FS universe

[New Science]

FLAT SPACE universe

(Formerly the SSU)

 

Because of the violations of the laws of physics and proven experimental data by the ‘big bang’ supporters, I decided to promote the FLAT SPACE universe that is not expanding or contracting

and does not violate any laws or experimental data and also complies to the observational data.

 

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.

However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process.

The total matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of

Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

 

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

 

It portrays space as flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the photon pulse expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

 

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar

particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is

reached. Tne CMBR is that uniform temperature where the variation is only 7/100,000K.

 

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. This matter content then is a closed system. High energy photons can leave the universe. These losses are replaced by 'new' photons created by 'new' star creations.

 

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles.

The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

 

New Science

[Sayonara]

What is the point of this thread?

 

Science, "New" or otherwise, does not deal in popular votes.

[swansont]

Moved to speculations

[Klaynos]

If it was infinitely old why is there not an infinite number of photons?

 

GR is mathematically self consistent and if it was not correct GPS would NOT work.

 

So I don't think your hypothesis has any sound logic.

[New Science]

What is the point of this thread?

 

Science, "New" or otherwise, does not deal in popular votes.

 

I posted this thread to replace the erroneous BBT.

 

I thought the article explains that.

 

NS

 

If it was infinitely old why is there not an infinite number of photons?

 

GR is mathematically self consistent and if it was not correct GPS would NOT work.

 

So I don't think your hypothesis has any sound logic.

 

Did you read the article? Your question is answered in the article.

 

Einsteins math was saved when the BBT was introduced.

He proposed a static universe and realized that his version of a static universe would collapse. So he introduced a component to correct the problem.

You should know the rest of this story.

 

NS

 

 

NS

[Klaynos]

To replace GR you need to propose something better, you've not.

[D H]

Think again.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the idea of the aether as it existed at the time of the experiment. It did not disprove the idea of an aether per se, and most certainly did not disprove your idea of a "spatial aether" (a contradiction in terms, and I thought you already agreed with me that this idea of yours was utter nonsense. I captured your words here.) Many notable physics worked on recovering the idea of a luminiferous aether. Lorentz came very, very close. Einstein showed the concept was an unnecessary appendage. It was Occam's scalpel, not the MM experiment, that killed the luminiferous aether.

 

The steady-state universe hypothesis, as originally proposed by Hoyle, was falsified. Hoyle tried to resurrect the idea in the form of the quasi steady-state universe hypothesis, again falsified. What new idea do you have? Show the mathematics, please. Doing physics without mathematics is a form of self-abuse.

 

Arp's anomalous redshifts based on low resolution and low intensity photographs have been falsified by improved images of those objects. There is no anomalous redshift. Arp is far worse than Hoyle. Hoyle tried to update his concepts to account for measurements that falsified his original steady-state hypothesis. Arp simply keeps regurgitating the exact same ideas and ignores new evidence. This is not science.

[ajb]

This sounds like a version of the steady-state universe as pointed out by DH.

 

Now even if the universe is flat on cosmological scales, it is not on smaller scales i.e. we have a gravitational field round a star for example. Thus, I cannot see how we can just throw away general relativity. What maybe ok is a statement like "on cosmological scales effects due to GR are small". Which is true in the BB theory as we can get the Friedmann equations using Newtonian gravity.

 

Either way, some equations and a deeper explanation would be nice.

[New Science]

To replace GR you need to propose something better, you've not.

 

GR predicted a static universe that was saved by the BBT.

 

Those tiny miniscule corrections can be 'spiritually' manipulated.

This may surprise you but I do believe in a spirit and I've seen examples of this influence of the physical realm. Believe me, I do NOT lie.

 

I wrote an article about this called the Universal Mind.

 

So these teeny teeny distractions, I jusr ignore.

 

NS

 

Think again.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the idea of the aether as it existed at the time of the experiment. It did not disprove the idea of an aether per se, and most certainly did not disprove your idea of a "spatial aether" (a contradiction in terms, and I thought you already agreed with me that this idea of yours was utter nonsense. I captured your words here.) Many notable physics worked on recovering the idea of a luminiferous aether. Lorentz came very, very close. Einstein showed the concept was an unnecessary appendage. It was Occam's scalpel, not the MM experiment, that killed the luminiferous aether.

 

With this answer, then you accept the EoS as the cause of the CRS?

 

The steady-state universe hypothesis, as originally proposed by Hoyle, was falsified. Hoyle tried to resurrect the idea in the form of the quasi steady-state universe hypothesis, again falsified. What new idea do you have? Show the mathematics, please. Doing physics without mathematics is a form of self-abuse.

 

Nonsense. There are thousands of astronomers doing science and cosmology by observations. Besides, math does not show those pretty onjects in space.

Ha ha.

 

Arp's anomalous redshifts based on low resolution and low intensity photographs have been falsified by improved images of those objects. There is no anomalous redshift. Arp is far worse than Hoyle. Hoyle tried to update his concepts to account for measurements that falsified his original steady-state hypothesis. Arp simply keeps regurgitating the exact same ideas and ignores new evidence. This is not science.

 

See this photo. http://www.quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

 

NS

[D H]

So these teeny teeny distractions, I jusr ignore.

Very handy. Just ignoring those "teensy distractions" appears to be your specialty.

Nonsense. There are thousands of astronomers doing science and cosmology by observations. Besides, math does not show those pretty onjects in space.

If you look at what astronomers and cosmologists do with those pretty pictures you will see a lot of mathematics. Cosmologists in particular use a *lot* of mathematics.

 

Arp simply keeps regurgitating the exact same ideas and ignores new evidence. This is not science.[/quote']See this photo.

That photo is exactly the kind of regurgitating I was talking about. That is an old low resolution, low intensity photo of NGC 7603. Reaper gave a reference to a paper that discusses how new high resolution, high intensity photos of NGC 7603 show that the apparent connection is not real. That was yet another of those "teensy distractions" that you "just ignored".

[Klaynos]

GR predicted a static universe that was saved by the BBT.

 

Those tiny miniscule corrections can be 'spiritually' manipulated.

This may surprise you but I do believe in a spirit and I've seen examples of this influence of the physical realm. Believe me, I do NOT lie.

 

I wrote an article about this called the Universal Mind.

 

So these teeny teeny distractions, I jusr ignore.

 

NS

 

OK, well that's not science so I'm not going to continue.

[Reaper]

Alright Mike C, since you think that General Relativity and Special Relativity is wrong, I am going to post this link (which I posted back at hypography of which you ignored the last time) right here so that you can read it:

 

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html

 

oh, and this one too:

 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/einstein.htm

(This link yet again trashes your "corrections" to this very important equation).

 

And the experiments that support General Relativity:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1132305

 

and here's a link with pretty pictures: http://members.aol.com/drphysics/GRTest.html

 

 

The point is, is that there are boatloads of evidence that support SR and GR. So, if you think you can overthrow either theory, you are going to have to look through all of them in detail and explain to us why any of these experiments do not support them. Also, you are going to have to present a theory that can do it much better, and in much more detail.

 

GR predicted a static universe that was saved by the BBT.

 

Those tiny miniscule corrections can be 'spiritually' manipulated.

This may surprise you but I do believe in a spirit and I've seen examples of this influence of the physical realm. Believe me, I do NOT lie.

 

Now really? Do you care to provide a rigorous explanation (i.e. one using MATH) of why you think this could happen?

 

So these teeny teeny distractions, I jusr ignore.

 

NS

 

Ignoring people seems like the only thing you've ever succeeded in .

 

Alright, out of condescending/insulting mode now: The so-called "teeny weeny" are FAR from trivial, in fact without them modern society as we know it just simply cannot function, for example GPS requires relativity for it to function properly. Not only that, but I will yet again show just some of the implications of relativity:

 

 

 

With this answer, then you accept the EoS as the cause of the CRS?

 

:confused::confused::confused:

 

 

Nonsense. There are thousands of astronomers doing science and cosmology by observations. Besides, math does not show those pretty onjects in space.

Ha ha.

 

Well, lets take a look at some of these observations then:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

 

Now, here is one such observation:

 

 

 

 

OMG!!!! Is that a graph? Something that requires MATHEMATICS ! I guess that completely demolishes your claim then, doesn't it.

 

 

See this photo. http://www.quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

 

NS

 

Already debunked on another thread. Or are you yet again just simply trying to cover your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA"?

 

===============================

 

Now then, instead of saying something like

Besides the other reasons I gave to refute Einsteins views' date=' I can add the 'Theory of Everything'.

 

Mike C

[/quote']

 

you should instead, in fact you must, address ALL of the above, and do it RIGOROUSLY (preferably with EXPERIMENTS, and/or MATHS), if you want to have any hope of us even beginning to take you seriously...

 

I mean, seriously, sometimes I feel like I'm debating a mule.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[doG]

While off topic I believe this is relevant:

 

Troll (Internet)

 

An Internet troll' date=' or simply troll in Internet slang, is [b']someone who posts controversial[/b] and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

With the never ending bait and total lack of support for any of his claims I believe we have a good example here. It would seem the totally fabricated, unsupportable, make believe science is an obvious disruption to on-topic discussion at a science forum. I would suggest feeding the troll no more!

[Reaper]

I don't think he's trying to troll, I just think that he's obviously some guy who isn't successful in real life and seems to suffer from extreme narcissism and paranoia.

 

Mike C is just going to have to learn that if he hopes to make himself more credible, he is going to have to do more then just say "Einstein is wrong", parroting his debunked claims, and comparing himself to Newton. And from the looks of it, he is going to have to learn the hard way.

 

So Mike C, if you hope to stop being the laughing stock of the science community, you are going to have to do the following things: Provide genuine evidence, stop ignoring or trying to brush away other evidence, provide math, provide proper peer reviewed citations, provide predictions, learn to actually listen to other people, and stop repeating yourself as it doesn't make it any more correct.

 

 

Besides, I like feeding the trolls *pull out a sack of troll feed*

 

P.S. Oh, and one more thing Mike, read this, you desperately need to: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

 

More specifically, read the first bullet:

"I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics/... is wrong."

You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? I didn't think so. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it's an elementary system' date=' whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim that you can prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I'm willing to give you $2+$2 change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found an inconsistency, you have probably made an assumption that is not implied by the theory. [b']The fact is that these theories are not only well confirmed by experiment, but practical use is made of them every single day.[/b]

Edited June 29, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[Sayonara]

Just because we have a forum entitled "Speculations" does not mean we will indulge any old hat.