Origins of the UNIVERSE

The cosmos at our fingertips.
hishadow
Ensign
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:58 am

Post by hishadow » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:06 pm

toejam wrote:
hishadow wrote:Harry, I recently stumbled across a great introduction to physics dubbed Physics for Future Presidents, taught by a man called Richard A. Muller (UC Berkeley) . The course teaches basic physics for non-physicist. Hardly any math is involved, but the ideas of a wide range of topics are explained in detail. Muller also gives a lot of examples of common day uses and the history of the discoveries.

e III[/url]
hishadow

Thanks for this. Cannot watch it at present - only have dialup in this neck of Canuck woods, but hoping for Broadband to reach us this year -- Have bookmarked it.

Many thanks again. :D
Hi. Broadband availability can be quite selective.

The videos are also downloadable for offline playback with Google Video Player, so if you got a friend with a broadbandconnection and a CD-burner, you'll still be able to "catch up". :)


On the state of this thread: for the Ph.D. equivalent version check out this thread. :D

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:05 pm

hishadow wrote:[snip]

On the state of this thread: for the Ph.D. equivalent version check out this thread. :D
FWIW, I think a discussion of the differences and similarities between the public domain, string theory discussions (such as in that link) and some meta-version of this thread would be fascinating! :D

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:49 pm

Hello All

This is a scientific forum.

Not a controlled directed forum to think along lines without evidence.

Imagine if I did not present some issues.

I estimate by the end of next year.

The Big Bang will be known as the crank pot theory of the last 80 years.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:54 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

This is a scientific forum.

Not a controlled directed forum to think along lines without evidence.

Imagine if I did not present some issues.

I estimate by the end of next year.

The Big Bang will be known as the crank pot theory of the last 80 years.
A new thread, on the topic of what constitutes science (in astronomy), how it has changed over the past few decades or centuries, how it might change in future, how it is distinguished from pseudo-science, etc, etc, etc might be a very interesting thread.

If nothing else, I'm sure kovil would be quite interested in posting his thoughts on such a topic.

kovil
Science Officer
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:58 pm

Post by kovil » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:35 am

aaa
Last edited by kovil on Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cosmo_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:43 am

Post by cosmo_uk » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:37 am

harry said
I estimate by the end of next year.

The Big Bang will be known as the crank pot theory of the last 80 years.
I will bet you all the money I can get my hands on that you're wrong

(or a playstation 3 - I'd quite like one)

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:51 pm

Hello Cosmo

By that time a playstation 4 will do.

==========================================

As for the Big Bang, there are big posts there.


Its like a giant wave coming. People are awakening to reality.

===========================================

At the end of the day, I can see varies theories been mixed together to form one.

If all was perfect and we had a theory that all agreed with.

What would we discuss about?
Harry : Smile and live another day.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:38 pm

kovil wrote:aaa
Here's an interesting test: Everybody congratulate me! contains the following claim:
I have been banned from physicsforums.com for crackpottery
How did the people who chose to reply respond?

What would you say is an appropriate response, in terms of this forum?

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:23 pm

Hello Neried

If you are saying that I'm posting crank pot posts.

Than I find this as a control by you.

I will stop posting to this forum.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:54 am

Hello All


Cosmo said
Oh dear harry it seems it is you who knows very little about star formation in cluster ellipticals some of the most cosmologically important objects in the universe.

Star formation in cluster ellipticals (i.e. the big galaxies that make a cluster a cluster) is indeed coeval (at the same time harry). How else can you explain the cluster red sequence which ubiquitous out to high redshift? Cluster ellipticals are found to have a very narrow range in ages which implies their stars were all formed in a burst of intense star formation at the same time at high redshift.

Harry read up on the basics before you start on people who know what they're talking about.
Cosmo you are mistaken.

You make statements without backup.

Yes I do know the difference between globular and cluster.

Astro said
Are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible for more than one star in a galaxy to form at the same time?
Did you just forget all of these apods? Most of which you probably commented on.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070224.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070110.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061024.html
How many stars are forming at once in these pictures? Funny it looks exactly as if many stars are forming in a small region, at the same time. Harry if you can seriously claim that stars don't form at the same time, it doesn't really bode well for your credibility does it. Essentially ALL stars form together in vast clouds you can see them doing this from your back garden with a small telescope.
Stars may form in regions in similar time frames. But! not all within a galaxy at the same time.

========================================

Neried locking a post, because people disagree with you, is not very scientific.

========================================

Give it time, and some body, I will say by the end of next year, you people are going to be singing a different tune.

Making statements that the universe formed within 13.7 Gyrs is wrong.

As for the prof

Astro said
I can cite papers by real astronomers, working in real institutions, that say that everything makes sense. You have never provided any evidence to back up your claims.
Name the real astronomers, working in real institutions.

