The Big Bang Never Happened?

[BlackCat]

 

Josh, here's an interesting discussion that took place on the scienceforum back in 2011:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59446-big-bang-theory-disputed-with-evidence/

 

I remember trying to follow the discussion at the time, but it's all too technical for me.  The replies seem very interesting, especially those of 'Pantheory' in post #19. 

 

If I may...BC.

 

Bhim, who's just joined this forum, is an astrophysicst.  

Wouldn't he be the ideal person to examine Pantheory?  Why don't you ask him and see if he'll oblige?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Absolutely.  I didn't mean for just Josh to check it out.  I should have said 'guys', but addressed Josh, as Josh had started the thread.  Sorry if it seemed I was excluding anyone.  I wasn't.   I'll be very interested to know what Bhim and you others who can understand this stuff make of 'pan theory' and the other comments on that thread.  

[Thought2Much]

People who jump into science forums and advertise their own theories (which are invariably not published in science journals and are not peer reviewed) while saying that all of mainstream science is wrong are completely full of shit, more often than not. Actually, pretty much every time they are full of shit. They are only good at baffling people who don't know any better with bullshit that sounds like science.

[Joshpantera]

I did some reading here: http://www.pantheory.org/Pages/index2.php

 

I've noticed that a lot of these alternative theories tend to take issue with the life cycle of the universe. The Plasma model brings the idea that the universe constantly regenerates itself and would never really burn out, from what I take of it. The Pantheory seems aimed in the same direction. And even with the standard model we find suggestions like the colliding brane concept from string theory that takes issue with how the universe would get kick started again. I guess it just goes to show what's on a lot of peoples minds and how the gloom and doom response to the BBT has provoked a lot of people to look into other interpretations. Eric Lerner calls it a pendulum swing where everyone seems to swing back and forth between a gloomy outlook and positive one according to what's going on during any given time in earth's history:

 

"The Big Bang Never Happened", by Eric J. Lerner 

"In our century the cosmological pendulum has 'swung back'. The universe of present-day cosmology is more like that of Ptolemy and Augustine than that of Galileo and Kepler. Like the medieval cosmos, the modern universe is finite in time- it began in the Big Bang, and will end either in a Big Crunch or in slow decay and dissipation of all matter. A universe of unlimited progress from an infinite past to an infinite future makes sense when society is 'advancing'. But when that advance halts, when the idea of progress is mocked by the century of Verdun, Auschwitz, and Hiroshima, when the prospect of human betterment is dim, we should not be surprised that the 'decaying cosmos' again rises to dominance. 

Science and Society 

And since, as history abundantly shows, people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society, this debate has implications far beyond the realm of science, for the core of the cosmological debate is a question of how truth is known. 
How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity. 

The emerging revolution in science extends beyond cosmology. Today the study of the underlying structure of matter, particle physics, is intimately tied up with cosmology- the structure of the universe, theorists argue, is the result of events in the first instants of time. If the Big Bang hypothesis is wrong, then the foundation of modern particle physics collapses and entirely new approaches are required. Indeed, particle physics also suffers from an increasing contradiction between theory and experiment. 

Equally important, if the Big Bang never occurred our concept of time must change as well. Instead of a universe finite in time, running down from a fiery start to a dusty, dark finish, the universe will be infinite in duration, continuously evolving. Just such a concept of time as evolution is now emerging from new studies in the field of thermodynamics. 

My aim is to explain these new ideas to the general reader, one who is interested in the crucial issues of science but who has no special training in the subject. I believe that if the issues are presented clearly, readers will be able to judge the validity of the arguments involved in this debate. 

This history, then, involves more than the history of cosmology, or even of science. One of the basic (although far from original) themes of this book is that science is intimately tied up with society, that ideas about society, about events here on earth, affect ideas about the universe- and vice versa. This interaction is not limited to the world of ideas. A society's social, political and economic structures have a vast effect on how people think; and scientific thought, through its impact on technology, can greatly change the course of economic and social evolution. 

My conflict with conventional physics started when I was an undergraduate at Columbia in the mid-sixties. Physics itself interested me, learning why things happen as they do- mathematics was merely a tool to understand and test the underlying physical concepts. That was not the way physics was taught; instead, mathematical techniques were emphasized. This is almost exclusively what students are still tested on, and obviously study the most. 

 

Now this does seem interesting to analyze. There may be a lot of subconscious psychological baggage involved in cosmology because, after all, all theory derives from the mind, which, goes without saying. Funny how Lerner drew parallels between gloomy world views and gloomy cosmological speculation. I'd say that we're now back into more of and advancing stage again and so we see that reflected in some of the newer ideas coming out of string theory about the multiverse and such. The standard model is getting rethought in various ways into something not so gloomy, something competitive with respect to all of the various alternative theories that very consciously seek to bring a better cosmological outlook for the future, and, address the issue of an infinite past and possibly an endless future. 

