The Beginning Of The End Of BB Theology

One of the consequences of the current scientific paradigm that bases its modeling and math on time as a dimension is the inevitability of faulty theoretics, like the Big Bang model of the universe currently popularly held forth as a viable exlanican to the question of universal origins. Consider how this model resides on two foundational empirical theories as its pillars of evidential support. One such pillar is background radiation. The other is a theoretical expansion of the universe. Now consider that what is meant by "expansion" in this theory is that the volume of space/time is increasing.


Take a gander at this article from Wiki:

Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology first made by American astronomer Edwin Hubble, that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.

This theory was devised by the Hubble Effect based on redshift in the light spectrum indicating, proponents claim, that the universe is expanding or, that is to say, the volume of space/time is increasing causing distances between galaxies and stars to increase and velocities of same to increase as they move away from one another. And this, they claim, is further evidence that the universe began with a Big Bang. Now, there are several curious discrepancies in this theory. One is a basic discrepancy of assigning redshift to be the effect of an expanding universe, rather than some other effect. Another curious discrepancy is found in the description of the doppler effect and how it works. And finally, the most damaging discrepancy will be shown to be the assumption that the medium within which this alleged expansion is ocurring, space/time, is itself a faulty description of the medium through which astronomers are looking back at galaxies and stars to arrive at the current apologetic for the Big Bang model. Let's begin with the basic anomoly in the Doppler Effect itself. We find this explanation of how the Doppler Effect theoretically works in Wiki:

For waves that propagate in a medium, such as sound waves, the velocity of the observer and of the source are relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted. The total Doppler effect may therefore result from motion of the source, motion of the observer, or motion of the medium. Each of these effects is analyzed separately. For waves which do not require a medium, such as light or gravity in general relativity, only the relative difference in velocity between the observer and the source needs to be considered.

Notice the two wave types which are exempted from requiring an additional measurement in the medium through which they pass to arrive at the hypothesized Doppler effect? Light and gravity. Now we must consider that it is the "light" being emitted from stars and galaxies that astronomers are observing to arrive at their theoretic Expanding Volume of space/time. Since the light they're observing is passing through this medium...erroneously alleged to be space/time...and the Doppler Effect exempts the medium from this effect when light or gravity is the wave being measured, how did these theorists arrive at their hypothesized expanding volume, of the medium through which the light they're observing had to pass through, to arrive at their conclusion of an expanding universe? Aren't they violating their own exemption to make this assertion?

Consider this...

Aside from the fact that "if I could put time in a bottle I'd send 400 mil. to you..." whoever heard tell of measuring time by volume? But let's consider an alternative theory for redshift that actually works. The below excerpt is from a dialogue with Mr. Ard, a notable astronomer who has a very real problem with BB theology and the psuedo-science used to prop it up...


Observed: The Hubble Relation.

An article of faith in current cosmology is that the relation between faintness of galaxies and their redshift, the Hubble Relation, means that the more distant a galaxy is the faster it is receding from us. With our galaxy redshifts a function of age, however, the look back time to a distant galaxy shows it to us when it was younger and more intrinsically redshifted. No Doppler recession needed!

The latter non-expanding universe is even quantitative in that Narlikar's general solution of the General Relativistic equations (m = t2) gives a Hubble constant directly in term of the age of our own galaxy. (H0 = 51 km/sec × Mpc for age of our galaxy = 13 billion years). The Hubble constant observed from the most reliable Cepheid distances is H0 = 55 (Arp, 20023). What are the chances of obtaining the correct Hubble constant from an incorrect theory with no adjustable parameters? If this is correct there is negligible room for expansion of the universe.

whynot: Hmmm...so Mr. Ard is postulating that redshift...the primary stanchion propping up Doppler Effect...is an effect of a star or galaxies age rather than its velocity or trajectory...interesting that...and he even used his theory to arrive at the correct age of our own galaxy...and without all the cheaters and adjustable parameters the BB'er has to use...the fudge factors that allow them to alter the facts to fit their theory.

