Posted by: graemebird | January 2, 2009

The Big Bang Cannot Be True.

Cobbled together from two posts at Richard Dawkins site:

The original question is not really worth pondering. Since the Big Bang theory is based on two doctrines that are not true and cannot be true. Not only is the Big Bang, in its current formulation, based on these two doctrines. But it represents a reduction to absurdity of the doctrines that it is built upon.

QUESTION:

Care to explain why they are not true and cannot be true?
ANSWER:
The Hubble doctrine cannot be true. Since it alledges that the implied red shift of distant objects is due to the speed at which they are moving away from us alone. Not only is that not true but it cannot be true. Since the Universe is full of subatomic particles. There are plenty of electrons charging about. So much so as for them and other particles to be raining down on our atmosphere, and the conjunction of these and the solar wind creates a bow wave which marks the end of our solar system by one measure.  

The existence of this sort of “soup” means that the doctrine not only is not true but cannot be true. Since the continual absorption and emission of light travelling through these particles must have some sort of effect. This particular Hubble doctrine always constituted slim evidence since it was non-convergent. If teamed up with something else (say parallax) you would have two lines of convergence but really you want three or more lines before one goes off jumping to conclusions.

I could discuss another key doctrine that the Big Bang is built on. But that ought to do for now. One doesn’t like being bullied off the air straight away by mindless advocates of the intellectual status quo. The skeptical movement has gone a bit off track. Not with Dawkins. Not with Randi. Not with Ian Plimer. But with the youngsters who live off the crumbs that fall from their table. The other problem is the fact that science is now the public service. There is just no oversight when it comes to some areas of this taxeater network. A life of living off public funds tends to go to ones head.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The other doctrine I was thinking of was the doctrine of special relativity. This is also a doctrine that cannot be true. But the problem is that people are emotionally if not religiously involved with this particular wrong doctrine. Hence I couldn’t give any glib answer to this. And so this is why I started a new thread to begin to show people why the doctrine of special relativity is wrong. The first task was to show the dubious notion of building on the concept of time, itself a derivative concept. And my explanation for that is in the thread below.
One has to be very tactful when going up against secular-religious beliefs.  Non-fundamentalist religious people ought not be troubled by feelings of inferiority when coming up against their average young skeptic. 
Advertisements

Responses

  1. Well what a coincidence. They are talking about this Big Bang doctrine right now at catallaxy. As usual fatfingers has matters entirely and predictably wrong.

    “Are those who believe in the big bang creationist? …does it really matter if it was ‘created’ by God or gods or out of nothing?”

    The fact you can even ask the question shows how bad your grasp of the issue is.

    The Big Bang is the logical endpoint of winding back time according to current theories. It is the scientific formalisation of “I dunno” when it comes to the question of where the universe comes from. It’s the opposite of starting with a religious premise and trying to shoe-horn that into observable reality.

    And if you want to join the discussion on Troppo, what’s stopping you?”

    But as wrong as he is fatty suddenly sounds a lot more intelligent than usual. When this happens he is usually cribbing from somewhere. You have the google fellas. Why not find out from whence fatty is doing his cribbing?

  2. Hello Gramebird, I hope you are having a great New Year. I can see you are busy working on the blog. I have been low on steam since I’m convinced the world has gone insane! Interesting post. 🙂

  3. You might be interested in this, Bird.

    “Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that ‘the science is in.’ Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.”

    Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted.

  4. It’s interesting that more and more people are declaring themselves “sceptics” now. Have they lost their nerve?

  5. “Hello Gramebird, I hope you are having a great New Year. I can see you are busy working on the blog. I have been low on steam since I’m convinced the world has gone insane! Interesting post.”

    Actually I’ve been busy arguing at the Amazing randi and Richard Dawkins websites mostly
    nice to hear from you.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yeah CL. Thats what I’ve been saying. That the data was in and the alarmists had lost. That we faced COOLING NOT WARMING. And any amount of human influence going to the other way, if it were true, was obviously good.