 

One thing that I've taken from all of this is that trying pin a fixed beginning or end to mere existence is quite pointless. And I can see that most of these alternative theorists feel that way. But standard model proponents also seem to feel that way too when pressed with the issue. The multiverse possibility or some similar idea will usually come up. So there seems to be some common ground in that some how, in some way, mere existence is necessarily eternal. Space, more likely than not, is continuous and probably extends forever. That seems to be the general idea coming from the discovery that space turns out to be flat - the idea that it may extend forever throughout a vast multiverse. 

 

Since the drive seems to be towards an older and older universe or an eternal multiverse of universes it would appear that YECism takes a full on jolly 'rogering' in all of this, eh mates?

 

I find it interesting that some of these idiots from the literalist camp take a "the enemy of my enemy is a friend" attitude towards the secular anti-BB theorists when in all reality it turns out more like "the enemy of my enemy is much more of an enemy."

 

That's about how this situation actually relates to YECists as I see it. These newer ideas get far less religious than even the standard model, which, as Lerner pointed, actually has some ties to religious thought when stripped bare. One thing that caught my attention years ago is the conspiracy theory about how it was essentially a Catholic priest pushing for the primitive BB concept and trying to convince Einstein who rejected it until Hubble's discovery, at which point Einstein finally accepted it due to red shift. Some people have put forward the notion that the whole thing was devised as a way to make a scientific claim that seems to reflect Genesis 1 and then launched on the scientific community.

 

If there were any truth to this conspiracy then it wouldn't be too different than what we've found with respect to the ID and IC lobby nowadays, which are likewise derived from the mind of a Catholic (Behe) bent on psuedo-scientific claims and assertions that seek to accord in some remote way with Genesis 1 and the notion of a special creation. For me that was enough to warrant healthy suspicion about the BBT and the possibility that it could have been a Catholic based Ruiz all along the likes of ID / IC, but one that actually stuck in the scientific community.

 

Lerner hints around at that as well without laying the conspiracy angle that sometimes goes with it: 

 

The Big Bang and Religion 

So we should not be surprised that today cosmology remains entangled with religion. From theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator. In February of 1989, for example, the front-page article of the New York Times Book Review argued that scientists and novelists were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang. 

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow echoes the same theme in his widely noted God and the Astronomers: the Big Bang of the astronomers is simply the scientific version of Genesis, a universe created in an instant, therefore the work of a creator. These ideas are repeated in a dozen or more popular books on cosmology and fundamental physics. 

Such thinking is not limited to physicists and novelists, who could perhaps be dismissed as amateur theologians. Ever since 1951, when Pope Pius XII asserted that the still-new Big Bang supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, Catholic theologians have used it in this way. The pope wrote in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: 

"In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' [Let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" 

To many in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea of a universe 'infinite in time and space' is not allowed for the same reasons Augustine argued two millennia ago: infinity is exclusive to the deity, and thus prohibited for the material universe. To say that the universe is unlimited is to obscure a crucial difference between God and nature, and thus to advocate pantheism - the idea that nature itself is inherently divine and, perhaps, needs no God. Thus a belief in an infinite cosmology implies heresy. Such reasoning is intimately linked to the arguments used against Nicholas of Cusa, Copernicus and Giordano Bruno hundreds of years ago. For many theologians they have lost none of their force today. 

For many this all proves that the meaning of the universe resides in a progress toward God to be achieved in the last judgment. But to many existentialists (and physicists) this vision is one of complete meaninglessness. Bertrand Russell, for example, writes: "All the labor of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the death of the solar system- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. 

Cosmologists such as Edward Harrison describe a similar end: The stars begin to fade like guttering candles and are snuffed out one by one. Out in the depths of space the great celestial cities, the galaxies cluttered with the memorabilia of ages, are gradually dying. Tens of billions of years pass in the growing darkness ... of a universe condemned to become a galactic graveyard. 

Paul Davies, another cosmologist, writes: No natural agency, intelligent or otherwise, can delay forever the end of the universe. Only a supernatural God could try to wind it up again. 

The ability of human society to make increasingly better use of energy flows by increasing the level of technology would preclude both an end to life and even an end to the growth of life. Cosmic pessimism is unsupported by science. 

[Ravenstar]

Josh.. you always make me think    

 

I am at heart a pantheist I guess. If there is a divine I can't see how it could be other than immanent—whatever other qualities it may have.

 

What I see on earth is that things most certainly do work in cycles.. spirals actually — especially life. However, due to the limits of human observation including time, this could be an illusion and maybe it doesn't translate to the universe as a whole. The concept of a 'big crunch' always appealed to me.. a breathing in and out of the universe, a cosmic heartbeat—each new expression spiraling outward like a fractal. But I'm an artist... and obviously, a romantic. (?) I'd like to think that sentience, or consciousness is a integral part of the expression of physics on the cosmic scale but in reality I have to admit it may just be an anomaly... like saber-toothed cats, consciousness may just be another experiment of matter, and one that really has no bearing on anything.

 

We are an enormously egocentric life-form... the truth could be that we don't matter (haha - just noted the pun here) at all—and that our vanity is unfounded. The universe or multi-verse could march on whether we had ever come to be or not.