But let's consider the paradigm that holds forth the theoretic claim that time is a dimension. Obviously the consequences of developing any theory based on this theoretic paradigm, if time is not a dimension, is going to be an eventual crash and burn. Consider if time is, as I've postulated, an actual force of nature...in fact, the primary force whose polar opposite is gravity? This means we should be able to devise an actual system of measuring this force and its relevant energy level at any given sector of multi-dimensional space. Now, consider if time, as a force is, un-like multi-dimensional space, an infinite power source, rather than a dimension? This means that at any given point in space it absolutely cannot be greater than zero point energy...meaning it's effect at any given point in space is almost negligible and only attains sufficient force to affect any given existent on very large scales. With infinity as its IDEAL on one end of a defineable scale we can imagine an exponentially large amount of energy...I hesitate to say it...dark energy...that must reside uniformly throughout the universe. So at any given point in space, time exerts itsef at zero point energy, however all it takes to effect a force of sufficient power to cause a change in that given point is a mere fluctuation. Thus we introduce the other half of this force in GRAVITY. Gravity is uniquely positioned to be the dissipative fluctuator that borrows some specific amount of energy, via the fluctuation in uniformity of zero point energy. Now we're beginning to develop a theoretic explanican whose paradigm is based on real time parametrics. So what does this mean to the BB theologian? For starters, light passing through a medium of multi-dimensional/gravity/time is dimensionally effected only by the curvature of space. Gravity/time can only be effected by mass in motion, or density, and we know that photons are massless objects. So the proponent of all such theorems based on time as a dimension, and especially BB theology which is a theorem wholeheartedly embraced by the theist as evidence of a creative "beginning", must now consider the effect this has on his pet scientific apologetic. With time as an infinite force of nature, BB theology is a cooked goose. One of its two basic pillars has been eviscerated.

That's alot of info.!

Many scientific theories have and will fall by the wayside as we learn more. Theists will just find another theory to attached themselves to or, if none suite their purposes then, they will deny those that don't work for them. After all they could claim that theories have been proven wrong....and they'd be right.

I can not dispute the opposition to the BB as I am not that well informed. I did once ask the question why do galaxies collide if we are told they should be drifting apart. The constant universe has just as many problems as the BB. Why are we told antimatter is gradually disappearing. Many related subjects that have been debated will need to be re-thought. Such as "who created god" if the universe was created by god. Do we start with complexity or does complexity develope. Why does nature evolve? has life always existed? If life has always existed why are there not advanced creatures visiting us daily? If the universe is eternal then I am writting this post a billion times elsewhere. Yes the more we examine the alternative, the more difficult it becomes.

I can not dispute the opposition to the BB as I am not that well informed. I did once ask the question why do galaxies collide if we are told they should be drifting apart.

whynot: So did you follow up on that very good question?

The constant universe has just as many problems as the BB.

whynot: Actually, the converse is true. An infinitely regressive universe resolves many more issues than BB theology as well as rendering many questions non-sequitur.

Why are we told antimatter is gradually disappearing.

whynot: There was an article recently in American Scientific detailing a discovery at CERN. Physicists there discovered a specific particle, (can't recall which one right now), that selects a state of matter over anti-matter a higher percentage of the time. But as I also postulated in my ToE, the uniform primal energy of gravity/time loans itself to all processes and collects both the principle and interest of sufficient quantity to assure a return that is always just above the break-even mark.

Many related subjects that have been debated will need to be re-thought.

whynot: I think you'll find this assertion to be true of almost all subjects Xris.

Such as "who created god" if the universe was created by god.

whynot: I'll leave others to debate such non-issues as arbitrary uncaused assignments. The ToE I'm developing will speak for itself and represents a third, more parsiminous option to design or chance.

Do we start with complexity or does complexity develope.

whynot: Complexity arises from simple causitives but complexity still requires an explanican to account for why the universe process refines rather than process sustains or process decays.

Why does nature evolve?

whynot: Because its foundation does not.

has life always existed?

whynot: Of course not.

If life has always existed why are there not advanced creatures visiting us daily?

whynot: Any advanced intelligence worth its weight wouldn't be caught dead hanging around us...just kidding...it could very well be the case that higher order species exist elsewhere in the universe...who can say?

If the universe is eternal then I am writting this post a billion times elsewhere.

whynot: Which demonstrates a common misconception about infinite regress.

Yes the more we examine the alternative, the more difficult it becomes.

whynot: Actually Xris, the converse is true. I think you'll find the more you examine my ToE, the fewer difficulties you will find left to wrestle with.

Im sorry but certain questions do arrive at this proposal. When I asked myself why galaxies collide , I had no answer. But the universe also shows itself to be constantly moving. Certain parts are moving at different rates to other areas. We see certain areas where it is moving great deal faster. I spoke recently of the torus model. For me it requires to be examined.It answers many of the problems we see in the BB and the present model of the constant universe. The trouble with certainty it has the habit of being wrong. Lets just admit we need to be opened minded and not be so dogmatic.