I can give you hundreds of cosmologists who think that you are wrong.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

astro_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:59 pm

Post by astro_uk » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:31 pm

Stars may form in regions in similar time frames. But! not all within a galaxy at the same time.
No one ever said they did. I said that we routinely see star formation rates of hundreds to thousands of solar masses per year. At that rate you can build up a large galaxy in less than a Billion years. Which destroys your argument that you can't form a galaxy in less than, I believe the number you pulled from your behind was 100 Billion years.
Give it time, and some body, I will say by the end of next year, you people are going to be singing a different tune.
I'd love to see you provide one peer-reviewed paper that actually supports your claims.
Name the real astronomers, working in real institutions.
Rather than just name them here are a couple of review articles that cover some of the interesting areas under study now, you can get names from the reviews and their references:

Stellar Population Diagnostics of Elliptical Galaxy Formation
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0603479

Extragalactic Globular Clusters and Galaxy Formation
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602601

If you want names of people that support the standard cosmology then the list is essentially anyone working in Astronomy at any large research university. Some names that you may have heard of include (an even ten seems reasonable):

Martin Rees
Stephen Hawking
Richard Ellis
Roger Davies
Carlos Frenk
Duncan Forbes
Simon White
Michael Drinkwater
Matthew Colless
Ralph Bender

This is not supposed to be exhaustive, just the first ten names of people that work in astronomy and I have seen speaking about the current paradigm.
I can give you hundreds of cosmologists who think that you are wrong.
Alright then go on... Give me 100 hundred astronomers that have signed off on not believing in the current paradigm. All of whom must be proffessional astronomers working in real institutions. I can name one so far, Arp. Only 99 to go.

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:12 pm

Hello Astro

Lets start with one Mr Pro.

Recent discoveries pose more problems for Big Bang
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Eric Lerner.
Recent discoveries pose more problems for Big Bang
In 2003, a survey of clusters of galaxies made using data acquired by the ROSAT x-ray satellite showed what seems to be a huge concentration of matter some 12 billion light years across. Such a huge concentration would take at least several hundred billion years to form, 30 times longer than the time since the supposed Big Bang.

The results show that the abundance of clusters of galaxies falls off suddenly, by about a factor of ten, at a redshift of 0.59. The researchers who initially made the survey (which is reported at arXiv:astro-ph/0303438) tried to explain this sudden fall as "evolution", that there were suddenly ten times as many clusters, since closer distances translate to more recent times.

But if that were true, the evolution would have taken about 180 million years, a tiny time for huge clusters of galaxies to form. In addition, if the evolution theory were right, the drop-off in cluster abundance would appear at the exact same redshift (or distance) in every direction. But in reality, in the half of the sky, the abrupt transition to low density occurs at z=0.59, while in the other half it occurs at z=0.55. This would be easy to explain on the basis of our location being 5% closer to one edge of the concentration than to the other, but would be impossible to explain on the basis of evolution.

It would seem that the data, if taken without preconceived biases, indicates the edge of a vast concentration of matter about 4Gpc--12 billion light years-- across, outside of which the density of matter is a factor of ten less. If the fractal distribution observed at scales up to 100 Mpc continues to GPC scales, this is to be expected. But it is a grave contradiction to the Big Bang.

A second group of discoveries announced at the January, 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting showed that the universe looks very similar at high redshifts, and therefore billions of years ago, as it does today, in sharp contraction to the Big Bang idea that a younger universe will look far different. The large scale structures that exist today also existed at redshifts corresponding to three billion years after the hypothetical date of the Big Bang. Such structures had only one quarter as much time to grow, posing even sharper contradictions for the BB. In addition, galaxies from that 10-billion-years-ago epoch appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar amount of chemical elements produced by stars as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang had really happened, galaxies should appear much younger, with little heavy metals and mostly young stars. Instead they look much the same as today--yet another black eye for the idea that the universe had an origin in time.

This I have posted before:

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

If you want to sign this statement , please click here

Original Signers | Scientists and Engineers | Independent Researchers | Other Signers

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................................... 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

