11 replies to this topic

[supertzar]

Hi, this is my first post here. I am interested in many varied subjects and have been in search of a place to explore ideas and information about everything that comes to mind. Maybe ImmInst will be a good place to share my thoughts during down time at work.

About Plasma Theory, it postulates that the data we have points to a universe without a beginning, where electromagnetism is the dominant force. Some of the evidence that supports it is the revelation that redshift, which has been used to calculate the distance of celestial objects, is affected by clouds of superheated gas, or plasma. Pulsars that were previously thought to be distant have been observed interacting with nearby galaxies. This is a blow to the Big Bang Theory, which relies heavily on the redshift = distance belief. Another blow to the BB is the observation that galaxies are clustered into long threads, which are themselves clustered into superthreads. The BB does not allow enough time for such clustering to occur.

My understanding of this subject is limited to reading a book called The Big Bang Never Happened. I sure would like to know more. What do you think?

[kevin]

I hadn't heard of this information but it certainly would throw a wrinkle into current theories... hopefully someone else knows more..

Welcome by the way..

[supertzar]

http://bigbangneverh....org/index1.htm

Thanks, Kevin. Here is a link to the author of the book, Eric J. Lerner.

[Infernity]

Mmmm, I believe this is THE place for sharing your theories, especially when it comes to science.

Welcome to ImmInst forums.

Err, I'm afraid I also haven't heard of it before.

~Infernity

[psudoname]

If the univerce has no begining, i suppose that means it is infinately old.
Do you think it is infinite in space as well?

According to Hawking the univerce has no beggining if you consider imaginary time, but I am not sure what this actually means.
(I know about imaginary numbers, but what rlevance does imaginary time have?)

[Infernity]

According to Hawking, Psudoname, what's beyond the universe, and all that supposedly happened before- doesn't matter since even seizing of time is an element characterizing the physics of the universe as it is, and probably there were no physics before the universe creation IF there was a creation.
Probably aspiring to infinity, or maybe it's just us, poor humans who can't digest nor store infinity in our small heads.

What BEYOND, is my goal, heh pretty impossible isn't it.
But "if that's not impossible- it doesn't worth doing..." so said Nate, and he is so correct.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[bgwowk]

Lerner's book has been widely debunked

http://www.astro.ucl...ner_errors.html

The Big Bang is on very sound footing, with new confirmatory evidence coming in all the time. Frankly, Big Bang opponents are taken about as seriously these days as Immanuel Velikovsky.

---BrianW (PhD physics)

[eternaltraveler]

there is a mountain of evidence for the big bang

[supertzar]

Lerner responds to Wright here. Keep in mind I do not "believe" either theory. They could both be wildly incorrect for all I know. I try to keep an open mind while maintaining skepticism.

http://bigbangneverh...ned.org/p25.htm

[supertzar]

Here is a fascinating page about Halton Arp and his observation that Quasars of high redshift are relatively near (replace pulsar with quasar in my initial post). http://www.skeptical...controversy.htm

Brian, I respect your acheivement, but not your approach. Am I supposed to take your word for it because you have letters after your name? It's a bit fallacious, don't you think? I don't judge information because of how its' proponents are viewed. Einstein viewed Velikovksy's work favorably. He encouraged him to continue despite misbehavior by the scientific community regarding his work. Velikovsky was ridiculed for predicting that Jupiter would be found to have radio emissions, only to have such emissions discovered in 1955. He also predicted Saturn would be hot and that the Earth had a sizeable magnetosphere. And guess what?

http://www.rense.com/general63/vel.htm

It doesn't take a trained scientist to have a scientific attitude. Ironically, some scientists are the least scientific with their dogmatic, fallacious pronouncements. What you think of the information I posted? A scientific critique would be edifying for all of us.

[Mind]

I used to believe in god because people told me it was so. Same thing with the big bang. Lately, proponents of the theory have been laboring with intricate arduous explanations of why certain numbers and observable properties of the universe do not "add up". Pretty soon it will be time for Occams razor.

I like your questioning attitude supertzar. Thanks for joining Imminst.

By the way , I am partial to Fred Hoyle's constant creation theory. I admire it for its scientific and philosophical simplicity.

[sdf42450]

there is a mountain of evidence for the big bang

there are observable things in the universe that according to BB theory, would take longer to form than since the supposed BB occurred.

there are far to many assumptions in the BB thoery. Thoery A is based on the assumption of omega=1. Theory B is based on Theory A with the assumption of blah blah blah...