Im sorry but certain questions do arrive at this proposal. When I asked myself why galaxies collide , I had no answer. But the universe also shows itself to be constantly moving. Certain parts are moving at different rates to other areas. We see certain areas where it is moving great deal faster. I spoke recently of the torus model. For me it requires to be examined.It answers many of the problems we see in the BB and the present model of the constant universe. The trouble with certainty it has the habit of being wrong. Lets just admit we need to be opened minded and not be so dogmatic.

whynot: Xris, if you devised a very explicit set of instructions on how to change a flat tire, and some folks offered criticisms of your instructions, and having listened to their criticisms you realized they were not even criticizing your instructions, but were apparently mis-construing the instructions you devised and were only criticizing their mis-construed interpretation of your instructions, would it be fair to accuse you of dogmatism for trying only to unravel their miscontruence?

Im sorry but certain questions do arrive at this proposal. When I asked myself why galaxies collide , I had no answer. But the universe also shows itself to be constantly moving. Certain parts are moving at different rates to other areas. We see certain areas where it is moving great deal faster. I spoke recently of the torus model. For me it requires to be examined.It answers many of the problems we see in the BB and the present model of the constant universe. The trouble with certainty it has the habit of being wrong. Lets just admit we need to be opened minded and not be so dogmatic.

whynot: Xris, if you devised a very explicit set of instructions on how to change a flat tire, and some folks offered criticisms of your instructions, and having listened to their criticisms you realized they were not even criticizing your instructions, but were apparently mis-construing the instructions you devised and were only criticizing their mis-construed interpretation of your instructions, would it be fair to accuse you of dogmatism for trying only to unravel their miscontruence?

Are you actually saying you are not to be questioned?

Im sorry but certain questions do arrive at this proposal. When I asked myself why galaxies collide , I had no answer. But the universe also shows itself to be constantly moving. Certain parts are moving at different rates to other areas. We see certain areas where it is moving great deal faster. I spoke recently of the torus model. For me it requires to be examined.It answers many of the problems we see in the BB and the present model of the constant universe. The trouble with certainty it has the habit of being wrong. Lets just admit we need to be opened minded and not be so dogmatic.

whynot: Xris, if you devised a very explicit set of instructions on how to change a flat tire, and some folks offered criticisms of your instructions, and having listened to their criticisms you realized they were not even criticizing your instructions, but were apparently mis-construing the instructions you devised and were only criticizing their mis-construed interpretation of your instructions, would it be fair to accuse you of dogmatism for trying only to unravel their miscontruence?

Xris: Are you actually saying you are not to be questioned?

whynot: Chuckle...how on earth did you come to that question based on what I actually said above? I am saying that questions pertaining to what I say ought to pertain to what I actually say and not some mis-construence of what someone thought I was saying. For instance, from the example above, let's say I criticized your instructions thusly: "I still think your instructions are innacurate because everyone knows that tires have to be inflated with a specific air pressure."

Now, remember you've devised a set of instructions on how to change a flat tire. Your instructions said nothing about how a tire comes to be flat, only addresses the proper steps to changing a tire ONCE it has gone flat. And your underlying assumption is that everyone will already know that the flat tire needs replacing with an already inflated version, or the flat must be repaired such that it will hold any reasonable pressure of air.

As you can see, my criticism is basically non-sequitur to your instructions. So how did you interpret what I just said in such a way as to lead to the question that I am saying I am not to be questioned?

All I am saying is criticisms ought to be devised to actually address the article of critical examination on its own merits, rather than mis-construences of the article. If you were intentionally misrepresenting my position this would be labeled a strawman criticism.

So, NO, I am not saying that I am not to be questioned. I encourage, covet both questions and criticisms. It is of such inquiries and examinations that I learn, sharpen and improve my position.

I did initialy state I am not able to question your reasoning only your conclusion. You have questioned the academics who are convinced they are right. How could I be of assistance to this debate? Only by stating that in my opninion both sets of reasoning could be flawed. If we accept that your observations are correct it does not conclude that the universe is boundless, infinite. I would gladly repeat my objections to your theory, if you require me to.

I did initialy state I am not able to question your reasoning only your conclusion.

whynot: yes, you did...and I appreciate your input on this subject. I am not trying to change your mind or looking for converts. I hold to every basic tenet of my theory tentatively until some new data is presented that forces me to recogitate. I have done this often. This theory is a work in progress and by no means a done deal.

Xris: You have questioned the academics who are convinced they are right.

whynot: Actually, Xris I'm just following the lead of many other equally scholared academics who have also questioned current popular theoretics, having found and presented very convincing evidence that contradicts the mainstream belief in BB theology. And I've applied such little knowledge as I possess to the subject to arrive at my own cogitations on the matter.