New signers of the Open letter since publication

Scientists and Engineers

Jorge Marao Universidade Estadual de Londrina Brazi
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK ................................................................. 40
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey .................................. 50
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA ............................................................ 60
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
Thomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Italy
Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA .............................................................. 70
S.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Tibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA ............................. 80
Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, UFSC, Brazil
Cristian R. Ghezzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Daniel Nicolato Epitácio Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gregory M. Salyards, US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.), USA
Luiz Carlos Barbosa, Unicamp, Brazil
Luiz Carlos Jafelice, Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Michael Sosteric, Athabasca University, Canada
Steven Langley Guy, University of Elizabeth (Physics Department), Australia
Robert Fritzius, Shade Tree Physics, USA
Irineu Gomes Varella, Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ............................................... 90
Tom Walther, Southern Cross University Australia , Australia
Mauro Cosentino, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Moacir Lacerda, Univeersidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Roberto Assumpcao, PUC Minas, Brazil
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ronaldo Junio Camppos Batista, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ermenegildo Caccese, University of Basilicata, Italy
Felipe Sofia Zanuzzo, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
Edival de Morais, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Brazil
Graham Coupe, KAZ Technology Services, Australia ....................................................... 100
Gordon Petrie, High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, USA,
Jose B. Almeida, University of Minho, Portugal,
Antonio Cleiton, Laboratório de Sistemas Complexos - UFPI, Brazil
Sergey Karpov, L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Wagner Patrick Junqueira de Souza Coelho Nicácio, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Sokolov Vladimir, Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS, Russia
Edwin G. Schasteen, TAP-TEN Research Foundation International, USA
Gerry Zeitlin, openseti.org, USA
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA
Yasha Fard,H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada .................................................................. 110
Roberto Caimmi, Astronomy Department, Padua University, Italy
Tobias Keller, ETH (SFIT) Zurich, Earth Sciences, Switzerland,
Deborah Foch, Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, USA,
Henry Reynolds, UC Santa Cruz, USA,
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jouko Seppänen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland,
Cristiane Ribeiro Bernardes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Eric Blievernicht. TRW, USA
Dr. Robert Bennett, Kolbe Center, USA,
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa ....................................... 120
Wieslaw Sztumski, Silesian University, Poland
Lars Wåhlin,Colutron Research Corporation,USA
Riccardo Scarpa, European Southern Observatory, Italy,
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France
Joseph Garcia, International Radiation Protection, Germany,
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Gerardus D. Bouw, Baldwin-Wallace College, USA
Josef Lutz, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany,
Harold E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA. .......................................... 130
Hermann Dürkop, Nabla Systemberatung, Germany,
Klaus Fischer, Universität Trier, Germany,
Werner Holzmüller, University Leipzig, Germany
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Richard Gancarczyk, University of Nottingham, UK
Steve Humphry, Murdoch University, Australia
Alberto Bolognesi, Università di Perugia, Italy
Daniele Carosati, Armenzano Observatory, Italy
Brendan Dean, H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada
W. Jim Jastrzebski, Warsaw University, Poland .................................................. 140
Gero Rupprecht, European Southern Observatory, Germany
Rainer Herrmann TEWS-Elektronik Germany
Felix Pharand University of Montreal Canada
Jerry Bergman Northwest State University USA
Tibor Gasparik SUNY at Stony Brook USA
Rei Gunn University of Nantucket USA
Sinan Alis Eyuboglu Twin Observatories Turkey
Esat Rennan Pekünlü University of EGE Turkey
Anne M. Hofmeister Washington U. USA
Quentin Foreman IEEE New Zealand .................................................................... 150
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada
Y. P. Varshni University of Ottawa Canada
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada
Bob Criss Washington University USA
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Paul LaViolette, The Starburst Foundation, U.S.A.
Seetesh Pandé, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon France
TAHIR MAQSOOD, PSA, PAKISTAN
Hartmut Traunmüller, University of Stockholm, Sweden ..................................................... 160
Nico F. Benschop, Amspade Research, Netherlands
Aaron Blake, USAF, USA
M. Ross Fergus, University of Memphis, USA
Sonu Bhaskar, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
Frederico V. F., Lima Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Andrei Kirilyuk, Institute of Metal Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
Christian Jooss, Institut fuer Materialphysik, University of Goettingen, Germany
Sonu Bhaskar, BCISR, India
Robert O. Myers, ROM Technologies, USA
Ana Cristina Oliveira, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil ..................................... 170
John Wey, Idaho National Laboratory, USA
Jorge Francisco Maldonado Serrano, UIS, Colombia
Pasquale Galianni, Dipartimento di Fisica Università di Lecce, Italy
Martín López-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Spain
Michael A. Ivanov, Belarus State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, Belarus
Xiao Jianhua , Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
Pierre J. Beaujon, Hoornbeeck College, The Netherlands
J.Georg von Brzeski Helios Labs. USA
vidyardhi nanduri , Cosmology Research center , India
Mike Rotch NBSA USA ....................................................... 180
Paul Noel, Independent_Researcher, USA
Swee Eng, AW Royal College of Pathologists, SINGAPORE
Ricardo Rodríguez , La Laguna University , Spain
Linda Camp Harvard University USA
James B. Schwartz , The Noah's Ark Research Foundation , Philippines
Marshall Douglas Smith , TeddySpeaks Foundation ,USA
Abbé Grumel , Association Copernic , France
Ives van Leth Waterboard Utrecht The Netherlands
Francis Michael C. Perez, Department of Transportation, USA
AHMED A. EL-DASH UNICAMP BRAZIL ................................................... 190
David C Ware, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Alek Atevik, Skopje Astronomy Society, Macedonia
Peter Rowlands, University of Liverpool, UK
Robert Day, Suntola Consulting, Ltd., USA
Luís Paulo Sousa Loureiro, Portugal
Maingot Fabrice, Université Louis Pasteur, France
Kris Krogh, University of California, USA
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Ohio State University, United States
Charles Creager Jr, Creation Research Society, United States
Stephan Gift, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago ... 200
Joseph J. Smulsky, Institute of Earth's Cryosphere Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Jorge Marao Universidade Estadual de Londrina Brazil
Jim O'Reilly Orion Consultants USA
Robert MacKay University of Warwick UK
Chris Vermeulen Astronomical Society of Southern Africa South Africa
Emilson Pereira Leite Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics Brazil
Allen W Green ATK Space Systems USA
Ron Balsys Central Queensland University Australia
Paul ten Boom University of New South Wales Australia
Mosheh Thezion The Empirical Church, USA .......................................... 210
Markus, Karsten,, Wilhelm-Foerster-Observatory Berlin e.V
Don. C. Wilson,: Process Technology and Development, USA
Marek Gajewski, Raytheon Co.,USA
Tuncay DOGAN, University of EGE, Turkey
Andrew M Uhl, Pennsylvania State Univeristy, USA
Klaus Wieder, Independent_Researcher, Germany
John Caley, Omegafour Pty Ltd, Australia
Keith Scott-Mumby, Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California
Institute for Human Sciences, USA ............................. 218

