The Big Bang is Busted

[Godfree]

The Cosmic Rainbow ,
more proof or re-named old proof , was tired light ,
Hubble referred to tired light as the explanation for the red shift ,
Michael Lewis ,
The Hubble red shift ;by photon decay ,
a sensible explanation ,
also check out the writing of Paul Violette
for further challenges to the bbt

[SpheresOfBalance]

Electromagnetic energy can be either reflected, scattered, or absorbed!

[Godfree]

Electromagnetic energy can be either reflected, scattered, or absorbed!

there are more things wrong with the bbt than there are right ,
if the universe had been expanding for 13 billion years, thats a lot of expansion , 13 billion years ago there should have been , we should see in those 13 billion year old images , a huge star at the middle of the point of origin ,
billions of galaxies clustered around the "middle"
the pattern of galaxies resembles that of soap bubbles ,
in that there are lines of clusters in between big gaps or holes in the space,
so gravity is drawing all the bits towards the clusters leaving empty pockets ,
if the bbt was correct we would expect to see condensed clusters closer to the "point of origin" and sparse clusters the further out you go ,but this is not the case, evenly spaced throughout ,
is the red shift the only proof on offer for the universe expanding ,
you would have thought if they can confirm this with other means they would have by now,,,???

[John]

if the bbt was correct we would expect to see condensed clusters closer to the "point of origin" and sparse clusters the further out you go

That's not what the theory proposes. It proposes that space expanded so you would expect to see objects receding from each other as you would dots on the surface of a balloon as it is inflated.

[Godfree]

if the bbt was correct we would expect to see condensed clusters closer to the "point of origin" and sparse clusters the further out you go

That's not what the theory proposes. It proposes that space expanded so you would expect to see objects receding from each other as you would dots on the surface of a balloon as it is inflated.

I'm talking about the 13 billion year old images , just after the expansion???
started , if you play the expansion backwards 13 billion years,
the billions of galaxies at say our distance , about half way across the known universe, would be a whole lot closer to the point of origin ,
same number of galaxies , squashed into a much smaller ring,,!!!
the observational data does not support the bbt,,,!!!

[John]

I'm talking about the 13 billion year old images , just after the expansion???

Is this a question?

started , if you play the expansion backwards 13 billion years,
the billions of galaxies at say our distance , about half way across the known universe, would be a whole lot closer to the point of origin ,
same number of galaxies , squashed into a much smaller ring,,!!!

Apart from the fact that galaxies didn't all form at the same time you need to get away from this concept of a point of origin because it wasn't a conventional explosion with an epicentre.

the observational data does not support the bbt,,,!!!

You say that but the people with the telescopes say otherwise.

[chaz wyman]

if the bbt was correct we would expect to see condensed clusters closer to the "point of origin" and sparse clusters the further out you go

That's not what the theory proposes. It proposes that space expanded so you would expect to see objects receding from each other as you would dots on the surface of a balloon as it is inflated.

I'm talking about the 13 billion year old images , just after the expansion???
started , if you play the expansion backwards 13 billion years,
the billions of galaxies at say our distance , about half way across the known universe, would be a whole lot closer to the point of origin ,
same number of galaxies , squashed into a much smaller ring,,!!!
the observational data does not support the bbt,,,!!!

So, to make things crystal clear - please explain your solution.
The universe has existed forever yes/no?
The light from other galaxies is red shifted because the light is 'tired'? yes/no.
And you explain Olbers paradox how exactly?
what makes you think that this can explain the observations of the astronomers?

[bobevenson]

Surely and hour is an hour regardless of where or when you take it.

Einstein's theory of time being relative has been proven time and time again. As an example, if you take two synchronized atomic clocks, and put one of them on a jet airplane for awhile, the clock on the jet airplane will run slower than the clock on the ground, precisely by the amount of time predicted by Einstein. Case closed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Surely and hour is an hour regardless of where or when you take it.

Einstein's theory of time being relative has been proven time and time again. As an example, if you take two synchronized atomic clocks, and put one of them on a jet airplane for awhile, the clock on the jet airplane will run slower than the clock on the ground, precisely by the amount of time predicted by Einstein. Case closed.

So is it the movement that causes the disparity, or is it the intensity of earths gravitational pull due to proximity? Or could there be another force that's accountable? In this case, is it time that shows the variance, or the clock? Among these possibilities, how could one possibly discern, which created the difference?