Xris: How could I be of assistance to this debate?

whynot: You already have. Everytime I have an opportunity to articulate my theoretics I find that my understanding and articulative skills improve. Every criticism that compels me to re-examine any given proposition leads me to new and better ways of explanation.

Xris: Only by stating that in my opninion both sets of reasoning could be flawed.

whynot: And I have never represented my ToE as flawless, now have I.

Xris: If we accept that your observations are correct it does not conclude that the universe is boundless, infinite.

whynot: You are absolutely right. Inter-subjective agreement does not a valid theory make. I am not trying to con you into accepting something you see no valid reason to accept. I always try to state my premises and support them with analogy, examples, excerpts from other more qualified technicians, etc. especially when pushed to do so. Certainly a good deal of my theory is a matter of interpretation of existing data...so what? It doesn't really make much difference how we get to a better grasp of the reality we all share, so long as we get there and I firmly believe I must include everyone and anyone who's interested enough to apply their reasoning skills.

Xris: I would gladly repeat my objections to your theory, if you require me to.

whynot: You are certainly welcome and heartily invited to do so if that is your pleasure. I only ask that you connect any such criticisms you care to offer directly to the assertion or proposition you are critiqueing and provide some reasoning to support your objections. Is that too much to ask?

I have said I can not dispute your views because I accept that there are discrepancies in our observations that are a problem. When galaxies in apparently the same area have differing speeds of retreat. Or as I have said before galaxies are moving towards each other. We have invented more and more to explain the original proposals. Im sorry I can not sharpen your argument, only oppose your conclusion.

You talk of regression .Where will you go?

You dont want to accept the problem of originality.

You have not explained the reasoning behind a infinite universe and the billion mirror images of ourselves.

You have not explained why aliens are not evident in their thousands. In an infinite universe life would be advanced beyond our imagination.

Im sorry but this is the only opposition I can muster.Thanks xris

I have said I can not dispute your views because I accept that there are discrepancies in our observations that are a problem. When galaxies in apparently the same area have differing speeds of retreat. Or as I have said before galaxies are moving towards each other. We have invented more and more to explain the original proposals. Im sorry I can not sharpen your argument, only oppose your conclusion.

You talk of regression .Where will you go?

whynot: I'm sorry Xris, I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase it?

Xris: You dont want to accept the problem of originality.

whynot: It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want to accept. I follow the data. In a universe of infinite multi-dimensional space and infinite gravity/time there simply can be no beginning. And, even more damaging to metaphysical beginnings is the fact that they never actually close the door on infinite regress anyway. If someone argues the universe came from nothing then someone can always ask where this nothingness originated and it still becomes turtles all the way down. So why keep playing this shellgame? Just embrace infinite regress, (since it's logically inescapable anyway), and be done with it!

Xris: You have not explained the reasoning behind a infinite universe and the billion mirror images of ourselves.

whynot: So what if there has been a billion or ten billion copies of you in the infinite past? What does that have to do with your circumstances in the here and now? Since you and I will never know the answer to questions like this, coupled with the fact that even if we knew it would have no relative impact on our existence in the here and now, tells me such questions are superfluous.

Xris: You have not explained why aliens are not evident in their thousands. In an infinite universe life would be advanced beyond our imagination.

whynot: You can't forget we exist in a universe of infinite multi-dimensional space. It could be the case that there are other life forms far more advanced than we are, but in infinite space they could be anywhere. I see no reason to go a step further and say they could, logically speaking, be everywhere...but here. Maybe our galaxy is not user friendly to their life systems? Maybe they are already just over the horizon plotting an invasion? The only thing we can say for sure is if they do exist, they haven't made that fact known to us yet.

Im sorry but this is the only opposition I can muster.Thanks xris

whynot: Don't apologize Xris, you've brought up some very good questions. I only hope my answers are as equally good. As I said, I'm not out to convert anyone. I can only calls 'em likes I sees 'em. If other folks don't sees 'em that way...shrug...not my problem.

