Halton Arp - Redshifts,Quasars - a modern day Galileo....

[jonboylondon]

Following on from the posts I have made here is a brief video showing the growing number of respected cosmologists questioning the bing bang theory. I think their warnings need to be heeded...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Pme3XL1 ... re=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EjQVybreS ... re=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrzpeRoW ... re=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrPmEYtp ... re=related



JBL

[Malvoisin]

I think the LHC experiment will give us closer hints on what theories are better than others. Until those experimental data are gathered, it's all just theoretical talk .

[Flocke]

The peculiar galaxy NGC 7603 looks quite crazy, just as if it's a single 'normal' galaxy being mirrored one or even multiple times by a big blackhole, this might be an answer for the redshift differences as well - without having learned all the physics and stuff.
I think that galaxy is a bad example and this "documentation" doesn't look very professional or serious as well.
The red shift is 'in fact' an indicate for distance, although it might be influenced or restricted in some way.

I'm not a believer of the big bang theory anyway. Although there might have been such a big bang, I'll never believe that there has been nothing before, as well as I'll never believe that the space is just finite only cause of the 'darkness' we have at night (forgot how that theory has been named).

And I won't believe that being faster than light is 'completely impossible', although it might be in the normal way of thinking.

And I won't believe that I can't walk through the wall and get the networklayer working some day! *bang* *bang*

[Malvoisin]

I think the Olbers paradoxon is quite well-founded: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olberssche ... 3.A4rungen

well, nobody says there was nothing before the big bang, just everything was in perfect symmetrical order. Prof. Lesch explains it quite well for the beginner.

[Flocke]

Yeah, now I remember, the Olbers Paradoxon, thx Malvoisin.
And yes, I really like the lections of Lesch, have often seen them some time ago!
Most people talk about the big bang as if there hasn't exist anything before and being just in 'perfect symmetrical order' isn't much of a difference.

[RSE_Chris]

And I won't believe that being faster than light is 'completely impossible', although it might be in the normal way of thinking.

Yea, people used to think it would be impossible to travel on trains, we just didn't know how.

[jonboylondon]

I think the LHC experiment will give us closer hints on what theories are better than others. Until those experimental data are gathered, it's all just theoretical talk .

Prof Peter Higgs is the main man behind the idea and implementation of the Large Hadron Collider.

“The mysterious boson postulated by Professor Higgs, of the University of Edinburgh, has become so fundamental to physics that it is often nicknamed the ‘God particle’. After more than 40 years of research, and billions of pounds, scientists have yet to prove that it is real."

The Times April 8th 2008

I have to ask the following question...

Why will the LHC give us closer hints?? It has been constructed with the purpose to prove one theory and one theory only.., that of the Big Bang. It was funded by an academia that follows this one theory. The LHC accelerates beams of protons in opposite directions around a circular 27 km underground racetrack and then smashes them together head-on. The expense comes from the need to reach particle energies seven times that of earlier particle colliders and to construct a massive particle detector ‘cathedral’ underground. The energy density reached in the experiment is thought to mimic the earliest moments of the big bang â€" the origin of the universe.

------------

I found this quote when doing some reading recently...

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.â€

[Malvoisin]

JBL, now you sound illogic. Is it not allowed to build an experiment to prove or possibly disprove a theory? How should that be accomplished otherwise? Plz, stop talking so biased about science.

[RSE_Chris]

The Big Bang is still a good theory, and the LHC experiment can only serve to enlighten us whatever the outcome. We may, learn of things we never knew about before. We may, find this higgs "god" particle.

Either way, it has not been done in a controlled environment on this scale before and we will learn something regardless of what happens.

[SpiN]

Hi

The LHC aims to study the open problems of the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions (bare gravity!). This means

electroweak symmetry breaking: higgs particle is thought to be resposible for that, but its only the easiest way, some think its to naive to be true.

CP assimetry: this is responsible that in the early universe there were more particles than antiparticles and thus when both anihilated with each other some particles remained.

The LHC also will be looking for physics beyond the standard model, this means new particles (candidates to dark mater), extra dimensions (if they exist mini black holes may be created).

About the Bing bang: general relativity predics that an expanding universe has to begin with a singularity, a point of size zero, infinit density an temperature. However at some point at very high energies (<=> high temperature) general relativity fails to be an accurate theory for gravity and thus you cant belive its predictions. So, we know that son thausend milion years ago the universe was a very, very small, hot and dense and it was expanding.