  6. Hi Graeme

    See it took you exactly three comments to get booted off Dawkins’ place. Still glad to see you’re the King! 🙂 .

    I know I’m going to regret this profoundly but why can’t the Special Theory of Relativity be true?

  7. Well thanks for that explanation Graeme. So why haven’t you logged on here – http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=706

  8. Here is a refutation of the Big Bang that the bully-boys just ignore.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr_CLZvXTIo

    Here is another pouring scorn on the relentless idiocy of the big bang contingent. In the whole argument over at Randis and Richards there was only one fellow who came up with an argument that I am yet to show was circular. So when all the fuss dies down and you look at the outcome there is just nothing. I’ve got to check out a certain type of star apparently that can act as a marker.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo&NR=1

  9. Now we are cooking. I swear. We need to cut off all the funds to these frauds. Sol Invictus must lose his pension. He’s a fraud. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is fucking Phil Plait his own stupid fucking self.

    http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

    Its just this sort of absolute bloody idiocy that finally made me realize that this was dumb-leftist maths-boy idiocy:

    “Too many Hypothetical Entities–Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
    The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities–the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results.

    Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.”

  10. “Too many Hypothetical Entities–Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation” is wrong. The first 2 are observed properties of the universe that any cosmology has to include. They are as factual as the CMB and the measured increase of velocity of galaxies with distance (the Hubble releationship).

    Thus there is only 1 hypothetical entity.

    • No thats rubbish. Inflation is just crap. Total make-believe. Obvious lies. The treatment of the universe as if it were Lotus 123 or other spreadsheet software.

      Instead of Sampson pushing a couple of pillars apart the irrational maths nutball thinks he can force 100’s of billions of stars apart and not violate the conservation of energy. And how does Phil Plait believe this can be done?

      Why just allow space to spontaneously create itself. No energy expended and billons of galaxies prised apart. A totally irrational and mystical view of reality.

  11. As for the main atricle: ” Since the continual absorption and emission of light travelling through these particles must have some sort of effect” is correct. Astronomers are well aware of this (and also the other sources of redshift). For example there is the Lyman-alpha forest, Compton scattering, etc.
    These effects are too small to account for the redshift.
    The most that the continual absorption and emission of light does is make the lines in the spectrum that are shifted a bit blurry.

    • No thats rubbish. There are many examples where red shift is substantial and not caused by doppler. Here you are just lying. Ignoring all those Quasars that are of far greater red shift than their nearby galaxies.

  12. What a pathetic lie. That Dark Energy and Dark Matter are observed properties of the universe. You are lying Plait. Thats why they were named dark energy and dark mass. Because they WERE NOT observed.

    They are merely fudge factors. The need for them proves Phil Plaits version of cosmology wrong but instead of getting it right the Phil Plaits just invent a fudge factor.

    So inflation is wrong and absurd. No problem. Just invent it. What a good way of getting round the light speed limit.

    So the place doesn’t appear to have enough matter to hold it together. No problem. The Phil Plait cosmology says just invent that Dark Matter. Just make it up. If you have a problem just make it all up.

    But now the Phil Plait version of red shift says that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. Why thats no problem. The Phil Plait crowd just invents Dark Energy. The dumb bastards never retreat from any of their fantasies they just invent new ones as cover.

  13. OK Plait. Sort out that Quasar problem. You are just going to ignore it aren’t you? Yes you are.

  14. As factual as the CMB. What a fucking crock that was. Pretty much ALL non Big Bangers predicted a cosmic background prior to it being found. You are just full of shit mate. The Big Bangers didn’t nail that prediction. The non-inflationists and pre-inflationists did.

    What sort of a nutball would have expected the background temperature to be absolute zero.

    This is just fucking proof the you are a fraud Fisk. You would have known the history of it. That the Bangers didn’t predict any fucking thing that hadn’t already been predicted or found out. They did not predict the CMB. They stole it.

