Robert said
Hi, Steefen. You may be interested in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Brian Koberlein. Although Brian has a PhD in Physics, he has a knack for writing for a general audience. I also noticed that in this blog post he gives a grade to the theory. You may like that since I’ve seen you give grades to chapters of books you’ve read. Be forewarned, however, it’s not a very good grade.
Hi Robert,
Your blog post does not have a section for comments.
Second, do Birkeland Currents exist? Do Z pinches exist?
Steefen
Stephen said
Oh and just for he record here’s a picture of one of those black holes you don’t believe in.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen, direct your message to Abhas Mitra, Richard A. Muller, and the amazon reviewer mentioned below; or don’t. I told you:
I see the necessity to immediately stop entertaining you because you erroneously take presumptuous liberties.
End of discussion.
The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm by Abhas Mitra
The first line of the book’s description on amazon is:
‘I concluded – black holes don’t exist’ Richard A. Muller, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California at Berkeley
The first Top Review from the United States, a 5-star review says, true black holes do not really occur in nature, but there are mimickers.
Being rude and slinging insults is not argumentation.
The video Stephen posted was not argumentation. The presenter said the content creators of The Thunderbolts Projects have a degree in Physics. That is not a just description of the academic credentials behind the scientists who have adopted facts of the Electric Universe camp.
For example, Dr. Richard Muller has more than one degree.
Insulting people by trying to belittle credentials of your opponents is an example of how people like Stephen operate below the level of respectable argumentation. Operating below the level of respectable argumentation is a good reason to ignore someone and and commit to enforce that person’s non-participation in discussions, a good reason to not invite them into respectable discussions. Inserting themselves is just further rudeness.
The point, for me is not yes or no to the Electric Universe. The Electric Universe is just one camp that disagrees with the Big Bang.
Forbes Magazine
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Maybe, Robert can find a blog post that disputes the reasons given in the Forbes Magazine article.
Journal of Physics & Astronomy
The Big Bang Never Happened: A conclusive argument
Abstract
For over 100 years, the prevailing belief has been that the universe was created by a big bang singularity. This speculative event is an impossibility that has become a firmly entrenched notion only because of a fundamental scientific error that few have questioned, until now. This paper provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from a singularity, that galaxies are not receding from the ** you do not have permission to see this link **y Way, and that we are not on a collision course with Andromeda. Edwin Hubble made faulty assumptions and significant miscalculations. Big bang theory presupposes that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. This notion defies both physics and logic, the science of thinking and reasoning. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Aristotle is reputed to have expressed it this way: “The notion that there could be nothing that preceded something offends reason itself.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Wikipedia entry for the Big Bang
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
We can double check if the Electric Universe and The Thunderbolts Project’s reasons against the Big Bang are fully included above.
Robert said
Steefen said
Hi Robert,
Your blog post does not have a section for comments.
Second, do Birkeland Currents exist? Do Z pinches exist?
Steefen
Sorry, it’s not my blog post, but you can contact Brian directly if you wish.
I don’t know anything about Birkeland currents or Z pinches.
Your recommended blog.
Robert said
Steefen said
The Journal of Physics & Astronomy trumps Robert’s random blog which does not offer comments.
Are you sure about that? Are you familiar with the idea of predatory journals? It’s sort of like self-publishing, but it has the added onus of being a deceptive practice of dishonest publishers who prey upon researchers who don’t recognize the scam. See, for example, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The Journal of Physics & Astronomy is not on the list of predatory journals.
Looked under J for Journal of Physics & Astronomy
Looked under P for Physics
Looked under A for Astronomy
You reply has no value against the source I put forth.
Big bang theory presupposes that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing.
No it actually doesn’t. But this claim does raise the question how someone can critique a view that they clearly don’t really understand. Look at it this way. Just as the theory of evolution does not say anything about the origin of life – it’s about the diversity of life once natural selection kicks in – the Big Bang says nothing about how energy, time, and space were caused. It describes the emergence of the present universe from a hot and dense initial state. We don’t know what caused the hot and dense state.