 

An interesting exercise: I had a conversation once with a friend about changing perspective... we both agreed to try to meditate on what it would be like to be 2-dimensional. ie: length and width, but no depth... what would that world be like? How much would be beyond our perception? It's almost impossible to do but still an interesting exercise. It made me think though about our limitation as humans... being 3-dimensional, how much can we not perceive? Do we really understand that time itself is a dimension? etc...

 

I see us as being on the edge of knowledge... looking outwards at the vast unknown. We've probed a little bit but really are only just beginning our exploration. Our history of our queries into the nature of our environment is very short... maybe 15,000 years? and only about 400 - 600 with the scientific method. A drop in a vast ocean. And all of these questions are colored by our egocentricity—through the matrix of our perceptions and viewpoint. This is where the hypotheses of our models originate, including the BB, and multiverse, holographic universe, etc.. quantum physics has hinted that reality is much stranger than we ever imagined, and I think we will find the nature of the cosmos is also much stranger.

 

However, I think we have come to a point where at least by adhering to the scientific method we can reduce the bias of our perspective. I would also suggest though that taking our collective psychology into account into ANY theory is necessary - because we can not divorce ourselves from our culture and perspective, not entirely - and that is going to affect any theory we posit.

 

All we can do is keep asking the questions...

[Joshpantera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.^[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.^[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.^[7]

Einstein was skeptical of this paper. When Lemaître approached Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference, the latter pointed out that Alexander Friedmann had proposed a similar solution to Einstein's equations in 1922, implying that the radius of the universe increased over time. (Einstein had also criticized Friedmann's calculations, but withdrew his comments.) In 1931, his annus mirabilis,^[19] Lemaître published an article in Nature setting out his theory of the "primeval atom."

 

...Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann, and then (privately) Lemaître, out of hand, saying that not all mathematics lead to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.^[20]

Here's a funny article on the issue:

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1945606/posts

I once attended a youth club in Colchester, a town in England where I grew up as a teenager. Run by fundamentalist evangelicals (generous, kind people incidentally), who are rare in Britain, the night's activities of five-a-side football, cricket or pool would come only after some kind of Bible-reading or an unsuccessful attempt at debunking the Theory of Evolution, which was a particular bugbear of theirs.

 

One night, a local volunteer was explaining why the Big Bang Theory was obviously nonsense with a cutesy, homely analogy – "If you blow up a pile of bricks, you don’t get a building, it’s stupid." In your face, Stephen Hawking!

 

He didn’t know why scientists might have come up with the idea of the Big Bang, except perhaps as a sneaky rationalisation for undermining Christianity. He wasn’t even clear as to why he thought it posed a theological problem for Christians in the first place, though he is not alone in thinking that it does.

 

The irony is extraordinary - aside from being uninformed about the Theory itself, fundamentalists are usually unaware of its religious origins, and the fact that the Big Bang Theory successfully replaced a theory much less compatible with Christian ideas about the beginning of time - the Steady State Theory...

 

...It surprises me then, that many Christians still find the idea of the Big Bang problematic. They might instead try and take the credit for it and - why not? - get on with doing some science themselves.

[Bhim]

 

 

Josh, here's an interesting discussion that took place on the scienceforum back in 2011:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59446-big-bang-theory-disputed-with-evidence/

 

I remember trying to follow the discussion at the time, but it's all too technical for me.  The replies seem very interesting, especially those of 'Pantheory' in post #19. 

 

If I may...BC.

 

Bhim, who's just joined this forum, is an astrophysicst.  

Wouldn't he be the ideal person to examine Pantheory?  Why don't you ask him and see if he'll oblige?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Absolutely.  I didn't mean for just Josh to check it out.  I should have said 'guys', but addressed Josh, as Josh had started the thread.  Sorry if it seemed I was excluding anyone.  I wasn't.   I'll be very interested to know what Bhim and you others who can understand this stuff make of 'pan theory' and the other comments on that thread.  

 

Hi, I just read the post by pantheory.  Like he says, we generally assume that when considering distant astrophysical objects, distance is correlated with redshift due to cosmological redshift (this is not true for close galaxies, for example the Andromeda Galaxy is actually blueshifted).  If we assume an expanding universe on this basis, it generally implies that the universe had some beginning. Pantheory discusses his alternative hypothesis and suggests that a galaxy's distance is not related to its redshift.  But he doesn't address the grounds for this hypothesis, so I can't really address his argument.  Known spectral features can be used to calculate redshifts pretty accurately.  I don't know how spectral features can be altered except by Doppler shift, so I really don't know how redshift and distance could not be correlated.

 

Distances in astronomy are computed with a sort of ladder system.  We can use simple geometry to calculate the distance to very close stars.  Astronomers measure the position of a star in the summer and the winter, when the earth is on opposite sides of the sun, and measure the shift in the position of the start with respect to the starfield, i.e. the parallax.  We know the diameter of the earth's orbit, so a straightforward triangle construction can tell us how far away these nearby stars are.  Next, we use the period-luminiosity relationship of a certain class of stars known as Cepheid Variables.  By measuring the period of these stars (i.e. how quickly they alter in brightness), we can know their luminosity.  If you know how much light a star emits, and how much you actually see, you can use a simple inverse square law to determine its distance.  Then by looking at Cepheids in other galaxies we can measure distances, and if we also know the redshifts of these galaxies we can easily determine the redshift-distance relationship, i.e. the Hubble Constant.