  15. Think about it. Thats a giveaway to the religious bully-boy nature of the big bang racket there. No Banger had any fucking thing to do with calculating background warmth. Eddington predicted and got the temperature right early on. And he wasn’t a banger at all.

  16. P.S. If you shill thnk that I an Plait the please note that my email address ends in .nz

  17. Right. Very good. That post can stay since I’m convinced that you are not lying. Now here’s the thing. Normally speaking I would simply wipe any post with even one lie in it. Zep posts after a manner such that I’m liable to wipe two thirds of his posts on grounds of tedium alone.

    But right now it probably appears that I’ve wiped a lot more posts than what is really the case. All rightists and righteous men come around full circle to the point of view that they need to wipe posts from their own blogs at least after the fact since it is leftists that are the problem. At first, offended by outrageous leftist censorship the righteous will swear off censorship, but since it is leftists that are roaming the internet in proto-troll gangs this, always turns out to be untenable.

    All Scienceblog websites are hateful leftist anti-science goons and there can be no gainsaying it. On one particularly moronic site I made ONE POST and that was enough to get me banned permanently. ONE POST.

    The unscience lunatic in question was Blake Stacey. Now THERE is one dim bulb.

    My policy tends to fall into three categories. Two general and one depending on the person.

    GENERAL POLICIES:

    1. Wipe any post with even one lie in them. For example if someone claimed that Quasars always had the same redshift as the galaxies that generate them, this would normally be wiped immediately. If you are making a really long post my advice is to put that lie in a separate post all its own so that I don’t wipe out all your efforts in the rush to get to that obvious and malicious lie.

    2. Thin down tedious posts after the fact.

    SPECIFIC POLICIES.

    3. With super tedious people who nonetheless make a good faith argument I’ll tend to let people see the point you are making then maybe thin these posts down a couple of days after the fact.

    What I’ll be unlikely to do is ban you outright like that fuckwit Blake Stacy did.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Anyway there are a few posts that I haven’t wiped but instead I’ve unapproved them for the moment. Since I’m busy and I don’t want these lies and confessions of professional ineptitude to dilute my blog until I have the time to neutralise the hateful attempts to lie to Joe Public and his fine big-titty special friend.

  18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    DIGRESSION TO DEAL WITH THIS MALICIOUS ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE LAITY ABOUT QUASARS.

    Lets see what wiki says about Quasars to see if they will give themselves away.

    “A quasar (contraction of QUASi-stellAR radio source) is an extremely powerful and distant active galactic nucleus. Quasars WERE FIRST IDENTIFIED AS BEING HIGH REDSHIFT SOURCES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.

    While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects — as recently as the 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their nature — there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region 10-10,000 Schwarzschild radii across SURROUNDING THE CENTRAL SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE OF A GALAXY, powered by its accretion disc.”

    Do you see how the lunatics at Wiki have busted the lunatic FISK???????

    What does stupid-town, by its own admission, say about Quasars?

    1. THEY ARE ALL ASSOCIATED WITH A GALAXY. INDEED WITH THE CENTRE OF A GALAXY. THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKING THAT THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A GALAXY OR WHICH GALAXY IT IS THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH.

    2. WHEN FIRST DISCOVERED THE THING THAT DREW COMMENT, THE THING THAT WAS NOTED ABOUT THEM. THE TAKE-HOME STORY WAS THEIR HIGH RED-SHIFT.

    Well considering Fisks lies how could that be? There they are in the centre of galaxies. And there they are with all this extraordinary red shift. So much so that this was their main initial mystery. Hence it is the case that before the compulsive liars got their story straight, so as to align it with the moronic Big Bang Theory…….well it was the case that everyone fucking knew that a Quasar had higher red shift then the galaxy that created it. But that didn’t JIBE with the Big Bang, so it had to be ethnically cleansed and so we caught Fisk lying.