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independent Researchers

Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK
Alberto Bolognesi, Independent Researcher, Italy
DEAN L MAMAS, Independent Researcher, USA
David Blackford, Independent_Researcher, UK
Alan Rees, Independent Researcher, Sweden
Udayan Chakravarty, Independent Researcher, India
Georg Gane, Independent Researcher, Germany
Robin Whittle, Independent Researcher, Australi,
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, USA
G.Srinivasan, Independent_Researcher, India, ........................................................ 10
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
Ethan Skyler, Independent researcher, USA
Yvon Dufour, Independent Researcher, Canada
Jorge Ales Corona Independent Researcher Spain
Cristiano De Angelis, Independent Researcher, Italy
Roland Le Houillier, Independent Researcher, Canada ................................................ 20
Richard Tobey Independent researcher USA
Steve McMahon Independent researcher USA
Eugene Savov, Independent researcher, Bulgaria
Lars Woldseth, Independent researcher, Norway
Robert L. Brueck, Independent researcher, USA
Mark S Thornhill, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom
Nainan. K. Varghese, Independent Researcher, India,
Andrew Kulikovsky, Independent Researcher, Australia
Charles Sven, Independent Researcher, USA
Gabriele Manzotti, Independent Researcher, Italy ..................................................... 30
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Jim O'Reilly Orion Consultants USA
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
Thomas G. Franzel independent researcher USA
Bernhard Reddemann independent researcher Germany
Ives van Leth Waterboard Utrecht The Netherlands ............................................... 40
Jeroen van der Rijst independent researcher The Netherlands
Harry Costas independent researcher Australia
Andrei Wasylyk independent researcher Canada
Jack Ruijs independent researcher The Netherlands
Leo Sarasúa independent researcher The Netherlands
Edward Smith independent researcher USA
Linda Camp Harvard University USA
Gary Meade independent researcher USA
Stan Kabacinski independent researcher Australia
Jack Dejong independent researcher USA ........................................................... 50
J.Georg von Brzeski Helios Labs. USA
Nigel Edwards, Independent Researcher, Australia
Dieter Schumacher, Independent Researcher, Germany
Rudolf Kiesslinger, Independent Researcher, Germany
Gerd Schulte, Independent Researcher, Germany
Stuart Eves, Independent Researcher, UK
James Marsen independent researcher USA
Edgar Paternina independent researcher Colombia
Donald E. Scott Independent_Researcher: USA
José M?df; Cat Casanovas, Independent researcher, Spain ........................................... 60
Aaron Hill, Independent Researcher, USA,
Hans-Dieter Radecke, Independent Researcher, Germany
Mawell P Davis Independent Researcher New Zealand
Gordon E. Mackay Independent Researcher USA
Dave Sagar Independent Researcher USA
Benjamin I. Iglesias Independent Researcher Spain
Alper Kozan Independent Researcher Turkey
Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany
Jan Mugele Independent Researcher Germany
Andrew Rigg Independent Researcher Australia ...................................................... 70
Thomas Riedel Independent researcher Denmark
Helen Workman Independent researcher Canada
Morris Anderson, Independent researcher, USA
Mario Cosentino, Independent researcher, France
Paul Richard Price, Independent researcher, United States
Philip Lilien, Independent Researcher, USA
Ott Köstner, Independent researcher, Estonia
Bozidar Kornic, Independent researcher, USA
William F. Hamilton, Independent researcher, U.S.A.
Joel Morrison, Independent researcher, USA ....................................................... 80
James R. Frass, Independent Researcher, Canada
Arnold Wittkamp, Independent Researcher, Netherlands
Dimi Chakalov, Independent Researcher, Bulgaria
Herb Doughty, Independent Researcher, USA
Robert F. Beck, Independent Researcher, UK
Tuomo Suntola, Independent Researcher, Finland
Richard Hillgrove, Independent Researcher, New Zealand
Herbert J. Spencer, Independent Researcher, Canada
Thomas B. Andrews, Independent Researcher, USA
John Dean , Independent Researcher , South Africa ........................................................ 90
Peter Loster , Independent Researcher , Germany
Charles Francis, Independent Researcher , UK
Ahmed Mowaffaq AlANNI , Independent Researcher , Iraq
Mogens Wegener , Independent Researcher , DENMARK
Peter Jakubowski, Independent Researcher , Germany
John Brodix Merryman Jr. , Independent Researcher , USA