 

Logically speaking it's a pretty ironclad argument.  To attack it you'd need to argue that galactic redshifts are not due to the expansion of the universe, that the period-lumiosity relationship of Cepheid varibles is not valid, or (in the Christian tradition) suggest that triangles don't work the way we think they do.  In the post that was referred to, Pantheory takes the first approach, he suggests that the universe is not expanding.  Unfortunately, he doesn't provide an alternative explanation, and seems to allude that he's keeping this knowledge proprietary until he publishes.  But again, if he doesn't make his case, no one can argue it.  He's just stating something without proof, and there's no reason for anyone to support his explanation in lieu of accepted astrophysical and cosmological models.

 

Anway, hope that helps!

[BlackCat]

 

 

 

Josh, here's an interesting discussion that took place on the scienceforum back in 2011:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59446-big-bang-theory-disputed-with-evidence/

 

I remember trying to follow the discussion at the time, but it's all too technical for me.  The replies seem very interesting, especially those of 'Pantheory' in post #19. 

 

If I may...BC.

 

Bhim, who's just joined this forum, is an astrophysicst.  

Wouldn't he be the ideal person to examine Pantheory?  Why don't you ask him and see if he'll oblige?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Absolutely.  I didn't mean for just Josh to check it out.  I should have said 'guys', but addressed Josh, as Josh had started the thread.  Sorry if it seemed I was excluding anyone.  I wasn't.   I'll be very interested to know what Bhim and you others who can understand this stuff make of 'pan theory' and the other comments on that thread.  

 

Hi, I just read the post by pantheory.  Like he says, we generally assume that when considering distant astrophysical objects, distance is correlated with redshift due to cosmological redshift (this is not true for close galaxies, for example the Andromeda Galaxy is actually blueshifted).  If we assume an expanding universe on this basis, it generally implies that the universe had some beginning. Pantheory discusses his alternative hypothesis and suggests that a galaxy's distance is not related to its redshift.  But he doesn't address the grounds for this hypothesis, so I can't really address his argument.  Known spectral features can be used to calculate redshifts pretty accurately.  I don't know how spectral features can be altered except by Doppler shift, so I really don't know how redshift and distance could not be correlated.

 

Distances in astronomy are computed with a sort of ladder system.  We can use simple geometry to calculate the distance to very close stars.  Astronomers measure the position of a star in the summer and the winter, when the earth is on opposite sides of the sun, and measure the shift in the position of the start with respect to the starfield, i.e. the parallax.  We know the diameter of the earth's orbit, so a straightforward triangle construction can tell us how far away these nearby stars are.  Next, we use the period-luminiosity relationship of a certain class of stars known as Cepheid Variables.  By measuring the period of these stars (i.e. how quickly they alter in brightness), we can know their luminosity.  If you know how much light a star emits, and how much you actually see, you can use a simple inverse square law to determine its distance.  Then by looking at Cepheids in other galaxies we can measure distances, and if we also know the redshifts of these galaxies we can easily determine the redshift-distance relationship, i.e. the Hubble Constant.

 

Logically speaking it's a pretty ironclad argument.  To attack it you'd need to argue that galactic redshifts are not due to the expansion of the universe, that the period-lumiosity relationship of Cepheid varibles is not valid, or (in the Christian tradition) suggest that triangles don't work the way we think they do.  In the post that was referred to, Pantheory takes the first approach, he suggests that the universe is not expanding.  Unfortunately, he doesn't provide an alternative explanation, and seems to allude that he's keeping this knowledge proprietary until he publishes.  But again, if he doesn't make his case, no one can argue it.  He's just stating something without proof, and there's no reason for anyone to support his explanation in lieu of accepted astrophysical and cosmological models.

 

Anway, hope that helps!

 

Hi Bhim- thanks for checking out the link.  It's much appreciated.   

[pantheory]

Huy gugs and gals,

 

I'm new to this forum. Saw this last week being discussed whereby you were talking about my comments from a previous online discussion in another forum. Also you were discussing my theory related to "the Big Bang Never Happened, called the Pan Theory. So this seemed like a friendly place, so I'm here if anyone wishes to ask me theoretical questions about my own theory or other theoretical models in cosmology.

 

Forrest Noble

[Thought2Much]

Huy gugs and gals,

 

I'm new to this forum. Saw this last week being discussed whereby you were talking about my comments from a previous online discussion in another forum. Also you were discussing my theory related to "the Big Bang Never Happened, called the Pan Theory. So this seemed like a friendly place, so I'm here if anyone wishes to ask me theoretical questions about my own theory or other theoretical models in cosmology.