[jonboylondon]

JBL, now you sound illogic. Is it not allowed to build an experiment to prove or possibly disprove a theory? How should that be accomplished otherwise? Plz, stop talking so biased about science.

I am not biased.... the big bang is not science it is theory. Please do not suggest that i am biased as I am not....look:

If you actually take the time to investigate the big bang theory you will find that there are huge holes in the theory! Two real stinkers that are excellent examples... "Dark Matter" an "Dark Energy"

Dark Matter was born out of a panic when according to readings taken by scientific community there simply was not enough matter in the universe to support there theory. In fact they were out by 10 to the power of 107!!!!
So in turn the created Dark Matter. There is no proof of dark matter, no readings,no measurements it was just made up. Then they said that this would account for 97% of the missing universe. They then re done the calculations and again found even with the Dark matter variant added they still were miles out.
So they then invented another imaginary force "dark energy" to factor in (again dark energy has no proof,no measurements and no readings!!),and with this they were able to balence the math.

In no scientific field would you be able to do this!!! Add a imaginary variant into an equation and you reduce that equation meaningless. This is not biased this is common sense. In no experiment would you be able to be 10 to the power of 107 out and then continue.... its crazy , illogical and downright rubbish.

There are more holes and i would be happy to explain further if you wish Mal such as CMB imbalence and Gamow Temprature of the Universe. These are not particullary hard to follow and im sure a reasonably intelligent being would not have a problem at looking at them with an balenced viewpoint and coming to the same conclusion

I do not hold to any particular theory at present but I cannot and will not follow a theory that was based upon a religeous theme.

You have posted several comments Mal and to be honest in your first post called an alternate proposal that the scientific world, based on science conducted in laboratories with proven scientific merit you described as

religious bullshit.

I suggest that you actually read up on the big bang theory and the huge holes it has in it. To me the fact that the BBT relys on a principle of starting from the bang and going forward where as scienctific methodology you do the reverse (say with biology and evolution for example).

However even if as you think as Chris does-

The Big Bang is still a good theory.

I am calling for more of us to actually press ahead in a scientific fashion and work from A to B to C.

I am calling for the scientific world to realise that as Carl Sagan in a previous post I made "suppresion of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religeon and politics but it is not the path to knowledge" - the scientific establishment must stop dismissing alternate ideas, (especially those with proven scientific merit ), and suggesting anything other than the standard model is heresy! Religeon cannot play a role in this field as it clearly is doing!!!

I am calling for a return to science and away from the mathmatical side of cosmology.

I am calling for what all science must be based on....an open mind!!

I am calling for a pizza as its fridaynight and the boxing is about to begin!! If sometimes discussions like this get a bit heavy you need not worry i wont be telling you that the Earth is actually expanding next week!!

Ha Ha!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

[eber3]

In no scientific field would you be able to do this!!! Add a imaginary variant into an equation and you reduce that equation meaningless.

Actually the same thing is done in other scientific fields. Take evolution for example. Microevolution can, and has, been proven time and again. Macroevolution on the other hand has never been proven, yet it is still taught as fact.

[stardust]

Ok, excuse me for seriously dumbing down here, but what's all this talk (or scaremongering) about the LHC potentialy creating a black hole or something along them lines if things go pear shaped?
(yeah i've been watching Mock the week again)

As for Religion mixing with Science, it's usually a bad idea. We had all the furore about people like Galileo suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and Religion calling him a heretic for his observations. Likewise with Darwin and Evolution.

End of the day, what we're trying to do right now with all these differing theories on how Space works is comprehend something that is to me anyway, damn near incomprehensible.
We've probably made a few wrong assumptions along the way and more than likely we're going to make a few more, but it'll all iron out in the long run.

[jonboylondon]

In no scientific field would you be able to do this!!! Add a imaginary variant into an equation and you reduce that equation meaningless.

Actually the same thing is done in other scientific fields. Take evolution for example. Microevolution can, and has, been proven time and again. Macroevolution on the other hand has never been proven, yet it is still taught as fact.

What do you mean... are you talking about "The Cambrian Explosion theme?" The idea that those unknown species mucked up Macro side of it?

If so i saw something on that it was trully bizarre.....

[jonboylondon]

Ok, excuse me for seriously dumbing down here, but what's all this talk (or scaremongering) about the LHC potentialy creating a black hole or something along them lines if things go pear shaped?
(yeah i've been watching Mock the week again)

I'm certain i could explain in fairly straight terms if you or anyone wanted....

JBL