- "In the beginning, there was nothing, which
exploded."
- -- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
-
- "The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a
theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
- --Amy Acheson, amateur astronomer
-
-
- The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once
compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts;
just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a
pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not
necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of
stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not
truth; they are the transient perception of truth.
-
- For members of the general public with no training
in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the
scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly
colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on
nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the
dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited
and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official
science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications
today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was
acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened
to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving
announcements of new "verifications."
-
- It's amazing how simple the flaw is in the Big Bang
theory. It all boils down to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the
Doppler interpretation of redshift. Light frequencies from remote
objects in space, when shifted toward the red, are claimed to signify
the velocity of the object away from the observer -- and no other
explanation is admitted.
-
- The Doppler effect is not complicated. Everyone is
familiar with the sudden drop in pitch of a train's whistle as it
approaches and then moves past us. The same principle is used in a
police radar gun, to measure the speed of an automobile. Once
astronomers noted the varying degrees of redshift in remote space
objects, most began to interpret this shift as a reliable indicator of
velocity. This gave them a mathematical basis for calculating both the
size and age of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang.
-
- It is interesting to observe how a theory grows into
"fact" over time, evidence be damned. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was
published almost a quarter-century ago. At that time, the Big Bang had
not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the issue
of redshift Sagan wrote: "There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion
among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction,
from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the
universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic
and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of
galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very
different redshifts...."
-
- Sagan's acknowledgment here shows a candor rarely
found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public. It's
also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had
already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big
Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been
settled.
-
- Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic
mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars --
supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like --
would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But
some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift.
In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of
space."
-
- At the time of Sagan's Cosmos, the Doppler
interpretation of redshift was debatable. Since that time, discoveries
in space have definitively refuted this interpretation, despite the
absence of any public announcements to this effect.
-
- The positions of remote galaxies have now been
plotted, based on the common interpretation of redshift, and the
result exposes the lie. When each galaxy is reduced to a dot on a
"map," something "miraculous" occurs.
- (This "map" may be viewed at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/
- tpod-archive-04/tpod-fingers-of-god.htm)
-
- The "map" appears to present the "fingers of God"
pointing to Earth, as if we are are the center of the universe. How
could this be? No one on either side of the debate considers the earth
to be the center of the universe, and everyone seems to agree that no
matter where an observer is placed, the same effect will be produced.
It is an ILLUSION, and the most obvious explanation is that using
redshift to measure distance will artificially stretch groups of
galaxies along radial lines away from the observer. In other words,
large clusters of galaxies in relative proximity to each other have
been artificially projected outward along radial lines spanning
billions of light years. To eliminate the illusion, you only need to
eliminate the Doppler interpretation.
-
- But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO
have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell
us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy
clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that
involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases
the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of
God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the
astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed,
Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple
objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the
bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do
not stand billions of light years away from each other.
-
- Under the weight of this direct evidence -- or
should I say proof -- the Big Bang hypothesis as a whole collapses.
Yet instead of giving up a failed theory, astronomers have turned to a
"get out of jail free" card -- inventing invisible matter, with the
option to place it wherever it will be mathematically useful to make
their models work. This is the myth of "dark matter," which in recent
years has enabled astronomers to hold on to a picture of the universe
defied by observation at every turn. Since it is both invisible and
undetectable, there is no limit to the usefulness of dark matter,
wherever the predictions of their theories have failed. In fact, this
device can be applied to all anomalous movements within the macrocosm,
with no possibility of refutation. Dark matter is outside the reach of
any practical scientific tests, and we are only asked to believe in it
because of the failures of standard models.
-
- We are all familiar with the age old question, "If a
tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does
it still make a sound?" Another question might be, "If a fact is
disproved, and no one admits it, is it still a fact?"
-
- Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams
Bridgman once said, "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity,
against the impact of a new idea." But most scientists are not guilty
of stupidity. Rather, they are guilty of ASSUMPTIONS. Theories were
accepted as "facts" before all the evidence was in, and as a result,
evidence contradicting the facts was either misinterpreted or ignored.
It is time for assumptions to be set aside, so the truth might finally
prevail.
-
-
-
- Comment
jfysita@terra.com.mx
10-18-04
Regarding the Article "The Fingers Of God Point
To No Big Bang" By Michael Goodspeed, the simplest and maybe the
correct explanation for the perceived red shift may be found with Paul
Marmet.
-
- http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/
- BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author
-
- http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/faq.html
-
- http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/
- BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
-
- In short, he states that the redshift can be
explained by vast quantities of molecular hydrogen (H2) in
interstellar space, which is not easily detecable, unlike molecular
hydrogen (H). Light interacts over enormous distances with this
material (H2) and is slowly redshifted, but the source of light is not
receding at tremendous speed from the "Big Bang".
-
- In response to his previous article, I wrote to
Michael Goodspeed about this, but after checking his webpage tonight,
I feel that Marmet's stuff might not fit with said webpage. If you
should think that it is a good explanation for the Big Bang, maybe
someone else could write an article to let it be known to the general
public through rense.com
-
- The longer the mistake of the "Big Bang" is left
uncorrected, the harder it will be to change things.
-
- Comment
- From Ted Twietmeyer
- 10-19-4
-
- Let's look at some other wonderful things that
mainstream science has given us. Zero point energy (ZPE) is present
everywhere. Amateur scientists have known this for many decades and
built successful devices to capture this energy and convert it to cold
electrons. Only now is so-called "mainstream science" beginning to
recognize ZPE, and call it "their" discovery. The other scientists
seem to find something magical about a physicist in a wheelchair. They
polish the chrome on Hawking's wheels, simonize his tires, charge his
batteries and do voice computer upgrades for him. All bow - the King
of Science has arrived. Personally, I feel bad the man is in that
chair. It is something he most certainly didn't deserve.
-
- On the other hand, would everyone hold the same
reverence for him if he wasn't in it ? I wonder. Has he really come up
with new "revelations" about science ? Let's examine the facts. For
most of the past century it was known among NON-mainstream people,
that ZPE conversion to real power, time travel and gravity control
were not only practical, but had been accomplished. Some of this was
done in government labs and most of it in the private sector. These
were always scoffed at by mainstream physicists. Hawking howled out
more than once that none of these were possible. Mainstream droid
scientists all chimed in much like the House of Commons in England,
all yelling HERE HERE ! whenever they agree with whomever is
speaking.
-
- One by one, these other "forbidden sciences" were
announced as "possible" or even "practical" by his highness on the
portable throne. So what changed, when for example we always heard
that time travel would "take all the power in the universe to
accomplish ? Nothing at all in the real world - just a change in his
highness' mind.
-
- We can thank the all-knowing mainstream physics gods
for the electricity so cheap that the meters were removed from all
buildings in the 70's. For the clean, efficient hot fusion energy that
now powers our homes now after it superseded the free nuclear
generated electricity. From a business standpoint, mainstream
"science" has a crappy track record and no investor would fund them.
Yet few seem to notice this and over and over they successfully BS
congress and continue to obtain billions for to continue bogus
research. My question is - WHY and HOW do they continue to get away
with it ?
-
- Now you may ask - what does this rant have to do
with red shift ? Simple - Red shift is just another "construct" that
"scientists" cooked up, to explain away an annoying and inconvenient
phenomena. And because "mainstream science" cooked it up, whatever
they have thrown in the pot is considered edible. I'm not saying that
all scientists are bad. In fact, I work with them everyday. What I am
saying, that they should think about an expression used on the old
"Sightings" television program - that "no mystery is closed to an open
mind."
|
