Your religion is on fire, and like napalm, you can't put it out!

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm:

"Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade."

"In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li."

Current Big Bang theories assume an almost infinitely dense point, and don't correctly model the nature of matter.

Plasma theories don't properly account for an infinitely old universe.

Steady State theories have enormous logical consistency flaws.

Max™, A separate theory does not have to use the theories with which it competes. It only has to account for the evidence.


Max™ said: Plasma theories don't properly account for an infinitely old universe.

Probably not, Max™, using your logic.

Ya haven't absorbed Halton Arp's pictures of the universe, have you? You only swallow what the majority of antique astronomers have to say. Cosmology is being taken over by plasma physicists. Their theories actually make predictions, Something at which the Big Bangers fail.

Max™ said: "Steady State theories have enormous logical consistency flaws."

Halton Arp's evidence does not demonstrate a steady state universe. It demonstrates a fairly static universe. The expansion that goes on happens near Seyfert, and other active galaxies. It's beyond your comprehension. Easily understood for those who take the time to follow the evidence. You won't find it at Wiki!

lol

I don't think you're qualified to make claims about my comprehension, no offense.

No, Arp doesn't have any evidence, he has claims which have been disproved thoroughly.

You should try investigating this stuff before jumping onto whatever crackjob bandwagon pops up.

Max™, The pictures taken through telescopes are not evidence????

What do you think? That he photo-shopped the pictures??

I beg your pardon, no actually I demand it!

I am saying that your comprehension is shortened by your preconceived ideas.

As I said, you're not qualified to speak to my comprehension.

You don't understand where my model of the universe came from.


I've considered a multitude of variations, semi-static, eternal and steady, eternal and replenishing, recursive, rebounding, plasma, string, traditional big bang, inflationary big bang.



My current model came from assuming NOTHING about the Universe except that Space and Time exist.


Everything I've deduced, I did so from that basis alone.


My model is not the normal big bang model, but it is simple, and self sustaining.

It explains the presence of Dark Matter, the nature of it, and why it doesn't interact with Baryons. It then goes on, and in one fell swoop, predicts the CP violation and strange abundance of Matter over Anti-Matter, and explains the reason for that quirk.

It explains the nature of black holes, the importance of black holes, and how they are tied to the accelerating expansion of the Universe WHICH WE CAN OBSERVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It relates Dark Energy to the very nature of Spacetime itself, simply and elegantly, and in doing so naturally explains why Relativity arises at the scales it does, and why Quantum Mechanic effects appear so strange from our scales.


So no, I do not believe you are qualified to speak of my comprehension, Curt.

Please don't assume that I haven't done studying either. My studies demonstrate to me that the electric universe is the simplest model. No need for "dark matter," or the fanciful "black holes." None of which by the way has been seen or experimentally produced. You go on as if these things are a reality and only need be explained; whereas the truth is, they were invented to explain problems with the Big Bang in the first place.

There ya go with the assumptions.

I didn't assume dark matter existed.

It was suggested by the model I developed, on my own, from first principles.

I am sure you have read through Halton Arp's books, and are not just taking someone Else's word for what he has discovered, Right?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Um... so I just read through that, where he basically says "nuh uh" where others say "yeah huh!"

I've read his claimed evidence, and his supposedly simple explanations aren't that simple.

The big bang hasn't been scientifically falsified, he's the only one saying it has.

He got it backwards.


He doesn't have a sound scientific model, and his observations aren't conclusive.


I approach it the same way I approach every theory, "I wonder if this is right."


Logic destroyed his arguments, his claims of simplicity are abhorrent in my eyes, completely against my understanding of the term.


Most of the time, when one guy has been going on for years about something, and everyone ignores it, he's probably not right.

Not suffering from some ridiculous conspiracy.

There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands who understand that his evidence kills the Big Bang. His theory about why the evidence is there, is a different story. His theory is just an educated guess. Apparently you have a problem separating the two.

You didn't read "Redshift, QUASARs and Controversy" did you?

Or "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" did you?

You can go to his site and see the photographs from the telescopes. Do you think he photo-shopped the photos?

No, I don't think he read the evidence right.

Young light theories, matter coming into existence and changing it's nature elsewhere in the universe, yet NEVER BEING OBSERVED TO DO THAT IN ANY LABORATORY ANYWHERE ON EARTH, EVER, IN CENTURIES OF SCIENCE.

Little things like that tell me Arp is full of something, and it ain't wisdom and insight.

Plasma physicists producing the identical objects and series of events on a small scale in the laboratory, of course, don't count to you religious zealots of the BIG BANG Cathedral. Have you tithed lately?

Astronomers and their "Gravity Bible" have failed to keep the pages from falling out.

I'm actually quite religious, except I believe God is more like a cosmic gardener, the source of the mysterious tendency the universe has to produce complex structures and order. Again I find it very insulting the way you claim wrongly what I am religious about.

It is like me calling you a misguided Catholic with absolutely no evidence or reason to do so. Please stop talking about that which you know nothing about, you look foolish.


I don't ascribe to the traditional big bang model, it is too flawed, just a stab in the dark.


I won't ascribe to the semi-steady state plasma model, it isn't even a stab, more like flailing at the dark.

He said to leave the tares go until harvest. If you feel yourself being harvested by the roots, beware of the burn pile.

The Plasma Cosmos is not necessarily any of the above. It is crying out for new explanations that actually predict new hypotheses. The big bang theory continually invents new forms of matter, and clings to gravity as the motive force.

Congratulations on not being a Big Banger. Now, concentrate on wave fronts and distances. You idea that there is no universal time means that your theory can have no order. What kind of theory is that?

Who said you can't have order without a universal now?

Max asks: "Who said you can't have order without a universal now?"

Curt comments: It's not a case of "Who said." It's a matter of logic: If there is no Universal Time, things have no place in the past, present or future. Local times cannot be related to each other. Maybe local time runs slower or faster within various galaxies, but those times are relatable to universal time. If one could take a super fine grain picture of the entire universe every second, one would have a record of universal time passing. You need to understand universal time to understand GPS.

It's similar to the idea of an imaginary inertial frame. Its required for the logical understanding of reality.

Reality goes on regardless of what we tink.

You acquiesce.

When you assume, you make an ass of yourself.

I missed your response because it got knocked back a page on the other board setting.


You admit that the past present and future exist, then you seem to imply that the only time that exists is now.

Which is it?


Until you tell me what you think time is, and what the phrase "motion through time" means to you, I cannot properly explain to you what time really is, and what motion through time means.


It is hard to talk to you when you know nothing.

It's something you'll never understand. Every point in the universe has motion through time. It is called the present. The past exists, more or less, in light radiating from every such point. If the points are too cold to radiate, or there is no light to irradiate such point, there will be no history, anywhere, of the occasion. In fact, we commission you to go around and video all such places, so there will be a record. Get going, times a wasting.

The future has not come into being. Should you fail in your commission, the future looks cloudy.

Poor Max. Do you suppose he ever made up with his mean old Dad?

Mini max: "It is hard to talk to you when you know nothing."

You have that right mini, so study up.