People who standing on the giants shoulders, dont understund that the giants are standing in a swamp and sink down! EternalLove
Well you certainly have your work cut out for you, to convince the vast majority of cosmologists re that view. Perhaps though accepting that we do have contrary views on this matter, you can answer the most basic of questions for me. Why do you think that mainstream has accepted the present model of cosmology, entailing the BB, cosmological redshifts, expansion, and of course the inherent problems it is faced with. Other than that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps one day you'll be honest enough to answer the questions put to you..... Like what evidence do you have of your fairy tales? If you are so sure you are correct, why don't you get it peer reviewed? But of course I expect you to keep on ignoring the pertinent issues. I notice forrest certainly did not comment on your nonsensical atom expanding, hypothesis... And of course you are in the fringe sections, and as such the mainstream view of cosmology stands as is, and any changes/modifications/tinkering etc, that are needed, will eventually be achieved within that same mainstream cosmological circles and not from some unsupported claims on a science forum, with self made videos featuring dots, circles, paper and pen. Cosmology is far more then that.
The mainstream accepts all its present theories, including the BB, because they are not aware of any better alternative. You are right, it is almost impossible to get anywhere just promoting my model myself alone. I have three present hopeful strategies. One is to make the model known by a few astronomers, as a result of my personal promotion, so that when the James Webb, and large radio arrays contradict the BB model at the edges of the universe, as I expect they will, astronomers will know of an alternative to consider. Some will probably believe they need to propose another ad hoc hypothesis to greatly increase the age of the BB model. My second strategy is to inform certain astronomers of the advantages of this model enabling them to properly understand what they are looking at, and provide them which alternative equations to "correctly" calculate and predict what they will see, when using the proper formulations. My third strategy is to implement some of the experiments that I have designed, that when funded and conducted, will contradict present theory and will be very difficult to otherwise explain. Thanks for your cordiality as usual, best regards, Forrest
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And what if basically, overall, the present standard BB/Cosmological model is further supported [with some tweaking as a result of new data] as I suspect they will?
Such tweeking that I propose, will be based upon my proposal and model, which could not be justified by any other present model. But if the mainstream does its own tweeking which helps "straighten out" some problems with the BB model, then my model would have to explain why these changes should be valid or not, otherwise my model would have to change in one way or another. As I said before, if the James Webb finds some large, red, old appearing galaxies at the farthest reaches of the observable universe, also having high metallicity, we can pretty well chuck the Big Bang model into the trash pile of failed theories. If on the other hand the James Webb finds only small blue, young looking galaxies with minimal metallicity, with no large, old appearing galaxies at the farther possible distances observable, then we can pretty much trash all other models of an infinite universe, or of a much older universe, like my own model.
But this "fog" would likely be so thick that we couldn't see very far in this universe, at least according to the people who used to work on this problem. What are your calculations for how thick your fog would have to be to generate something that looks vaguely like a blackbody radiation that is redshifted? Absolutely not. First, it was a prediction from people who worked on nuclear theory (the hydrogen bomb, in all likelihood). Second, there are lots of aspects of it that can be tested. Just like your theory: there were lots of aspects of your ideas that were tested and thus rejected. That you are ignorant both of standard cosmology and the aspects of your own theory is why you propose the theory that you do. Really, because you were claiming that it was a mistake to actually look at data. Sure, without looking at the research into such proposals, you believe this.
Like the quote and link I provided above, It takes very little effort to produce blackbody radiation. Most matter can produce it when isolated in a vacuum, as explained in the above link and quote. The first to make such a Big Bang prediction concerning BB background radiation, was Gamaw who worked in nuclear physics. His prediction of the microwave background temperature was 50K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmic_microwave_background_astronomy Where did you get that idea from? Anyway, I do appreciate valid questions and your comments. regards, Forrest
Yeah, you keep repeating that one simple quote about a single simple object. But the real world isn't so simple. And the background radiation isn't a blackbody radiation: it's a redshifted blackbody radiation. You need to show how all your different dust grains of different temperatures at different distances can sum up to not a blackbody radiation, but what looks like a redshifted blackbody radiation. And you have to do this with dust that people can see distant galaxies through. This is not a task that anyone, so far, has done. And not for lack of trying. You like to pretend that it's a simple problem, because you have read almost nothing about blackbody radiation. Keep reading. Congratulations, you can find wikipedia. I suppose that was you admitting that you were wrong? From the fact that you were trying to claim that all the work people had done on the very things you were invoking was superfluous.