The value of Big Bang theory is that it makes predictions and is therefore falsifiable. And so far it hasn’t been. Contrary to the absurd notion that there is a cabal of hidebound scientists, nothing makes a scientific reputation faster than overturning some received wisdom. And of course there are mysteries and open questions. The test of a good theory is that it opens more avenues of research than it settles. Meanwhile the Electric Universe is not even wrong.
Stephen said
Big bang theory presupposes that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing.No it actually doesn’t. But this claim does raise the question how someone can critique a view that they clearly don’t really understand. Look at it this way. Just as the theory of evolution does not say anything about the origin of life – it’s about the diversity of life once natural selection kicks in – the Big Bang says nothing about how energy, time, and space were caused. It describes the emergence of the present universe from a hot and dense initial state. We don’t know what caused the hot and dense state.
The value of Big Bang theory is that it makes predictions and is therefore falsifiable. And so far it hasn’t been. Contrary to the absurd notion that there is a cabal of hidebound scientists, nothing makes a scientific reputation faster than overturning some received wisdom. And of course there are mysteries and open questions. The test of a good theory is that it opens more avenues of research than it settles. Meanwhile the Electric Universe is not even wrong.
God was bored, so he created the universe and humanity, so that we could create reality TV.
Steefen said
Now, for some homework:The Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore
We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we’re not so sure.** you do not have permission to see this link **
An excellent summation of the state of our ignorance. Could it be you are now willing to follow the evidence and accept the Big Bang model? It’s ok to change your mind when confronted with new evidence. It’s not a character flaw as our brain dead religions imagine when they encourage us to hold onto a belief no matter what.
Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., Theoretical Astrophysicist and Science Writer
Editor for the Forbes Magazine series: Starts with a Bang ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Mathematically, it’s tempting to go as far as possible: all the way back to infinitesimal sizes and infinite densities and temperatures, or what we know as a singularity. This idea, of a singular beginning to space, time, and the universe, was long known as the Big Bang.
But physically, when we looked closely enough, we found that the universe told a different story. Here’s how we know the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore.
= = =
At some extremely early time it would have been so hot that even atomic nuclei would be blasted apart, implying there was an early, pre-stellar phase where nuclear fusion would have occurred: Big Bang nucleosynthesis. From that, we expect there to have been at least a population of light elements and their isotopes spread throughout the universe before any stars formed.
Extrapolating beyond the limits of your measurable evidence is a dangerous, albeit tempting, game to play. After all, if we can trace the hot Big Bang back some 13.8 billion years, all the way to when the universe was less than 1 second old, what’s the harm in going all the way back just one additional second: to the singularity predicted to exist when the universe was 0 seconds old?
The answer, surprisingly, is that there’s a tremendous amount of harm — in considering “making unfounded, incorrect assumptions about reality” to be harmful. The reason this is problematic is because beginning at a singularity — at arbitrarily high temperatures, arbitrarily high densities, and arbitrarily small volumes — will have consequences for our universe that aren’t necessarily supported by observations.
A universe that reached arbitrarily high temperatures would be expected to possess leftover high-energy relics, like magnetic monopoles, but we don’t observe any. The universe would also be expected to be different temperatures in regions that are causally disconnected from one another — i.e., are in opposite directions in space at our observational limits — and yet the universe is observed to have equal temperatures everywhere to 99.99%+ precision.
= = =
Since it was hypothesized back in the 1980s, inflation has been tested in a variety of ways against the alternative: a universe that began from a singularity. When we stack up the scorecard, we find the following:
- Inflation reproduces all of the successes of the hot Big Bang; there’s nothing that the hot Big Bang accounts for that inflation can’t also account for.
- Inflation offers successful explanations for the puzzles that we simply have to say “initial conditions” for in the hot Big Bang.
- Of the predictions where inflation and a hot Big Bang without inflation differ, four of them have been tested to sufficient precision to discriminate between the two. On those four fronts, inflation is 4-for-4, while the hot Big Bang is 0-for-4.
= = =
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy (Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, and Jesus)
The Big Bang Theory is in error.
The Electronic Universe camp and the Inflation camp have explained why this is so.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)