 

Forrest Noble

 

Forrest Noble? Oh yes, I remember you. Your theories were thoroughly debunked on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board/Bad Astronomy Universe Today Forums/The CosmoQuest Forum. You were also banned from that site for not following rules about how to present and promote theories that are against the mainstream.

 

Do you just do random Google searches for mentions of your theory, then jump into forums that discuss it in order to promote it to the clueless? That's a sign of someone that's pretty goddamn full of himself, don't you think?

[pantheory]

 

Huy gugs and gals,

 

I'm new to this forum. Saw this last week being discussed whereby you were talking about my comments from a previous online discussion in another forum. Also you were discussing my theory related to "the Big Bang Never Happened, called the Pan Theory. So this seemed like a friendly place, so I'm here if anyone wishes to ask me theoretical questions about my own theory or other theoretical models in cosmology.

 

Forrest Noble

 

Forrest Noble? Oh yes, I remember you. Your theories were thoroughly debunked on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board/Bad Astronomy Universe Today Forums/The CosmoQuest Forum. You were also banned from that site for not following rules about how to present and promote theories that are against the mainstream.

 

Do you just do random Google searches for mentions of your theory, then jump into forums that discuss it in order to promote it to the clueless? That's a sign of someone that's pretty goddamn full of himself, don't you think?

 

Thanks for your comments, Thought2much. Somebody might have believed they debunked some of my theories. My book is 400 pages long and includes many self supporting theories and hypothesis. Many theorists also believe thay have disproved the Big Bang model, quantum theory, particle theory, General Relativity, etc.

 

I think you are referring to the BAUT website whereby there was a long question and answer session concerning my theory of gravity. You can see it at Forrest Noble's pushing gravity theory on any search engine.

 

 

Do you just do random Google searches for mentions of your theory, then jump into forums that discuss it in order to promote it to the clueless? That's a sign of someone that's pretty goddamn full of himself, don't you think?

 

When I read the comments on this website some mentioned my theories and I thought would become available for those interested, concerning the thread topic "The Big Bang Never Happened." I think you might be pleasantly surprised after talking with me for awhile here, if you are interested

 

But if not I liked the general comments in the rest of the forum and decided it was a friendly place for general discussions -- so I joined (sorry for the "gugs" in my greeting, meant "guys" but am not used to no edit function availabe for my typos

 

regards,  Forrest

 

 

[Thought2Much]

Sorry, you've been thoroughly discredited by those who have actual scientific credentials and have done work in the fields you think you know something about, and now you're just looking to push your "theory" on those that don't know enough to really understand it or disprove it themselves. I have no interest in such a conversation, thanks.

 

I'm sure it feels good to have people who don't know enough about science to refute your ideas "ooh" and "aah" over how smart you are, though, and have them massage your ego and tell you how awful it is that none of those mean scientists will accept your "theory."

 

Oh, and you just happened upon this web site, out of the entire internet, within a week or two of the very first time your own "theory" has ever been mentioned here, and you noticed that we just happened to be talking about your "theory" and thought you could offer help regarding it? Really? I find that highly unlikely. It sounds more like you patrol Google to find new hits for people talking about your "theory," then jump in to promote it. It's kind of creepy, really.

[pantheory]

 

Sorry, you've been thoroughly discredited by those who have actual scientific credentials and have done work in the fields you think you know something about, and now you're just looking to push your "theory" on those that don't know enough to really understand it or disprove it themselves. I have no interest in such a conversation, thanks.

 

This was just a science related forum where I was answering questions about my pushing gravity model. Those making comments or asking questions did not need to have any credentials of any kind. Many asking questions, however, did have many good questions.   But there was no proving or discrediting involved excepting maybe in the minds of some   It was just there questions and comments, and my answers. No one there claimed that my model was discredited in any way

 

 

I'm sure it feels good to have people who don't know enough about science to refute your ideas "ooh" and "aah" over how smart you are, though, and have them massage your ego and tell you how awful it is that none of those mean scientists will accept your "theory."

 

I think I could contribute much to continue this "the Big Bang Never Happened" thread for those possibly interested. I know a lot concerning many different cosmologies, not just my own. No, I'm not a big egotist and do not believe science conspires to exclude alternative theories.

 

 

 

Oh, and you just happened upon this web site, out of the entire internet, within a week or two of the very first time your own "theory" has ever been mentioned here, and you noticed that we just happened to be talking about your "theory" and thought you could offer help regarding it? Really?

 

 

I do an internet search every once in a while to find out discussions or comments concerning my theoretical models, and even other alternative models. Concerning my own theoretical models, I very seldom find any new comments on it. I usually just answer questions on my website for those asking them. In this case I found this website and discussions and thought it would be fun discussing my own or other models including the Big Bang model, for anyone interested, that's all. but if not I like the general idea of this forum "ex-Christians" and hope to partake in such discussions.

[Joshpantera]

Whatever the case, it seems we now have a secular oriented anti-BB theorist among us. That should be interesting enough in and of itself and does seem relevant enough to remain on topic. 
 
Welcome Forrest. 
 
