The Big Bang Theory Big Blunder: An Open Letter to Closed Minds
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 5 Oct 2009 19:59 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:59ukc5h56plgn7m1vusu8n996iieviq2nh(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:22:38 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Don Gillies wrote: >>> Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly don't >>> claim to know much. However, I must say that I find the idea of the >>> big bang (a whole lot of stuff appearing out of nothing) just as >>> fantastical as the idea that three letters of the alphabet strung >>> together to spell "god" explain the creation of the universe. A bit >>> more technical detail with the big bang theory, of course, but as far >>> as I know, it hasn't got round the difficulty of how something (an >>> incredible lot of stuff, actually) came out of nothing. I have often >>> felt a bit uneasy about how astronomy books nowdays treat the big >>> bang as accepted fact. There was a time, not so long ago, when books >>> did present it as supposition. Not sure when the change from >>> supposition to accepted dogma came about, but it does look a bit like >>> everyone now feels they have to toe the party line. >> >>You find the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing >>fantastical. Would you find the idea of the universe always >>having been around (or having appeared out of *something*), >>and at the same time conspiring to make us think it appeared >>out of nothing, less fantastical? > > Why don't you come out directly and say what you REALLY believe...A GOD > MADE > THE UNIVERSE. But which god would that be? > > ........why would a muslim god create christians or a christian god create > muslims? No evidence of a god.
From: G. L. Bradford on 6 Oct 2009 03:47 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:pqtkc55kip3ft0k9n1nr3re6r2ui22hpkb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein > <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html >>> >>> I apologize for my possibly rude words, >>> but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) >>> along with the Big Bang Theory are all >>> >>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> >>> the biggest damage to the advance of >>> science ever! >> >> >>Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang >>cosmology? >>They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on >>validity of the big bang theory. > > The big bang theory depends entirely on Einstein's stupid second > postulate. > > Obviously light slows as it travels...hence an average red shift. It slows > at > about 72km/sec/Mpc. =================== Light (information) acquires peripheral light (information) as it expands in the Universe from some complex multi-faceted, multi-elemented, multi-evented source, and is itself acquired as light (information). Acquiring from the north (so to speak), from the south (so to speak), from the east and from the west (so to speak), and from the universe before and the universe after. Always acquiring a universe of peripheral light (information), and always being acquired as peripheral light (information), there's no slowing down. A continuous gain [at c] at every point during expansion in swath upon swath, upon swath (to infinity and burial in an ever changing horizon and picture), of (so to speak) north, south, east and west, before and after, universe periphery there will be, but there will be no slowing down of these swathing gauntlet walls of ever crossing light....or of the directly oncoming light -- or of the directly opposed outgoing light -- in that long matrix-like multi-time (many timed) gauntlet being run everywhere at every point in every direction at the speed of light. GL ===================
From: Inertial on 6 Oct 2009 03:54 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:VI2dnUz_ArOGa1fXnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > news:pqtkc55kip3ft0k9n1nr3re6r2ui22hpkb(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein >> <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html >>>> >>>> I apologize for my possibly rude words, >>>> but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) >>>> along with the Big Bang Theory are all >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> the biggest damage to the advance of >>>> science ever! >>> >>> >>>Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang >>>cosmology? >>>They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on >>>validity of the big bang theory. >> >> The big bang theory depends entirely on Einstein's stupid second >> postulate. >> >> Obviously light slows as it travels...hence an average red shift. It >> slows at >> about 72km/sec/Mpc. > > =================== > > Light (information) acquires peripheral light (information) as it expands > in the Universe from some complex multi-faceted, multi-elemented, > multi-evented source, and is itself acquired as light (information). > Acquiring from the north (so to speak), from the south (so to speak), from > the east and from the west (so to speak), and from the universe before and > the universe after. Always acquiring a universe of peripheral light > (information), and always being acquired as peripheral light > (information), there's no slowing down. A continuous gain [at c] at every > point during expansion in swath upon swath, upon swath (to infinity and > burial in an ever changing horizon and picture), of (so to speak) north, > south, east and west, before and after, universe periphery there will be, > but there will be no slowing down of these swathing gauntlet walls of ever > crossing light....or of the directly oncoming light -- or of the directly > opposed outgoing light -- in that long matrix-like multi-time (many timed) > gauntlet being run everywhere at every point in every direction at the > speed of light. > > GL What a load of waffle (so to speak).
From: G. L. Bradford on 8 Oct 2009 03:41 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:gi3mc5triea9nv7rncf3bglvk9breeheln(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:47:25 -0400, "G. L. Bradford" > <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:pqtkc55kip3ft0k9n1nr3re6r2ui22hpkb(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein >>> <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sep 29, 12:59 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2.html >>>>> >>>>> I apologize for my possibly rude words, >>>>> but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) >>>>> along with the Big Bang Theory are all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the biggest damage to the advance of >>>>> science ever! >>>> >>>> >>>>Why do you bring in SR and GR when you wish to complain about big bang >>>>cosmology? >>>>They are tools used in cosmological theories, neither depends on >>>>validity of the big bang theory. >>> >>> The big bang theory depends entirely on Einstein's stupid second >>> postulate. >>> >>> Obviously light slows as it travels...hence an average red shift. It >>> slows >>> at >>> about 72km/sec/Mpc. >> >>=================== >> >> Light (information) acquires peripheral light (information) as it >> expands >>in the Universe from some complex multi-faceted, multi-elemented, >>multi-evented source, and is itself acquired as light (information). >>Acquiring from the north (so to speak), from the south (so to speak), from >>the east and from the west (so to speak), and from the universe before and >>the universe after. Always acquiring a universe of peripheral light >>(information), and always being acquired as peripheral light >>(information), >>there's no slowing down. A continuous gain [at c] at every point during >>expansion in swath upon swath, upon swath (to infinity and burial in an >>ever >>changing horizon and picture), of (so to speak) north, south, east and >>west, >>before and after, universe periphery there will be, but there will be no >>slowing down of these swathing gauntlet walls of ever crossing light....or >>of the directly oncoming light -- or of the directly opposed outgoing >>light -- in that long matrix-like multi-time (many timed) gauntlet being >>run >>everywhere at every point in every direction at the speed of light. >> >>GL >> >>=================== > > Stick to poetry...You're better at it. > > Henry Wilson ===================== I say agin tt doesn't slow down. Light itself never exists alone, isolated, as if in some kind of independent frame from all other light, space, and time, in the universe. You say it slows down. When would it slow down so much it comes to a halt and just sits there? I understand the *photo* being frozen-still-frame in time for all time [at c], though photos are continuously merging at all times to form new and differing photos, burying the old photos in the deepening depths -- going away -- of photo mergers, but when does the light itself slow down to the point where it stops and freezes in place (as if it would have any place to freeze in place)? Thus becoming isolated and independent, and staying isolated and independent, of the process [at c] of *photo-universe* mergers. GL =====================
From: PD on 8 Oct 2009 19:02
On Oct 8, 5:23 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > > It will eventually slow down to zero...but at 72km/sec/mps that would take an > awefully long time and distance. > > Still, since the universe is infinite , I should imagine there is plenty of > such 'DC light' in our vicinity. > > Fun! What would be the experimental signature of your idea, Hank? I'm sure we would be able to find this in current data. |