it funny that, when listening or reading about cosmology, the people they interview or quote always say, "We think thus and so," or "We believe this and that happens because." Of further intrigue to me is the fact that they put forward these theories that are often immediately accepted as true for the simple fact that the math works.

Really?

I'm far from a mathematician, but I'm almost certain someone could create a mathematical equation that would explain how man evolved from venomous ducks in exactly 17.6 seconds while trapped in a telephone both with an alligator that just had its backside sandpapered.

Example - forgive me if anyone's familiar with this - language can be "proven" to be ruled by the number 4. Let's pick a word. Like...ELEPHANT.

Let's count the letters. E L E P H A N T
There are eight letters. Do it again. E I G H T
There are five letters. Do it again. F I V E
There are four. But you can't break it down any further. F O U R
There are four.

I always liken their "equations" to little games like this that only work "if you break it down far enough".

 

[Barbarian]

 

[Claudya]

Still reading all those papers. 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. Okay. That's very interesting because I had no idea such theories exist and it will be fascinating to dig deeper into it.
I'm just wondering where the creationism vs science aspect comes in.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Not really worth responding to, is it?

 

[turnorburn]

Are you in agreement with these statements that creation is a "theory" a "myth"

Cosmology is the study of the origins and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, structure, dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the natural laws that keep it in order.[1] Religious cosmology (or mythological cosmology) is a body of beliefs based on the historical, mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation and eschatology.

Religious creation myths explain existence and nature of reality. Views about the origin (cosmogony) and final condition (eschatology) of the universe are foundational elements of a religious understanding of humanity's role in the universe.

Esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its less tradition-bound construction and reliance on modern "intellectual understanding" rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on spirituality as a formative concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

Where does Gods word fit in?

tob