I'm sure that you've grown some pretty thick skin over the years having to face off with "crack pot" accusations and the like. I'm actually friends with the Milo Wolff (www.quantummatter.com) and Geoff Haselhurst (www.spaceandmotion.com) Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) proponents who are likewise anti-BBT, even though some others have tried to reconcile the wave structured electron with the BBT. I've spent a considerable amount of time reading on the spherical in and out wave structured electron and it's philosophical implications several years ago while doing personal research into explanations for the particle / wave duality and some of the other paradoxes.
 
These two guys are fellow atheists and pantheist philosophers and their cosmological outlook is largely Pantheistic in implication with space being viewed as a continuous wave medium substance (mostly rigid / slightly elastic) out of which all material objects have their origin according to the wave structured electron view. It's very Spinoza / primary substance oriented stuff to get into. I would assume that you're familiar with the WSM physics in some way if you're hip on some of the competing alternative theories as you've suggested above. Maybe you can relate your Pan Theory ideas against those I'm already familiar with concerning the wave structured electron model and such.
 
Now of course I've already stated that I prefer to give the standard model it's due as long it remains the standard, however I do look at alternative views just to know what else is out there. So I don't mind if you want to plug your Pan Theory here if you'd like. As you can see this thread is more or less about making a case study of the non-religious anti-BBT proponents and perhaps trying to understand why they are against the BBT if they are clearly NOT fundy creationists with a grudge against the BBT? 
 
BTW, you won't be able to edit your posts until a certain number of posts have been made. I know, it's frustrating at first but eventually it will end...

[pantheory]

Nice to be here, thanks Strong Minded.

 

 

I'm sure that you've grown some pretty thick skin over the years having to face off with "crack pot" accusations and the like.

 

Yeah I guess it's my nature to be easy going so I do not take anything personal.  When promoting anything in a scientific paper, whether mainstream or an alternative model, one feels lucky if anyone even reads your paper. Criticisms are welcomed.

 

On websites there are only sub forums where alternative theory can be discussed. Once in a while I make such a presentation, but usually I discuss mainstream theories in mainstream forums, usually qualifying my statements by saying "according to the present consensus" such and such...... This, and reading the science news, helps me to stay up to date on the latest observations and thinking in science.

 

 

I'm actually friends with the Milo Wolff ( www.quantummatter.com ) and Geoff Haselhurst ( www.spaceandmotion.com ) Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) proponents who are likewise anti-BBT, even though some others have tried to reconcile the wave structured electron with the BBT. I've spent a considerable amount of time reading on the spherical in and out wave structured electron and it's philosophical implications several years ago while doing personal research into explanations for the particle / wave duality and some of the other paradoxes.

 

I am not familiar with their theories in particular, but have heard of it or something like it. In my own model I believe in a physical background field like the aether of yore. Modern versions of a background field might be the Higg's field and dark matter hypothesis. In this model spinning particles produce matter waves in field. So there always accordingly would be a particle and its associated wave, both at the same time. I expect I could learn some new ideas after reading their theory. In quantum Mechanics it is an energy wave, not a physical wave as in my model.

 

Pantheism, I think, is innocuous. The few that I have talked with seem to be philosophical, good-natured people. As for myself, I generally like most religions and the many good deeds promoted (fanaticists aside) in their name, but I am a pure atheist but have no mention in my writings related to anything spiritual.

 

I really don't like to criticize other alternative models. I prefer just asking questions where I may know the answers. Maybe mention possible logical or observational problems the model might have, and see how they might explain these possible problems.

 

I also don't like necessarily plugging my own model. I prefer to answer questions about it or related questions relating to problems with mainstream models, since my model is entirely observation and "logically based."

 

My main case against the Big Bang (BB) is based upon observations. Some of the simplest arguments against it is that it is a model of an expanding universe, which is the foundation pillar of the model. The theory predicts that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and was much denser concerning galaxies in the past since space accordingly is expanding. Based upon the volume of a sphere, the universe would have been 8 times more dense about 7 billion years ago (4/3 pi r³; volume of sphere) when the universe was half its present age). Yet no observations show that the universe was more dense in the past. Another serious problem is that with the Hubble Space telescope we can see many old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances. This totally contradicts the BB model. Only young appearing galaxies should exist at the supposed beginning of the universe. These observations will either prove or disprove the BB model.

 

In 2018 or so, the new James Webb telescope will go up. Within a few years thereafter if only small, blue appearing, young galaxies can be observed, then almost all other cosmological models of an older or infinite age to the universe will be disproved, including my own. But if at these farthest distances they keep on seeing old-appearing large galaxies like our galaxy, then the BB model will need to come up with another ad hoc hypothesis, to enable the BB model to allow for a much older universe. If this happens then many theorists will begin seriously looking for alternative models.

 

Thanks again for your nice welcome. Looking forward also to some of your other discussions,

best regards, Forrest

[Thought2Much]

No, I'm not a big egotist and do not believe science conspires to exclude alternative theories.

 

Of course you're not a big egotist. Which is why you drop in on random forums and try to push your woo every chance you get. But it's not about your ego, or your personal bias that you somehow have a better understanding of the universe than actual cosmologists, I'm sure. No, of course it couldn't be about that.