Christian Boland , Independent Researcher , Belgium
Warren S. Taylor, Independent Researcher, USA
Constantin Leshan, Independent Researcher , Moldova
Avid Samwaru, Independent Researcher, USA ...................................................... 100
Thomas Goodey, Independent Researcher, UK
Johan Masreliez, Independent Researcher, USA
Efrèn Cañedo, Independent Researcher , Mèxico
Michael Bliznetsov, Independent Researcher, Russia
Peter Michalicka, Independent Researcher, Austria
Ivan D. Alexander , Independent Researcher,
S. Ray DeRusse, Independent Researcher, USA
Chris Maharaj, Independent Researcher, Trinidad
Peter Warlow, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom
Gordon Wheeler, Independent Researcher, United States .................................................. 110
Boxer Ma, Independent Researcher, Thailand
Robert Wido, Independent Researcher, United States
John Hunter independent researcher U.K
Marcelo de Almeida Bueno independent researcher Brazil
Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Independent Researcher, United Status
Adam W.L. Chan , Independent Researcher , Hong Kong
Renato Giussani independent researcher Italy
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Mustafa Kemal Oyman, Independent Researcher, Turkey
Richard Wayte, independent researcher, UK ....................................................... 120
Ron Ragusa independent researcher USA
N.Vivian Pope independent researcher UK
Roy Caswell independent researcher United Kingdom
Erin S. Myers independent researcher USA
Ugo Nwaozuzu independent researcher Singapore
Daniel Coman independent researcher USA
Birgid Mueller independent researcher Mexico
Mihail Gonta independent researcher Moldova
Vladimir Rogozhin independent researcher Russia
J. J. Weissmuller independent researcher USA ......................................................... 130
Muhammed Anwar independent researcher India
Geldtmeijer Djamidin independent researcher Netherlands
Scott G. Beach independent researcher Canada
Neil Hargreaves independent researcher UK
julian braggins independent researcher Australia
Kari Saarikoski, Independent_Researcher, Finland
Marcelo de Almeida Bueno independent researcher Brazil
Ron Ragusa independent researcher USA
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA .................................................. 140
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
John Hunter independent researcher U.K
Jeroen van der Rijst independent researcher The Netherlands
Thomas G. Franzel independent researcher USA
Bernhard Reddemann independent researcher Germany
Leo Sarasúa independent researcher The Netherlands
Edward Smith independent researcher USA .......................................................... 150
Gary Meade independent researcher USA
Stan Kabacinski independent researcher Australia
Jack Dejong independent researcher USA
Harry Costas independent researcher Australia
Andrei Wasylyk independent researcher Canada
Jack Ruijs independent researcher The Netherlands
James Marsen independent researcher USA
Edgar Paternina independent researcher Colombia
Ghertza Roman, Independent_Researcher, Romania
Roland Schubert, Independent_Researcher, Germany ..................................... 160
Alexandre Wajnberg, Independent Researcher, Skyne, Belgium
Dennis H Cowdrick Scientific Independent_Researcher: USA
Michail Telegin Independent_Researcher: Russia
Robert L Stafford, Independent_Researcher, USA
Martin Sach, Independent_Researcher, UK
Charles L. Sanders, Independent_Researcher, USA/South Korea
Alex Carlson, Independent_Researcher, United States
Lyndon Ashmore, Independent_Researcher, UK
Liedmann, Matthias, Unaffiliated_Scientific_Researcher, Germany
Ingvar Astrand, Independent_Researcher, Sweden ......................................... 170
Olli Santavuori, Independent_Researcher, Finlande
Touho Ankka, Independent_Researcher, Finland
JR Croca, Independent_Researcher, Portugal
Sol Aisenberg, Independent_Researcher, USA
Mustafa Kemal OYMAN, Independent_Researcher, Turkey
Gerard ZONUS, Independent_Researcher, FRANCE
David W. Knight, Independent_Researcher, USA
Marcel Lutttgens, Independent_Researcher, France
Dr Stephen Birch, Independent_Researcher, United Kingdom
Abramyan G.L., Independent_Researcher, Russia .................................. 180
Martin Peprnik, Independent_Researcher, Slowakia
Van Den Hauwe, PhD, Independent_Researcher,: Belgium
Ingvar Astrand, Independent_Researcher, Sweden
Daniel Toohey, Independent_Researcher, Australia
Jed Shlackman, M.S. Ed. (LMHC, C.Ht.), Independent_Researcher, USA
Dr. John Michael Nahay, Independent_Researcher
Guido Grzinic, Independent_Researcher, Australia ................. 187