But let me leave you with this thought Xris.Take another look at those two "criticisms" you offered again and consider the real implications of what you said. You are absolutely correct on both counts. In an infinitely regressive universe there could have been a billion mirror images of you in the past and there really could be superior alien species all over the universe. But ask yourself if this is necessarily a bad thing. Or let me ask you if and or why you would interpret this as a bad thing for humanity. It really only means that in our reality "ANYTHING REALLY IS POSSIBLE"! It could be the case that we didn't evolve on this planet at all but were transplanted here by an alien species who's watching our progress with keen interest. And it could be the case that there actually is an alien species on the horizon preparing to launch an attack which would cause us, as a species, to set aside our petty differences and band together to fight for our right to exist. And it could be the case that both of those cases are true, at the same time; that one species will attack while the other observes from afar. Personally I don't see an infinitely regressive universe, and the implications of same, as a bad thing but a good and exciting thing. Yet I've always been an optimist anyway.

Two galaxies in the same area of space. Moving away or towards each other using the red shift method. What does that indicate to you?

How do you explain the flatness of the universe? This apparent cone like shape stretching into the unknown?

Do you think the constant universe needs dark energy?

You are using your conclusions to ratify your theory and there by discounting the BB.The constant universe has the same problems of originality as the BB.

A billion images of you and me exist now in this eternal universe with no end.In fact an infinite number of me and you scattered throughout the ever ever land.

You can not restrict alien life by your reasoning. An infinite universe will create god like figures capable of manipulating time and space. You have invented gods with this notion of infinity. You need death and rebirth to maintain sense in the universe.

The BB maybe dead but your theory in my opinion is just as flawed.

Is this sharpening your argument any. Thanks xris

Two galaxies in the same area of space. Moving away or towards each other using the red shift method. What does that indicate to you?

whynot: Using red shift to determine trajectories is grossly inaccurate, in the first place, because redshift is not due to velocity or trajectory but intrinsic age of the galaxy being observed. In the second place, you cannot forget to factor in the fact that you are observing a galaxy, (depending on distance from you), at a much earlier stage of its existence. A billion light years away means you are observing that galaxy when it was much younger than you and I. In reality, the best theoretic to account for galaxie motion is a combination of curved space and electro-dynamics. And "motion" includes both velocity and trajectory.

How do you explain the flatness of the universe? This apparent cone like shape stretching into the unknown?

whynot: It is the product of faulty mathematical modeling. If the universe were actually flat there would be no mechanism for motion and thus no material processes.

Do you think the constant universe needs dark energy?

whynot: Gravity/time is the equivalent, though mainstream theorists are not likely to embrace this until they've wasted billions of dollars on fruitless searches for its approximation in the lab...much as they've done with their search for dark matter.

You are using your conclusions to ratify your theory and there by discounting the BB.The constant universe has the same problems of originality as the BB.

whynot: You'll have to be more specific with this criticism. What specific problems are you referring to?

A billion images of you and me exist now in this eternal universe with no end.In fact an infinite number of me and you scattered throughout the ever ever land.

whynot: It is possible that there have been mirror images of us in the past, but it is not possible for them all to exist in the present at the same time. This is because the material processes required to effectuate such a state of affairs is simply not available. While multi-dimensional space and gravity/time are infinite at all times, the material processes that emerge from them is never capable of reaching infinity at any given time. If they did, space would dissolve into a single dimension and the universe, as we experience it, would cease to exist.

You can not restrict alien life by your reasoning. An infinite universe will create god like figures capable of manipulating time and space. You have invented gods with this notion of infinity. You need death and rebirth to maintain sense in the universe.

whynot: Too much manipulation of time and space would render such godlike figures non-existent, so even a godlike species would not be that stupid. And death and rebirth are very intrinsic qualities of this theory. Mayhaps you'd benefit in your criticisms with a more careful examination of the theory you're criticizing.

The BB maybe dead but your theory in my opinion is just as flawed.

Is this sharpening your argument any. Thanks xris

whynot: Attitudes do not a criticism make. If I have mis-interpreted this latest contribution I apologize in advance.

If its by red shift or other observations the galaxies are rotating and moving, by this observation we must assume something is driving them. Galaxies just dont decide to move without an external force, what is it? I do understand we are looking at ancient history but that does not exclude the idea that they are moving in certain direction. When I said the universe is flat, it appears flat to our immediate perspective but taking a more distant view it is tubular, much like the segment of a life belt or torus.

Im sorry but Im not realy sure what your universe looks like or how it is constant and sometimes infinite. You appear to be creating empty space without the necessary mass to make it possible.You have invented nothing .

My alien life would be capable of manipulating space and time having discovered those ellusive worm holes. They are intelligent enough to have secured this secret without destroying themselves. So where are they?

How big is your universe if it's not infinite? Is it not big enough to make the laws of average create me again and again without ending?

Im sorry but by disputing the means to arrive at the BB theory does not therefor conclude any other theory is valid