Case only closed, to a close mind!

Is it just hero 'worship?'

[bobevenson]

Surely and hour is an hour regardless of where or when you take it.

Einstein's theory of time being relative has been proven time and time again. As an example, if you take two synchronized atomic clocks, and put one of them on a jet airplane for awhile, the clock on the jet airplane will run slower than the clock on the ground, precisely by the amount of time predicted by Einstein. Case closed.

So is it the movement that causes the disparity, or is it the intensity of earths gravitational pull due to proximity? Or could there be another force that's accountable? In this case, is it time that shows the variance, or the clock? Among these possibilities, how could one possibly discern, which created the difference?

Case only closed, to a close mind!

Is it just hero 'worship?'

I gave a single example showing confirmation of the relativity of time. There is absolutely NO scientific question that speed affects time. Time is NOT absolute. Einstein's theory has been EXACTLY proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[John]

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Come up with a theory that actually explains phenomena and then you can challenge Einstein. Until then you have nothing and it just sounds like an unwillingness to accept something that seems counter-intuitive.

[Godfree]

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Come up with a theory that actually explains phenomena and then you can challenge Einstein. Until then you have nothing and it just sounds like an unwillingness to accept something that seems counter-intuitive.

There are many problems with Einsteins curved space time ,
Time began with the bb ,
so many assumptions in that statement,
assuming there is no more universe out there observing our wee event,
assuming that it wasn't a big black hole that went bang ,
as this would indicate a cycle or process before the bang ,,
assumes the universe is finite ,
I have yet to hear a sane explanation for a finite universe ,
give it a go John , the nothing ,the no space and time ,
what exists in the space the space is about to expand into,
where does all the matter come from ,
if not a previous cycle and black hole containing all the matter,,???
and do you agree that the bbt is suggesting there was no god before the bang also,,,???

[SpheresOfBalance]

Surely and hour is an hour regardless of where or when you take it.

Then:

Einstein's theory of time being relative has been proven time and time again. As an example, if you take two synchronized atomic clocks, and put one of them on a jet airplane for awhile, the clock on the jet airplane will run slower than the clock on the ground, precisely by the amount of time predicted by Einstein. Case closed.

Then:

So is it the movement that causes the disparity, or is it the intensity of earths gravitational pull due to proximity? Or could there be another force that's accountable? In this case, is it time that shows the variance, or the clock? Among these possibilities, how could one possibly discern, which created the difference?

Case only closed, to a close mind!

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Then:

I gave a single example showing confirmation of the relativity of time. There is absolutely NO scientific question that speed affects time. Time is NOT absolute. Einstein's theory has been EXACTLY proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Case in point!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is it just hero 'worship?'

Come up with a theory that actually explains phenomena and then you can challenge Einstein. Until then you have nothing and it just sounds like an unwillingness to accept something that seems counter-intuitive.

To your mind, so you 'worship' him huh? Answer my questions first then I'll address disproving your 'hero.' I submit that my questions/points speak for themselves. Maybe you fail to comprehend.

And don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Einstein, for a whole bunch of reasons.

But he was just a man!

[Godfree]

Is it just hero 'worship?'[/color][/quote]Then:

I gave a single example showing confirmation of the relativity of time. There is absolutely NO scientific question that speed affects time. Time is NOT absolute. Einstein's theory has been EXACTLY proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Case in point!

[/quote]
speed effects time , as speed effects sound , so lets use that as the example,
the train coming at you is producing the note c ,
as it comes near the pitch goes up , as as it goes away the pitch goes down ,
but sitting in the train , the note has remained C
the train is reality , and the note C
the rise and fall in pitch are perceptions ,distortions ,
and the reality , the note C has remained C all along,
speed may effect time for some , but time has remained time ,,!!!
just as the note C has remained the note C,
we don't effect time , we perceive it in different ways ,
but time remains the same ,
time did not begin with any wee bang we may have had ,
just because we are not there to observe it , doesn't mean it does not exist ,
it means we don't know ,
what existed before the bang , we don't know ,
so any claims that there was no space or time ,
is pure speculation, assumption and guess work ,
I can guess to , my guess is as good as Einsteins ,
in my opinion it's better , time and space are infinite ,
and only a fool would assume otherwise ,,!!!!!