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Signers

Charles Weber,USA
David Gershon ,USA
Peter G Smith ,USA
Richard J. Lawrence ,USA
Naszvadi László, Hungary
Roger W. Browne, USA
Bart Clauwens, Netherlands
Noah Feiler-Poethke, USA
Jonathan Hardy, UK
John S. Kundrat, USA ........................................................................... 10
Vincent Sauve, USA
Chris Somers, Australia
Jagroop Sahota, USA
Edgar Raab, Germany
Gordon Hogenson, USA
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Robert Angstrom, USA .............................................................................. 20
Norman Chadwick, USA
Harley Orr, USA
Clive Martin-Ross, UK
Alasdair Martin, UK
Marcus Ellspermann, Germany
Bruce Richardson, USA
John Dill, USA
Judith Woollard Australia
Michael Cyrek USA
Randall Meyers ITALY ............................................................................................... 30
Craig Arend USA
Onur Cantimur Turkey
Roland Scheel France
Murat Isik Turkey
Markus Hellebrandt Germany
Mehmet Kara Turkey
Abhishek Dey Das India
D. N. Vazquez USA
Suzan R. Rodenburg USA
Shuming Zhang China ................................................................................................. 40
Codie Vickers USA
Richard Tobey USA
Elfriede Steiner-Grillmair, Canada
Gabriele Manzotti, Italy
Michael Wember, USA
Fuksz Levente, Romania
Seppo Tuominen, Finland
Marvin C. Katz, USA
Laura Fridley, USA
Michael Christian, U.S.A ........................................................................................... 50
Edgar S. Hill USA
Q. John T. Malone USA
Michael Bruttel Switzerland
Eric W. LaFlamme USA
Robert Diegis, Romania
William S. Jarnagin, USA
Kevin Glaser, USA
Robert Diegis, Romania
William S. Jarnagin, USA
Kevin Glaser, USA ................................................................................................ 60
JoAnn Arcuri USA
Attila Csanyi USA
Pratik Sinha India
Donald C. Bull New Zealand
Hans Walhout Netherlands
Robyn Stewart Australia
Tor Johannessen Norway
Rick Schmidt USA
Terence Watts UK
Jody Fulford USA ............................................................................................ 70
Gene Gordon USA
Monica Veloso Alves Brazil
Ferdi Prins South Africa
Adam Hansil USA
Herbert M Watson USA
John Patchett UK
Jurrie Noordijk, The Netherlands
P.S. Phillips, U.S.A
JoAnn Arcuri USA
Martin Gradwell , ns, United Kingdom .............................................................. 80
Sami Murtomäki, Ns, Finland
Anthony Abruzzo , United States
Tim Reed, ns, USA
Daniel Rijo , ns, USA
Ken Couesbouc , ns, France
David L. Harrison, United States
Kees de Boer
Tom HigginsUSA
David Calder Hardy, New Zealand
Jochen Moerman, Belgium ......................................................................... 90
Berend de Boer, New Zealand
Edward E. Rom, USA
Jukka Kinnunen, Finland
Jerome M. Hall, USA
Maria Alvarez, Argentina
Paul Chabot, Canada
Julia, Russia
Amr Malik: Canada
Maureen Bevill, USA
Horst Barwinek, Austria................................................................ 100
Lindsay Smith, Australia
Richard DeLano, USA.
Stefan Landherr, Australia
Peter Wilson, USA
Gregory Kiser, USA ............................................................. 105
[/quote]

Please do not make statements that defame the above people.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

cosmo_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:43 am

Post by cosmo_uk » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:35 pm

none of those people are cosmologists - Arp is the only one in the correct field - the rest at instituions are all losers from the iEEE who get upset that their field is never the subject of a TV documentary and the independent researchers are all alien abductees


Harry - try again please

astro_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:59 pm

Post by astro_uk » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:50 pm

Would this by any chance be your good self harry?

Harry Costas independent researcher Australia

Just, how credible do you think any of those people on this list are?, barring Arp and about 3 other very old Astronomers. How many of them has actually studied real astrophysical data? Or published a paper in an astronomical journal?

I mean how credible sounding is the "Psychonaut Institute"? :lol:

Or what about William C. Mitchell, author of one of the most scientifically innaccurate books ever written, if his constant annoying emails to astronomers are to go by.

This is about the fifth time you have posted this list, and for the fith time, it is meaningless rubbish. It is exactly the same as the lists the creationists send round, claiming to be lists of scientists that don't believe in evolution except none of them have any experience or education in biology.

You said you had a list of hundreds of cosmologists, a quick look a that list reveals at most 5-10 people that if you stretched what they do could be classed as such. Keep going Harry, only another 90 to go now.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:26 pm

Here's something else quite curious: "Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK"*.

Read the statement he (supposedly) signed.

Then do a search, in arXiv, or ADS, on his published papers.

What did you find?

Now go to PF, and read all the posts by "Garth".

What did you find?

Here's my summary of what you'll find: despite his having signed this document, pace harry, Garth is very much a firm supporter of what harry rails against ('the BBT')! So why did he sign? Because the theory of gravity which he supports, and which is at the heart of his version of the BBT, is a slight modification of GR, called SCC.

Further, Garth is on record as having made firm predictions of what the two key GPB results will be ... in only 3 days' time we'll know if SCC still has legs or not (ditto GR).

I wonder how many others who signed this document are equally firm supporters of some version of the BBT that is anathema to harry?

Yet another example of a false dichotomy? another failing of elementary logic?

OK, enough OT posting.

*doesn't count towards the 100 target harry has, as he's not a professional

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:27 am

Hello All

Your statements have been recorded.

Time will tell, how silly your statements have been.

Until than sweet dreams.

People talk of logic, with closed minds.

====================================

Asterisk attitude is keeping many cosmologists away from this forum.

Can someone explain to me why?

====================================
Harry : Smile and live another day.

cosmo_uk
Science Officer
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:43 am

Post by cosmo_uk » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:55 am

Asterisk attitude is keeping many cosmologists away from this forum.

Can someone explain to me why?
How would you know - you don't know any cosmologists.