    Galaxies PRODUCE Quasars. And Quasars are noted for having red shift higher than the galaxy that grows them.

    So Fisk lied again. Just like special relativity this Big Bang rubbish is kept alive by constant lying.

    END OF DIGRESSION.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  19. Quasars are the extremely active core of galaxies. They move with the galaxy. A redshift detected from a quasar is the redshift of the galaxy. This has been confirmed by astronomers actually measuring the redshift of the quasar and the host galaxy separately.

    So using your all caps format:
    THE REDSHIFT MEASUREMENT IS THE REDSHIFT MEASUREMENT OF ENTIRE GALAXY INCLUDING THE CENTRAL SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE THAT IS THE QUASAR.

    The “initial mystery” with quasars has nothing to do with their redshift. It was to do with why they are so bright. The accepted explanation is that they are very active super massive black holes. YOU IDIOT.IF THEY WERE BLACK HOLES ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN STUPID THEORY, THERE WOULD BE NO LIGHT COMING FROM THEM.

  20. What are you on about Grahame, everybody knows the Big Bang theory was invented by the mayor of Hiroshima when he said:

    What the fuck was that???

    SITE DEITY: ATTEMPT NOT TO BE CALLOUS KEMP WILL YOU?

  21. Yeah Gra, that’s it. the scientific community is shaking in it’s boots that you are going to upstage them all….

  22. I aint upstaging anyone. I’m just letting people know that the unscience community is dysfunctional and seeing to it that actual scientists can never make traction. I didn’t invent any of this. I can work out when the idiots are wrong. I have no hope of constructing the replacement theories myself.

  23. Can you cite the reasons that the “unscience community is dysfunctional”?

  24. Yes I can. Human institutions are inherently dysfunctional. Let me give you three words which prove this. RENDITION-TO-SYRIA.

    An exception is the institution of (at least) small business under 100%-backed hard money. But generally speaking we expect stolen money organisations to tend towards dysfunction if not objective insanity. The iron law is that they reinforce their mistakes.

  25. Mr Bird

    I pray you have not developed pro-terrorist sympathies? what exactly is wrong with rendition? These terrorists deserve to be subject to the tortures of the Inquisition.

  26. Why to Syria? They are an enemy country. A terror sponsor. American spooktown was so dysfunctional that they seem to have considered the Syrian leadership their friend right up until the murder of Harere.

    If we want to rendition them we could have brought some of our Israeli friends out of retirement. Jews and dogs. I’m sure that is something that could get an Arab talking but at the same time not going too far as Vito would have it.

  27. The BBT was always based on one utterly flawed assumption. That redshift=recessional velocity=distance. Since everthing is rushing away from everything else, at some time in the distant past it MUST have been compressed into a single point. But was that initial assumption about the cause of redshift correct? Hubble, it’s discoverer didn’t think so, and he said so. Mainstream astronomy ignored him. Hoyle also didn’t think so. Astronomers ignored him too. Then along came Halton Arp in the 1960’s with his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and discordant redshifts, in which he clearly showed highly redshifted Quasars physically connected to low redshift parent galaxies. Thus PROVING that redshift was not an indicator of velocity and hence distance, but an intrinsic property of the matter in the object itself. That observation alone killed the BBT stone dead, and showed astronomers and physicists that they had been living in a fantasy world all their lives. Now what was Arp’s reward for this all-important discovery? Did he receive the Nobel Prize? Alas no, he was persecuted by the Astronomy and Physics establishment (the modern Church), denied all access to telescopes to continue his research, and eventually forced to leave his home country and relocate to the Max Planck Institute in Germany. In short he was marginalised and silenced for his heretical views, even though he had proof. Remember Galileo anyone? The BBT is Religious Dogma, not Science. String Theory is an embarrassing joke. But this is not unusual in science. How many people still believe not only in the Big Bang, but also that the speed of light is a universal speed limit? Well that was also quashed in a famous experiment by Alain Aspect and his team too. That was back in the 80s!