Second science test to prove my idea! there is more, we just have to found this test! http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=10257229#post10257229 EternalLove
It is great to see, there is even one who can understund, pulling force is illusion! Just like was that Sun take a round! Well, today we know, Sun dont take a round and also, there is no any kind of pulling force or curving space! EternalLove
This is true. However, it is not true that many alternatives have never been considered in great detail. I have so far not seen anything coherent presented here that has not been considered in great detail and compared to existing observations.
I love that the quality of the English language here was a poetic metaphor for the quality of the sentiments contained within.
A blackbody reflects no radiation. It's radiation is based upon its temperature alone. Gas, atomic or molecular, is a good candidate, especially hydrogen. But from the farthest distances of an almost infinite universe, given enough time and distance, only the distant background temperature would accordingly be radiated. I don't know the limit of reflective capability but expect it is totally absorbed in hundreds of billions of years. My own model is that its age is in the trillions of years. Hoyle and his associates, at the time, concentrated on iron and carbon as even-temperature distributors. My model is a substantive aether model so it can conduct, carry away through contact, kinetic vibrations of matter that are the basis for heat. Hoyle or the mainstream had no aether to consider. The mechanisms are simple and the explanations are obvious. If there is a background of galaxies trillions of light years in all directions through a dense fog, EM radiation will be absorbed and re-radiated countless times until the only evidence of its existence will be a slight temperature which we call microwave background radiation. Hydrogen radiates at 21cm which is within the microwave range, link below. You do not have to see any background galaxies at all through the "fog." They would forever be too distant. Accordingly only their faint temperature would be perceivable for the most part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line Others have come to a similar conclusion. Hoyle and his associates came to a similar conclusion sometime in the 70's when formulating their quasi-steady-state model, involving explanations including Olber's paradox as being possibly the primary cause for the uniform temperature of the CMB. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology#Quasi-Steady_State_Cosmology
So you are claiming that there is a fog, but we just happen to be in an empty patch. And you are claiming that an aether that nobody can detect has detectable features.
The fog represents maybe 100 billion light years of distance that the light from distant galactic clusters are coming through to be detected as the microwave background. The local consequences of hydrogen in our galaxy and all observable galaxies, may or may not be a significant part of this background radiation. The detectable aether I am referring to we call the Zero Point Field. In my model it has particulates in it other than virtual particles, and known particles like neutrinos, but they are not necessarily needed to explain the microwave background radiation. With or without unknown particulates some have called it an aether. http://www.blue-science.org/articles/2013/07/06/aether-theory-101/
Very important! hole visible universe expanding nucleus of atoms moving some direction extremely fast! that direction moving expanding light moving only little bit faster that we! and speed accelereration all a time! we cant realise that, because every expanding "quarks" speed acceleration along! also every expanding photons speed that direction acceleration along! There is all behind movement / densers which pushing our expanding densers thats way faster and faster! so, speed is already extremely fast, but what about after thousands of billions years! what kind of pushing force we are after thousands of billions years? EternalLove
There is many videos where i tell how eternal recycling working just with pushing force and why space dont have to expanding at all! You post to understund hole visible universe movement and how fast that movement is! and how every expanding light moving with us far away from same area and how every visible universe expanding densers / concentrations absorbs all a time more and more all behind movement / energy / pushing force and how that movement / energy is after that new energy for visible universe! http://m.youtube.com/user/Etimespace EternalLove
Personal videos, of white paper, pen, scribblings of circles, dots,and spheres proclaiming one's own fairy tales is not science, just nonsensical, unsupported, unexplained, claims. That's why your posts were deleted from the science section. Why are you so afraid to undergo peer review, if you are so certain your nonsense is valid?