I would be more inclined to think that it is your constant repitition of the same old "Einstein was wrong", "BBT is wrong", "The earth is flat" style drivel that keeps most people from posting

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Post by makc » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:46 am

look here, "posts" column. see what kind of forum is this? apart from occasional "why this camera doesnt work" threads, this is purely "oh man this is great picture" kind of threads what you see here. and, cough, "viagra makes your penis longer for 72 hours". what cosmologists are supposed to do here?

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Post by makc » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:35 pm

Nereid wrote:...in only 3 days' time we'll know if SCC still has legs or not (ditto GR)...
would you mind to keep me posted on this subject?

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:22 am

Hello Cosmo

You said
How would you know - you don't know any cosmologists.

I would be more inclined to think that it is your constant repitition of the same old "Einstein was wrong", "BBT is wrong", "The earth is flat" style drivel that keeps most people from posting
Thats the type of silly statements, that are negative.

The only thing that you post is silly statements, nothing positive.

My child can do better.

and you call yourself a scientist. What a joke.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:23 pm

harry wrote:Hello Cosmo

You said
How would you know - you don't know any cosmologists.

I would be more inclined to think that it is your constant repitition of the same old "Einstein was wrong", "BBT is wrong", "The earth is flat" style drivel that keeps most people from posting
Thats the type of silly statements, that are negative.

The only thing that you post is silly statements, nothing positive.

My child can do better.

and you call yourself a scientist. What a joke.
harry, you made a quite unambiguous statement, concerning the big bang theory and cosmologists*.

You were challenged to support your assertion.

The only answer you have provided, so far, is one name (Eric Lerner^) and the list of signatories to a statement.

Your answer was challenged; you were asked to select those from the list of signatories who are working professionals, in the field of cosmology, working at real institutions.

We are still waiting for your reply.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BTW, the "H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada" is given as the institute for two signatories. Yet I failed to find it, in a quick Google search; anyone know what this is?

*"I can give you hundreds of cosmologists who think that you are wrong."
^Interestingly, his affiliation is listed as Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, which seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with astronomy!

kovil
Science Officer
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:58 pm

Post by kovil » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:37 pm

In the beginning, Astrophysicists and Cosmologists did not study electrical engineering, so electrical ideas did not cross their minds when pondering what is going on in our galaxy and between galaxies. Plasma was not well understood by the cosmological community at that time either. Subsequent to the first half of the 20th century new instruments and new investigations have brought plasma and electrical effects into the scope of interstellar investigations and astrophysics.

Now we are involved in multi-discipline wide investigations to understand why and what and how the universe really works and behaves.

The Truth will not be discovered by ignoring scientific input from the other sciences. If Neried, Cosmo and Astro wish to ignore electrical engineering's input, they do so at their own risk and it matters not to me if they go down with the 'ship of established state and church' on the subject of defending the BBT against all odds. It will be to their own demise and ignorance.

Space exploration is a subject that will be best served by results, and the knowledge of the truth will yield the superior results. So unless the Church and Establishment are trying to control public knowledge to keep the People from being a competitive force in business or trade, the truth will be known soon. If there is some conspiracy to keep the truth from being known about the galaxy and outer space, then we are entering into a 'dark ages' of a sort. Ultimately the truth will be known, and my money is on the fact that electrical forces play an equal if not dominant role in interstellar activities.

Not every mysterious crater on Earth is made by 'electrical machining', and this tout by some of the electrical websites throws a poor light on the good ideas they do have. Overall they are on the right track tho, and it would be good to look for evidence. What would thunderbolt scarring look like and what evidence would remain? How much current could be absorbed or held in capacitance by a planet and how far would a potential differential be able to transit to achieve equilibrium? I have some questions about this aspect. Comets do likely have both electrical and solar heating/boiling going on simultaneously, and this confuses the issue of what is happening, it is not entirely one or the other.

Arp's DVD about Redshift from the Thunderbolts.com website has a very interesting idea at the end. Halton Arp and Janet Narlikar have an idea that the ejection material from active galactic nuclei (AGN) which create the quasi-stellar radio sources (QSR) straddling the AGN; the material stream coming from the AGN is 'new matter'. It is pure wavefunctions that as they 'age' become in communication with the universe as they emit photons from interaction with any interstellar medium (ISM) that they encounter subsequent to ejection from the AGN, as the pure wavefunctions become matter, protons and electrons. As John Dobson describes, Time comes into this universe through the Inertia/Momentum component of matter. As the material wavefunction ejecta from the AGN ages it gains momentum/inertia by communicating via the photons it emits, and it learns of the rest of the matter in the universe and in so doing becomes subject to a changing 'rest mass' by its learning from communication via photons. As the 'new matter' ages, its rest mass increases, until it comes into ballance with the agreed upon rest mass that is universal. However 'rest mass' is a highly locally dependent number, and it is not the same in all locations. In the center of the AGN it is a different number than it is in lower density environments. This is why the redshift numbers differ for the structures near an AGN, and why the redshift numbers fall off as the spun off structures from the AGN move further away and age longer and communicate longer with their surroundings.