 

By the way, observations have already contradicted your "theory" even before the James Webb telescope goes up, but you've never been one to let facts get in your way, have you? No, of course not.

[Thought2Much]

This was just a science related forum where I was answering questions about my pushing gravity model. Those making comments or asking questions did not need to have any credentials of any kind.

 

Sure, credentials aren't required. But many of those asking the questions do have actual credentials in the field. And they completely invalidated your ideas. Period. Or, at the very least, you were completely unable to actually prove why your model should be considered over the current cosmological model.

[Thought2Much]

For a good example of how pantheory evades any tough questions about his "theory" from those that actually understand the accepted mainstream theory, you can peruse this thread.

[BlackCat]

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

[Thought2Much]

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

So he was lying when he said he just happened upon this forum and discovered this thread about his theory? Good to know. Why wasn't he honest about how he was informed about this thread?

[BlackCat]

 

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

So he was lying when he said he just happened upon this forum and discovered this thread about his theory? Good to know. Why wasn't he honest about how he was informed about this thread?

 

Why do you always think the worst?  Mr Noble hasn't' replied to my email, which I assume is because he hasn't read it yet.   

[Thought2Much]

 

 

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

So he was lying when he said he just happened upon this forum and discovered this thread about his theory? Good to know. Why wasn't he honest about how he was informed about this thread?

 

Why do you always think the worst?  Mr Noble hasn't' replied to my email, which I assume is because he hasn't read it yet.   

 

Because he's a self-serving hack, as evidenced by his participation in other forums? That's a pretty good reason right there. I don't know what you expect him to contribute here that he hasn't already stated in multiple forums.

[BlackCat]

 

 

 

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

So he was lying when he said he just happened upon this forum and discovered this thread about his theory? Good to know. Why wasn't he honest about how he was informed about this thread?

 

Why do you always think the worst?  Mr Noble hasn't' replied to my email, which I assume is because he hasn't read it yet.   

 

Because he's a self-serving hack, as evidenced by his participation in other forums? That's a pretty good reason right there. I don't know what you expect him to contribute here that he hasn't already stated in multiple forums.

 

It's one thing to disagree with someone, but you have this tendacy to become personal in your attacks.  Your behaviour is more obnoxious than the various 'crimes' you accuse others of.  You have got to be one of the most negative, rude people I've come across on forums.  I've only ever put one person on 'ignore' in the five years I've been on forums, but if such a facility exists on here, I'll be relieved to 'ignore' you.  Your comments fill me with such a horrible, negative feeling, which I no longer wish to experience on this regular basis.  From now on, I',m going to have to ignore your comments, for my own peace of mind.  Any good points you may make are outweighed by the other negative, nasty sarcastic stuff.   

[bornagainathiest]

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

BC,

 

With all due respect, I feel I have to ask you... why on Earth did you invite Forrest Noble to this forum?

 

The purpose of Ex-Christian.net is very specific.  To encourage those leaving the Christian faith. 

 

The Science vs. Religion sub-forum exists primarily to help deconverting Christians to understand the universe more fully - from a strictly scientific p.o.v, rather than a Creationist or Bible-centered one.  Please stop and think for a moment about how you were helped to understand things cosmological and theological.  Is that not so?  This sub-forum doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It falls under the same purpose as the whole of Ex-Christian.net - to assist and encourage those deconverting from Christianity.  So, is Mr. noble really here to receive help and encouragement is his deconversion from Christianity?  Hmmm...?

 

Please note that T2M isn't thinking the worst of Noble. 

Didn't you agree with me yesterday that the Creationists at the Discovery Institute were arch-deceivers and not what they passed themselves off as?  I'm sorry, but Noble's notoriety precedes him.   As T2M has already shown, Noble's been banned from other sites and persistently pushes his own theories, wherever and whenever he gets the chance. 

 

Why do you think that is, BC?

Because, just like the ID scientists, he's only interested in pursuing the truth?  Please wise up  and wake up!

If you've been treated with respect and fairness and honesty by me, then please trust me on this one. 

You are far too gullible and willing to see only the good in people.

 

BlackCat, trust me... the internet is swarming with predators who will take advantage of your good nature, if given even half a chance.  These sharks aren't only of the religious variety.  Book sales and ardent suporters are what Noble is seeking here - not the truth!

 

I'm sorry, but I'm 200% behind T2M on this one.

You'll notice how Noble has already misrepresented himself, when asked about how and why he came here.  If he really were being honest, wouldn't he have said that a member of this forum invited me?

 

I realize that your intentions were good BC, but please don't just invite anybody here without checking with someone you trust, ok?

 

Please don't take offense, but please learn from this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

BC,

 

With all due respect, I feel I have to ask you... why on Earth did you invite Forrest Noble to this forum?

 

The purpose of Ex-Christian.net is very specific.  To encourage those leaving the Christian faith. 

