Tangointhenight

How can you say a naked singulartie exist with no observational data?

They created a theory looked into space, and saw that there are certian things that go agianst there theory. " The Milky Way as a whole rotates about its axis, with the outlying regions held from flying off into space by the gravitational tug of the rest. All would be well, were it not for the fact that something's missing. Observations of the motion of stars both within our own galaxy and further afield reveal a discrepancy [see figures 1 & 2]. The gravitational pull they feel is calculated as up to ten times what could possibly be exerted by observable matter. The galaxy must therefore be much more massive than the sum of its visible stars. It has been proposed that this exposes a flaw in the theory of gravity - that its effect must thin more slowly with distance than predicted. This is not a welcome suggestion, as it would require a whole new theory of gravitation to be developed. The popular alternative is that the matter we can observe is only the tip of the iceberg. Theorists propose an invisible halo of ‘dark’ matter inhabiting the universe all around us....." But when they added dark matter to there equations, thay found that Dark Matter would slow the expansion of the universe. Now to over come this they introduced dark energy. If you dont see the flaw in this, then im sorry to have posted this in the first place.

Thats not the point, the point is that the bridge is there, and the objects have two completly difrent redshifts, this goes agianst hubbles law. http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

Facts dont lie from what ever source it comes from. The picture prooves it. how much more facts do you need?

You probably dont understand the scientific method. Here read about it,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method if you test your prediction and the test contridics the prediction then you have to abandoned it.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm Why isnt anyone stduying this? Other proof, http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm, more http://www.seyfertgalaxies.com/ and even more, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/500/2/596/37571.text.html Somethings up.http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i3/quasar.asp The objects are conected, via gas bridge, but each has diffrent redshifts.http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/Arp23.html I find this very odd. Here is a evan more better example, wher eyou can see a bridge, http://pagesperso-orange.fr/lempel/les_os_du_redshift_02_uk.htm, http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/aaea241.right.html. http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html I am curently trying to invent a expriment where i want to mimic redshift and blueshift, anyone know where i can start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Something is not right, so they add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Then there is something wrong with dark matter, so they add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy Then with out any observational data they create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity:doh:

Really????? Science is to describe reality, not explain weird that is what my teacher crammed into my brain. Explanation not desribing.

I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality.

read this, all of it then make conclusion. http://youstupidrelativist.com/03GR/03BlackHole/00SumBH.html

he makes a conviceing argument. Example, mathimachians cant draw time, they cant explain it.

This is very interesting, someone should watch this guy he is very smart.

"PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH " Unless its backed by logic :eyebrow::eyebrow: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA few years ago I began work on a hypotheses/theory what ever you wanna call it. I have been a relativist for sometime, but when I began work on trying to explain everything, I saw that by theories did not fit with the standard cosmological models. I had evidence that didn't fit with the standard model. Then I drop my following with the mainstream scientists, and began a independent study of the universe. The first two months I dedicated in observing the universe, the trying to explain what I saw. Then I formed by theory around the observations. The theory was simple, in space there is nothing, how can matter exist in this empty vacuum. Of course don't forget I tossed aside the standard thinking. But my theory failed, I saw that it wouldn't work. So I ask my mathematician friend to help me, he did, and the numbers didn't line up with what we where observing. So I abandoned, the ideas I had. Actually I didn't revisit them for about two years. Then I was browsing through forums and found what PERON was saying, He called it Tender Blue. I contacted him, and asked him to tell me more. He did, he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space. So I did, looking at how atoms and subatomic particle's function. Contacted my mathematical friend again, and asked him to build me a model of how a particle could exist, building the atom, and the rest of matter. We found that the numbers did fit, and that a medium in space could exist.