This idea flies in the face of BBT and like minded theories. I'm not certain if to call BBT et al, 'creationist' or 'evolutionary'. But they are definitely not 'steady state' which is what this idea of Arp's is suggesting; that the universe does not have a beginning nor an end, and it is creating new matter from AGN ejecta, and this can create new galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

I'm not completely sold on Arp's ideas, but I am completely sold on investigating more into his ideas and think the established astronomical community that is denying him funding and observatory time is doing so at its own peril of ignoring the truth and of being in denial and sticking to their historical position of theory out of fear or wanting some kind of control over the sciences for some reason to which I am not yet privy.


- - - -


To go a few steps further: The ejected material, pure wave-function essences from the AGN, (the ejecta is so energetic it is too ‘active’ to be matter yet, it is beyond being confined into electrons and protons), this will become protons and electrons; and then by emitting photons from interactions with each other and/or the ISM, the emitted photons bring awareness of the rest of the universe to this ‘new matter’. As it cools more, it can become ionized atoms (ions have one or more electrons missing) and then atoms with no electrons missing; tho at this stage only hydrogen would be forming most likely, as heavier atoms need stars in which to form (or so we presently think).

As John Dobson claims, “There are no photons ! There isn’t anything be-bopping all over the place from
every-possible-here to every-possible-there. If there was, space-time would be so full of ‘photons’ you couldn’t make your way across the room. Let alone see stars light years away.”

So if there are no photons, what is truly happening? What is truly happening is, light is awareness. Light is how awareness is communicated within space-time. ‘Photons’ are simply a metaphor for us to talk about a very difficult concept, and giving that concept a name and ‘particle’, it helps most of us to gain some kind of conception. Like electrons and protons are a concept. They are really only a pure wave-function, but it helps to conceptualize something solid. It helps to feel we have something solid underfoot to stand upon. We are all actually just an awareness inside of our own head, and our sensory input that is transmitted in electrical impulses through the nerves creates all we hear, see, touch, smell and taste; and That we call our experience of the outside world, but after a while we take it for granted and start to believe that it is ‘real’ !

Light transmits awareness at the ‘ratio of space to time’, and that ratio is the ‘speed of light’. It is a ratio of ‘distance to time passed’, (at the speed of light that is). Thusly one ‘light year’ is the distance light travels in one year, and that is the ‘ratio that space has to time’ in the arena of awareness transmitted by light.

As Dobson says, “Between the emission event (a photon being emitted for whatever reason) , and the absorption event (when the photon is absorbed by whatever, like your eye when you see something) there is no ‘thing’ that traverses the distance. It is an awareness that is transmitted, and that awareness transmits at the ‘ratio of space to time’ or the ‘speed of light’, which ever way you prefer to speak of it or think of it.”

In this way the universe is aware of itself, in this way we are a part of the universe and we have our awareness of the universe.

Arp’s idea is very new, and almost ‘religious’ in a way, and threatens to overthrow established religion and state, and these are likely the reasons it is being so irrationally opposed by the established science power structure establishment. Anyone that power structure can cajole, threaten, arm-twist, reward with funding or observatory time or position of prestige, to defend its position of ideology and squash any and all opposing theories, it is doing so daily.

hishadow
Ensign
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:58 am

Post by hishadow » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:49 pm

kovil wrote:I'm not completely sold on Arp's ideas, but I am completely sold on investigating more into his ideas and think the established astronomical community that is denying him funding and observatory time is doing so at its own peril of ignoring the truth and of being in denial and sticking to their historical position of theory out of fear or wanting some kind of control over the sciences for some reason to which I am not yet privy.
It does not matter if we as a layman are sold or not. It's all to easy to pull the "conspiracy card" as an explaination for the lack of interest from other scientist. If a theory doesn't fly, why should we (as layman) "demand anything" from scientists on how to allocate their research time? If Arp is not able to draw enough support from other scientists, it's his task to try and convince those scientists about the viability of his theory.

kovil
Science Officer
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:58 pm

Post by kovil » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:18 pm

the establishment is so obviously ignoring new data, that it is most apparent they are in denial, so don't bother with playing the 'anti conspiracy theory card', as that is just as invalid an argument that you are accusing me of doing in playing the conspiracy card.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:46 pm

kovil wrote:the establishment is so obviously ignoring new data,
Which (new) data would that be, kovil?

What lead you to conclude that the 'ignoring' is 'so obvious'?
that it is most apparent they are in denial, so don't bother with playing the 'anti conspiracy theory card', as that is just as invalid an argument that you are accusing me of doing in playing the conspiracy card.
Quite.

It rests rather heavily on the initial statement in this claim then, doesn't it?

I guess the good news is that a very great deal of vast amount of data gathered in surveys and by the best astronomical telescopes (etc), over the past decade or three, is available, almost* free, to almost* anyone with a broadband internet connection.

So backing up the key part of your claim will be a piece of cake, n'est pas?

*'almost free': you do need a broadband internet connection, plus the relevant software, plus (of course) a relatively modern PC

'almost anyone': I think the stated policies have to do with the following sort of logic: if a country's taxpayers have funded part of an astronomical endeavour, then those taxpayers have a right to all that's been gathered by that work ... after a proprietary period (usually 6 months to a year). As the relevant countries include those of the EU, the US, Canada, Australia, Chile, ....