    • Yeah great screed Michael. And every word true.

  28. Electrons in space. Thats impossible. THERE IS NO SPACE

    (We have no evidence for time. No evidence for multiple universes in parallel. But we experience evidence for space every waking moment).

    LIGHT gets TIRED when it has been travelling a long way through this etheric plasm. Thats what red shift really is!

    (As a stand-alone statement thats a pretty good guess. Use of personification notwithstanding).

    The so called Big Bang and the Electronic Universe crowds are all the same.

    (No the Big Bang crowd are either civilians who have not yet caught on, or else they are idiots, or incurable ideologues. Whereas the electric universe crowd are brilliant, at least when they are talking strictly about Plasma physics. I have no opinion on the synthesis being made between electric universe theory being used in conjunction with explanations to do with myths, legends, or ancient artifacts that bear odd similarities worldwide.)

    They RANT and RAVE but I see NO EVIDENCE for any of their theories!

    (The electric universe crowd has excellent evidence for their theories.)

  29. Fucking hell birdlab is a moron. He links a picture of some sanddunes and he concludes what? On what basis. The guy is a fucking retard.

    Here are the picture of the sand-dunes. And what can we conclude from that? That we have a picture of sandunes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/mars-tree-photo-nasa-hiri_n_421507.html

  30. Hi Graeme , great stuff , the world needs more of it ,
    I’v been fighting what seemed like a lone battle for years ,
    been on Sam Harises The Reason Project , currently Philosophynow,
    I’m running threads called”the big bang is busted”
    “The fabric of space”, “science fiction or fact”
    I have been trying to find good evidence against the bbt,
    it has always seemed like rubbish to me,
    no space and no time ,??? can’t see any logic there ,
    finite universe , the same , expanding and accelerating ,,???
    please ,give me a break , The proof for photon decay will convince a few but it seems if they don’t want to see it , no amount of logic or facts will persuade them, I’m having a strange time getting fellow Atheists to see that a belief system based on reality ,
    would be better than leaving them at the mercy of religion,
    steady state or static universe doesn’t really explain my view ,
    so I have called it”The Cosmic Rainbow”
    as this sort of describes what I believe we will see when we eventually have the software good enough to see it .
    Birth and re-birth of the galaxies ,
    I don’t believe a single event can involve the whole infinite universe , logisticaly impossible,
    Rex Wilkinson , NZ

    • “Birth and re-birth of the galaxies ,”

      Exactly. What we are talking about, and what we see out there, is organic growth. Birth-growth-decay-renewal, and so forth.

      There is STUFF, and there is MATTER, and reality exists when, MATTER becomes able to convert STUFF to MATTER.

      Matter is that STUFF that is locked in with the gravitational network. STUFF is not locked into the gravitational network, and barely reacts with MATTER. But matter is its own conversion mechanism, or reality could not exist. MATTER IS CREATED (…… well at least CONVERTED) “On-location” as it were.

      What I’m laying on you is controversial stuff which is a bit rude. Because what you pointed out to me ought not be the least bit controversial.

  31. Rex Wikinsons law of galaxy motion,
    “All galaxies are moving towards their nearest galaxy”
    this is the observational data , this is what we see,
    not galaxies expanding away from each other, no,
    clumping together in big strings or chains , clusters or clumps ,
    and the big gaps in between suggest a long time has occurred ,
    think about it , with no other force acting on the galaxies ,
    what choice do they have , it would be just a matter of time ,
    sooner or later they would move towards each other,
    you heard it first here ,,,cheers Graeme .

  32. I have no idea what you mean? I haven’t tried to break into Catallaxy for a very long time.

  33. Today, I went to the beach front with my kids.
    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.”
    She placed the shell to her ear and screamed. There
    was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back!

    LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: