|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2010 : 08:07:12 [Permalink]
|
I agree.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2010 : 04:54:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
According to the universe expansion theory (and Big-bang) the universe expand in all directions, by that we can divide the 360º of a circumference in 3 or more parts, these angles would grow and by that the total sum more of 360º that it's impossible. |
No, that's another failure to correctly state the consequences of the Big Bang theory, which means that you don't understand it. The angles wouldn't change, why do you think they would?| For example we can measure 4 objects separating each 2 with 90º angle and making a circle of 360º or 3 with angles of 120º or 180 with angle of 2º in form that the sum is 360º of the circumference in any direction. |
Those are examples of dividing a circle into equal parts. They just show that you, lbiar, have the ability to divide 360 by various integers. They are not examples that demonstrate the falsity of any cosmological theory.| How the separation is impossible the redshift only can to be by an spherical expansion and we are in the centre (against the theory)... |
Once again, the above statement shows that you fail to understand the theory.
Heh. lbiar has been told that what he's objecting to isn't the universe we're in, but instead some other universe (in other words, that his objections don't match our observations) and that this is obvious after reading only 2 of the 26 "proofs," but lbiar thinks that criticism is just close-minded and not objective. He really doesn't get that as soon as he posits something like expanding angles within circles, his whole argument is undermined. We really don't need to look further because the logical chain is broken already. Anything he might get correct later on is simply irrelevant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 16:01:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. I'm according with you.
A mistake of my part. Bad work.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 23:45:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave, thanks for you stellar patience and point-by-point refutations.
|
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 22:01:15 [Permalink]
|
Anti Big-Bang evidence
Before of all, I list here the facts of evidence according to the universe in this work (all theirs are proved): there is visual expansion (but not real), the light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel)
Also I say here that I'm according to visual expansion of the universe, but that this don't mean a real expansion how I demonstrate here. There are many visual effects where really don't happen how is visual: rainbow, perspective, ...
I'm against expansion of the universe and Big Bang theories and also against "tired light hypothesis", to be against one don't mean that I'm according to the other and there are more different solutions of this 2. I give in my page a hypothesis over a visual effect solution, but maybe other against this 2: neither expansion nor tired.
1e - Homogeneity, isotropy and flat visual universe are evidence anti expansion.
According to expansion theory the universe is homogeneous, but a real homogeneous universe in expansion would be not homogeneous visually:
The light that we receive from far universe is from a universe less expanded, according to older theory there is relation expansion with stretch that give homogeneous vision, but this would need that the distance visual would be the same that real distance and today is admitted that real distance is more that visual distance.
In the past say that expansion + stretch is adjusted: 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75, but this is not true, this would need that real distance and visual distance would be the same and against time delay.
In other words: a universe in expansion would to be or homogeneous visually and without time delay or with time delay and by that not homogeneous visually.
This also maybe demonstrate by reductio ad absurdum:
Supposing a universe in expansion (how expansion and Big Bang theories say), this according to time delay show more concentrated at more distance and by that not visually homogeneous, nor isotropy, nor flat, by that with homogeneous, flat, isotropy and time delay the universe cannot expand.
Also according to past theory that give homogeneity from expansion + stretch and speak (I remember) over distance visual equal to real distance give us information over this, in this form 50+50 is bad taken (50% less from 100 is 50, but 50% more from 50 is not 100, is only 75) how there are stars near 4% of distance of visual universe (near the cosmic microwave background) and by that 96% of 4% is near 8% this means that this is visually 10 times less in any axis, and by that 100 times less in 2 dimensions and 1000 times less in 3 dimensions.
2e - From 1e how visually would to be less expanded in distance the parallel lines cross in distance and in more distance not fill the 360º of circle
In distance a universe in expansion would to be less expanded, but how these are concentric circles (they are not separated, we are separated from their) in distance not fill the 360º of a circle and by that rest grades without stars. - this is mathematically impossible.
This information we need to see in inverse form, we are that separated from theirs, for that if in 1 billions years ago we see all the circle in 0.5 billion years ago we need to see more of 360º - also impossible.
3e - The dark energy is indifferent from quantity.
According to the expansion theory the expansion is by that energy, but the expansion according to Hubble's law is the same in all point by that is indifferent over the quantity of dark energy.
Also in some work I read over dark energy concentration, but also it has not importance because the expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy is the same in all points.
Also: over time the universe grow, but dark energy not grow and expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy need to grow in the same proportion that the universe.
Also is not affected by attenuation over the intensity and distance of dark energy, ...
4e - there are not geometrical figure that admits equal expansion in all points.
According to geometry (part of mathematics) there is not any figure that admits equal expansion in all directions.
In 1 dimension is possible equal expansion in all points, in 2 dimensions only the centre of a circle and in 3 dimensions only the centre of a sphere.
When I give these arguments (and others, I obtain negatives, .. and notes over curved space, but this is not true, (and more over that a curved space is not flat according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo ... BBevidence "A curved space has non-Euclidean geometry" this page speak over big bang evidence)
Also I read over expansion in more dimensions, but this also is not possible.
A circle is only a circle if it's a circle in 2 dimensions, we can make a circle in a paper and roll the paper, in 3 dimensions we see not the circle, but the circle it's there because remain in 2 dimensions, in the same form an ellipse we can make a shadow that seem a circle, but it's not a circle.
In the same form, we see in 3 dimensions axis (4 dimension if we add the time) and by that a visual expansion how theory say need to see in 3 dimensions, a 6 dimensions expansion is not visible in 3d.
For expand according to expansion theory equal in all points and directions need to expand against geometry (and geometry is part of mathematics).
You can say that mathematics may not find this figure, but I show here that there is not figure with that conditions.
We can see this form an arc, an arc is part of a circle (2d) or sphere (3d) in the form that we can know where is the centre, and remember that there is only a point with equidistant.
Astronomers told me that space maybe curved, but if you curve an arc may not be, then an arc, or if it's arc the centre has changed. If you curve a sphere it is not yet a sphere.
By that it's totally impossible that the universe expand equal in all directions, there is impossible mathematically and universe can't expand against mathematics.
Only a visual effect can seem to expand in all points and all directions, this is how optics effects work like for example the perspective.
By that probably only can be an effect optic that seem an expansion, so a visual expansion, but not real expansion. In my web-page I give a hypothesis: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/bighypo.html#tag14h
5e - If you give the impossible by real the real seem ridiculous
I think this is another evidence, many people told me that my arguments and hypothesis are ridiculous, but my arguments and hypothesis don't create theories not demonstrates, not use elements not knows, ...
If we think that any medicine cure all we consider ridiculous the need and form how to work real medicines.
There are many examples of this: astrology, futurology, UFO, ...
In this theory the big results, theories, elements need for expansion, ... make believe that this is so big that it's an evidence anti expansion
Here my arguments and hypotheses result ridiculous in relation with so big theories and power of expansion, big bang, inflation, ... Is so ridiculous how a spatial travel where in the films we see pass the stars, but in a real travel this not occur. But in all my work I don't speak over none not demonstrated.
ne - there are many others evidence against expansion and Big Bang
In my web I give 21 arguments and 26 hypotheses and probably there are many more evidence against expansion.
None of the big bang evidence is true (how in all that it's not true), so I can examine this evidence give in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo ... BBevidence that I divide in 3 parts:
- evidence over a visual expansion (I'm according to this): Hubble Law, Time dilation
- evidence against expansion and big bang: Homogeneity, Isotropy
- not evidence: theories cannot be evidence. (the theory of that in Mars there was martians that make the furrow is not an evidence of existence of martians in Mars, and many other equal. How universe not expand the theories over expansion of the universe and Big Bang all are fake.
- without sense (are according to visual expansion): I don't believe in Olbers' paradox (I believe I speak over it in my web) and blackbody (this is not against it, but in my hypotheses this is a young universe with stars and without galaxies).
Any notes more:
- for me the better evidence is that space cannot expand, by other this is evident, but for me is impossible, but how I said before if you admit the impossible how real the real seem ridiculous.
- Who says that anything is true need to demonstrate, but nothing over expansion of the universe has been proved and in these conditions many people affirm that it's evident, I say: not.
- I read that in a homogeneous universe would not be stars: this is false, if this would be true an embankment with rain not would create canals, but in few time create theirs. The universe has much time, probably infinite in past to create first stars. (an idea false how this maybe with power, but also false).
- That people think any idea not means this is true.
- It's difficult to explain to any that thinks know the true that is false. If you consider that universe expand really (without any proof) you will consider this work ridiculous.
- From the universe we only receive light (apart any particle), and light may be curved by gravity.
- That I don't know a solution for visual expansion and not real expansion not means that I don't know what is false how real expansion.
- I'm treating to explain this from more that a year and all say this is bad, but this is not bad, the universe can't expand.
- Astronomers thing against my thinking, they think in big-bang, inflation, cosmic microwave background, string, galaxies, stars (in this order in time), I think in a universe infinite in time and space with hydrogen and not empty, first stars, first galaxies.
- In all this work I use only facts demonstrated and you can see this is not any of theirs. I don't use any theory without confirmation.
- One only evidence anti expansion and big bang is sufficient, but I give here 4.5 of theirs
- If really the universe would expand would need many conditions (necessary, but not sufficient) how: expand or create space in points empty and without gravity, can expand space, expand equal in all points and directions, that dark energy expand space, that dark energy also increment or has not importance in quantity, any geometrical figure that permits Hubble's law and against geometry, ... I speak over this in my web.
- The expansion and Big Bang theories and other theories relationed are very good theories (how many of theories) but with an error: start with impossible principles
- in my web-page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ I have 21 arguments and 26 hypotheses for a new cosmology without expansion and without "tired light hypothesis"
Thanks |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 22:25:38 [Permalink]
|
| lbiar, if you're going to just copy-and-paste from your web site, it means you're not interested in discussion, which is what this site is for. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 19:52:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
lbiar, if you're going to just copy-and-paste from your web site, it means you're not interested in discussion, which is what this site is for.
|
Maybe I make bad this but I don't know another form to say all I need to say. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 19:57:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
Maybe I make bad this but I don't know another form to say all I need to say. |
It doesn't look like you're saying anything different here than on your own web site. We know where your web site is, we've all seen it. If you're making updates to the site, perhaps a better idea would be a "version history" page on your site where you talk about the changes you've made over time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 21:16:49 [Permalink]
|
blackbody and big-bang
Black body of CMB is considered probably the best explanation for Big Bang but don't explain why is black body. Against it consider a universe without light and emission in the past make the better black body, this is only possible in a universe without expansion where the past is not emission and CMB is pre-stars.
6e - Existence of the black body CMB
"As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The black body is considered from a hot plasma and it's black body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body) "a black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation"
A body that not reflect any radiation because there are not this in the past from a universe without expansion with only pre-stars in formation is a good black body without need to be any special composition. Maybe a better black body that this?
For example: Jupiter emit more heat than it receives from the sun (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101210222825AA5wDe9), so Jupiter in a universe without the sun and stars would be a very good black body.
Against this is difficult that a plasma universe very hot can later obtain black body that not reflect these emissions (big bang theory).
Remember that in the universe with the distances that work the reflexion only can to be from emissions from the past.
In a universe in expansion the past of the cmb is the plasma, a universe hotter, ...
In a universe without expansion, cmb is a pre-star state, with a past without any emission and with a present with low reflexion because the light and radiation need time to arrive and reflect.
A galaxy has millions of stars, a universe of pre-stars has many millions of pre-stars without concentrate in galaxies.
In a universe in expansion (big bang, ..) there are lights and emissions in the past of cmb and this is not seeing, not reflect, ...
In a universe without expansion and with visual expansion (like this universe with time delay, ..) also the light and microwaves are expanded in same form that say the big bang and expansion theories.
references: - facts of evidence according to the universe in this work (all theirs are proved): there is visual expansion (but not real), the light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel)
In my page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ there are more evidences, arguments and hypotheses
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 22:24:09 [Permalink]
|
lbiar, you need to learn the definition of a black body. You clearly don't understand it. Jupiter is very reflective (it's the brightest "star" visible for a few hours after sunset these days), and removing the Sun doesn't change its reflectivity. Jupiter sucks as a black body.
The Sun, on the other hand, is an excellent black body (not perfect, but very good).
A black body's properties don't depend upon there being incident radiation, but instead on what happens to any incident radiation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 22:31:19 [Permalink]
|
| I'm having trouble understanding your English. Perhaps you could re-phrase your argument regarding black bodies and CMBR? |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:04:53 [Permalink]
|
More evidence: 7e to 26e
7e – Expansion flat and expand equal in all directions is incompatible
8e – A universe in expansion needs to obey many conditions
9e – The probability of not show the universe end is only of less of 1%
10e – How brake the inflation?
11e – Why the expansion is accelerating?
12e – The universe repeat the forms and facts.
13e – The unreal believe don’t make it real.
14e – Cosmic noise
15e – Why the expansion is after Big Bang?
16e – The CMBR begin to be visible at 3000k.
17e – Many theories seem not continue to the facts
18e – The begin of Big Bang theory is erroneous.
19e – Big theories can seem goods.
20e – The universe in expansion need inflation.
21e – Vision of CMBR
22e – In the universe with so many much expansion how can create new stars.
23e – How expansion take in count galaxies.
24e – According to expansion we can speak over 1=2
25e – There are not explanation of why occurs things in expansion.
26e – This that occurs only 1 time.
97e – Believe that expansion of the universe is evident without any proof.
98e – Physic laws are strict and immutable.
In my page : http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2011 : 17:00:19 [Permalink]
|
| 16e – The CMBR begin to be visible at 3000k. |
This is a jab at so-called "recombination" which, it seems, is a bit of a misnomer.
In any event, your primary objection seems to be that 3000k for this is too low, given that there are currently objects that are hotter than 3000k in the universe and there doesn't seem to be a total break-down of atoms. MY feeling is that you just don't grasp how things work at high temperatures (look at the math on that Wiki entry I linked to!!) and with some more advanced understanding of matter and temperature, you'd see that this isn't a concern... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 01/25/2011 17:01:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2011 : 17:29:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
98e – Physic laws are strict and immutable. |
I'd like to see an expansion of this one as "evidence" against cosmic expansion.
The laws of nature may be "strict and immutable," but human discovery of them is neither. We're struggling to add accurate decimal places to the gravitational constant, for example, and we know that the Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Universe expansion