 

The Science vs. Religion sub-forum exists primarily to help deconverting Christians to understand the universe more fully - from a strictly scientific p.o.v, rather than a Creationist or Bible-centered one.  Please stop and think for a moment about how you were helped to understand things cosmological and theological.  Is that not so?  This sub-forum doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It falls under the same purpose as the whole of Ex-Christian.net - to assist and encourage those deconverting from Christianity.  So, is Mr. noble really here to receive help and encouragement is his deconversion from Christianity?  Hmmm...?

 

Please note that T2M isn't thinking the worst of Noble. 

Didn't you agree with me yesterday that the Creationists at the Discovery Institute were arch-deceivers and not what they passed themselves off as?  I'm sorry, but Noble's notoriety precedes him.   As T2M has already shown, Noble's been banned from other sites and persistently pushes his own theories, wherever and whenever he gets the chance. 

 

Why do you think that is, BC?

Because, just like the ID scientists, he's only interested in pursuing the truth?  Please wise up  and wake up!

If you've been treated with respect and fairness and honesty by me, then please trust me on this one. 

You are far too gullible and willing to see only the good in people.

 

BlackCat, trust me... the internet is swarming with predators who will take advantage of your good nature, if given even half a chance.  These sharks aren't only of the religious variety.  Book sales and ardent suporters are what Noble is seeking here - not the truth!

 

I'm sorry, but I'm 200% behind T2M on this one.

You'll notice how Noble has already misrepresented himself, when asked about how and why he came here.  If he really were being honest, wouldn't he have said that a member of this forum invited me?

 

I realize that your intentions were good BC, but please don't just invite anybody here without checking with someone you trust, ok?

 

Please don't take offense, but please learn from this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thank you, BAA. Especially the part where you recognize how Forrest has lied to us here with his very first post. There is good reason why I was so fantastically harsh with him from the get-go, which may not be immediately apparent to the members of Ex-C. He is only looking to sell himself wherever he goes, and he will not stop at dishonesty to do that.

[BlackCat]

 

Greetings Pantheory.     It's good you've joined us.  Coincidentally, I emailed you yesterday, to invite you to join in the discussion.  You'll find most people friendly on here. 

 

BC,

 

With all due respect, I feel I have to ask you... why on Earth did you invite Forrest Noble to this forum?

 

The purpose of Ex-Christian.net is very specific.  To encourage those leaving the Christian faith. 

 

The Science vs. Religion sub-forum exists primarily to help deconverting Christians to understand the universe more fully - from a strictly scientific p.o.v, rather than a Creationist or Bible-centered one.  Please stop and think for a moment about how you were helped to understand things cosmological and theological.  Is that not so?  This sub-forum doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It falls under the same purpose as the whole of Ex-Christian.net - to assist and encourage those deconverting from Christianity.  So, is Mr. noble really here to receive help and encouragement is his deconversion from Christianity?  Hmmm...?

 

Please note that T2M isn't thinking the worst of Noble. 

Didn't you agree with me yesterday that the Creationists at the Discovery Institute were arch-deceivers and not what they passed themselves off as?  I'm sorry, but Noble's notoriety precedes him.   As T2M has already shown, Noble's been banned from other sites and persistently pushes his own theories, wherever and whenever he gets the chance. 

 

Why do you think that is, BC?

Because, just like the ID scientists, he's only interested in pursuing the truth?  Please wise up  and wake up!

If you've been treated with respect and fairness and honesty by me, then please trust me on this one. 

You are far too gullible and willing to see only the good in people.

 

BlackCat, trust me... the internet is swarming with predators who will take advantage of your good nature, if given even half a chance.  These sharks aren't only of the religious variety.  Book sales and ardent suporters are what Noble is seeking here - not the truth!

 

I'm sorry, but I'm 200% behind T2M on this one.

You'll notice how Noble has already misrepresented himself, when asked about how and why he came here.  If he really were being honest, wouldn't he have said that a member of this forum invited me?

 

I realize that your intentions were good BC, but please don't just invite anybody here without checking with someone you trust, ok?

 

Please don't take offense, but please learn from this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA-  I don't take offense, and I realise that I'd not appreciated the purpose of this forum, or rather the sub forum 'science vs religion'.  My original purpose of linking to the thread on the science forum, was that the 'science forum' discussion was quite similar in nature, same videos and all.  As Bhim made an interesting response to 'pantheory' I emailed Mr Noble to see if he wanted to reply to those points Bhim made either via myself or to join us here, which thinking now I see that was not appropriate.  I'm sorry about that.  My enthusiasm overtook my 'seeing the bigger picture'. 

 

Now, even if all this about Nr Noble is true, I just don't understand people's rudeness or rather hostility.  Yes, convey these points in a firm, clear way and brook no nonsense.  I've had quite a few personal experiences of this hostility that I dont' believe I deserve.  If I'm wrong, tell me and I'll hopefully see the error of my ways but don't tell me that my wanting to discuss a subject is akin to shitting on dead people's memories, which is what I was accused of recently. I'm a very sensitive person and maybe I'm too sensitive.  Profuse apologies again to all on this forum for this balls up.