Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps.

Quote: "Instead, plasma cosmology assumes that, because we now see an evolving, changing universe, the universe has always existed and always evolved, and will exist and evolve for an infinite time to come." ( http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p13.htm ; )

That is, we believe (have faith in) the correctness of the most popular current set of theories, though we probably know nothing.

CC.

Ancient galaxy clusters and galaxy collisions! This is all strong evidence that the universe doesn't have a beginning.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

They're calculating this based on the redshift, which has a remarkable correlation with distance. Another method of estimating distance is by angular size. The assumption that redshift of distant objects indicates they are moving away at near light-speed, along with the assumption that matter cannot travel faster than light, are the basis for the Big Bang Theory. These images are a strong counter-argument to that theory, because mature galaxies should not have existed at that time.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

What NASA really meant to say was, "Shit, we just found something else that does not fit our current model of the universe. Lets just make some stuff up and call it a new discovery"

Maybe this time people will wake up.....probably not.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

People around here take BB Theory *very* seriously. In fact, most people around here perceive BB to be more than just a theory. It is considered to be fact. They achieve this level of certainty, however, only by disregarding vast numbers of anomalous observations and many apparent technical contradictions. Eric J Lerner goes into some detail on these contradictions at http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/, but people would be very wise to leave complex discussions of BB Theory to the astrophysicists. It's generally a lose-lose proposition for any layman to become involved in these debates. The contradictions tend to be so complicated that only BB experts and degreed astrophysicists can truly understand what threat they pose. For this reason, it can be virtually impossible to have a calm, dignified discussion about BB Theory with a BB advocate because they will typically use complex mathematics to demonstrate that the theory could still be true in spite of some apparent contradiction. But they will oftentimes in these arguments completely leave out any information related to the likelihood of the explanations they offer (perhaps in some cases because they don't even know), and they'll do their best to ridicule anybody who does not possess their own mathematical pedigree. It's not considered worth their time to explain this complex mathematical theory to people who have not been trained exactly like themselves -- which begs an important question: what if their training is somehow wrong? This is, after all, still an interpretive science. If you have to spend four years studying physics and astrophysics in order to evaluate BB Theory, then this rasises the second legitimate question: if the theory has so many apparent contradictions, why would any reasonable, objective person consider spending 5% of their lifetime learning it?

The truth is, I believe, that we can evaluate the mainstream theories without actually learning every single detail about them, through case studies. There are many instances where we can just use our eyes to discount their math. We can quite easily observe, for instance, that there are numerous rilles (canyons) on the rocky planets that move both up and down with the terrain of the planets. Furthermore, we can observe that these rilles will occasionally break up into chains of craters, and that craters are oftentimes associated with rilles. This is a very important observation that anybody can validate for themselves without an advanced mathematical degree, because it suggests that plasmas in space are electrical in nature, and that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge over electrical plasmas (as we can see plasmas doing in the laboratory). Amazingly, BB Theory has no ability to explain these anomalous rilles because it does not allow that electrical plasmas are doing anything of any significance within space. Mainstream astrophysicists just ignore them, as if they just don't exist, oblivious to the fact that whatever created them couldn't care less for gravity.

The worrisome thing to me is that it appears that the mere existence of mathematical proofs appears to increasingly be used as proof that it is true. Logic and reason, on the other hand, are increasingly considered somehow less adequate for understanding our surroundings. When observations appear anomalous, as with Halton Arp's high redshift quasars in front of low redshift spiral galaxies, we're told that our eyes are being deceived. Even when his statistics have been validated by a third party, his results continue to be ignored because they do not support BB Theory. Traditionally, math has been used as a mechanism for characterizing a theory that is probable and that abides by Occam's Razor. But now, the math has become the proof itself, when it's convenient, and without consideration for the likelihood that it even represents reality.

Big Bang is an hypothesis, and a wrong one, too. I've seen four different groups point out four different ways in which the hypothesis is unquestionably refuted. The least subtle that I can recall is the BigBangNeverHappened crew, but they're only one of many. They're not religious whackos, either.

My personal favourite refutation is this image, of a highly redshifted (z=2.11) quasar sitting between us and an opaque galaxy (NGC 7319, part of Stephan's Quintet, z=0.0225), but many others prefer the Blazar 3C 345, an object which is changing shape, if current astrophysics is correct, at roughly seven times the speed of light. However, there's no reason to fight, 'coz there's plenty of other "anomalous" objects to go around.

Notice that the NGC 7319 shot is from Hubble and hosted by JPL; this is not a backyard job or some random Russian with a unique idea, and 3C 345 is from the VLBA and hosted by Boston University.

The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic web along which galaxies flow.'

But wait, there's more. Over here you can read up on some more of his theories as well as a link to a paper on his homepage titled Prospects for p11B fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus: New Results from 2002.

Now if this is such promising stuff here then why has it been collecting dust for the past three years? Perhaps our local plasma experts can wade through the technical data in the above mentioned paper and enlighten the rest of us.

All cosmologists border on crankhood; it goes with the territory. What's important is whether they cross the line. (Hint: 99% "dark matter" is way, way beyond.) However, Lerner has his own page disputing the many misrepresentations on that page. We don't know if Wright's or Lerner's is a better model, but it is clear, at least, that Wright is pretending to answer claims Lerner didn't make.

The effects will be great, no doubt. Too bad the science behind most of what they'll say is bunk.