"Big Bang Blasted"

[zynner]

"Big Bang Blasted" by Lyndon Ashmore is another book out that promotes the idea that the Big Bang Theory is false.

From the back cover of the book:

Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support. What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done. He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory! Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.

Interesting stuff.

If the Big Bang Theory is false, then it is likely that:

(a) the Universe is not expanding, but is stable
(b) which means the Universe had no beginning
(c) which eliminates any rationale for a creator

~ zynner

[Milton Bradley]

I have pretty much always been in the same camp. I just don't like the Big Bang theory. Then again, I don't like the String Theory either, though some of it's contentions are very compelling.


I have been looking for a way to explain ( to myself, if nobody else ) a way to account for the red shift minus the ( very popular ) expansion theory for quite a long time.


Physics would have been the one draw I had to persue a higher education, but I was a l late bloomer, and totally unaware of my desire to to know it all that early in life.


Plus, who could have imagined there would be so many jobs in that field back then?

[zynner]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have been looking for a way to explain ( to myself, if nobody else ) a way to account for the red shift minus the ( very popular ) expansion theory for quite a long time.

You can look up info on Halton Arp. He has made discoveries that dubunk the mainstream explanation of redshift, and which mainstream scientists will not address.

If redshift has to do with age rather than (or even in addition to) velocity, then the Universe very well might not be expanding.

It actually makes a lot more sense to have a stable Universe, just "cycling" itself over and over again like the seasons or the planets or organic life does.

~ zynner

[Tobzie]

The universe having no begining doesn't mean there's no creator. Since alot of people beleive that time is linked in with space and not just an abstract human concept. A creator could exist outside space and time. I'm agnostic so i like to talk crap but it's not impossible

[zynner]

When I say the Universe has no beginning, that includes time. It means the Universe has always existed and there was never a "time" when it did not.

*If* that is true, then it absolutely means there could not have been a creator. Something that is not created never had a creator, right? After all, that is the argument that theists put forth about their gods. The same is true for the Universe itself.

That's all that means.

Also, if you take a creator out of the equation, then there is no justification for a god at all. I think that is why, deep down, so many mainstream scientists do not want to give up the Big Bang Theory. Doing so has very important metaphysical implications, which lead to moral implications.

I say that such would be a huge advance forward for all humanity, but many who are locked into theism cannot see it because they have been lead to believe a falsehood and they have no reference for an alternative way to think.

~ zynner

[Autolykos]

Then again, Zynner, the idea that the Universe has "always been" violates the Causality Principle...

- Rob

[Pooeypants]

Does this author have any papers to support his model to explaining redshift?

[zynner]

Quote by: Autolykos Then again, Zynner, the idea that the Universe has "always been" violates the Causality Principle... - Rob

Yes, it does. Thank god! ;-)

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Pooeypants Does this author have any papers to support his model to explaining redshift?

Yeah, peer-reviewed papers and a book.

Also, check out Halton Arp.

~ zynner

[Fonceai]

The Big Bang makes sense in certain models.

Basing or debasing an entire theory based on the color of some photons is stupid; we don't fully understand the behavior of photons and how they are affected by gravity. Nor do we know everything possible about stellar matter, anti-matter, "dark" matter, etc.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: zynner Yeah, peer-reviewed papers and a book. Also, check out Halton Arp. ~ zynner

If he has, please cite them. I have University paid access to Nature journals, is he published on there?

[zynner]

Quote by: Fonceai Basing or debasing an entire theory based on the color of some photons is stupid;

In that case, you would have to dismiss the Big Bang Theory, since it is based on a particular interpretation of redshift.

A lot of the other stuff, such as dark matter, are theories that were invented in order to save the BBT from itself. Rather than reject the BBT when the evidence did not stack up, they just added additional theories.

Check it out.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Pooeypants If he has, please cite them. I have University paid access to Nature journals, is he published on there?

I don't have any citations for you. You'll have to look them up yourself.

You can start with the books, which are widely available.

~ zynner

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: zynner I don't have any citations for you. You'll have to look them up yourself.

I tried, his name does not appear on Cosmology journal nor any papers on Nature

Quote by: zynner You can start with the books, which are widely available. ~ zynner

Just because he wrote a book doesn't make him right or that it's been peer reviewed and accepted.
I've already found a thread where he debates one his ideas and has been defeated. I don't understand half the stuff they're saying, to be honest but then I'm not a physicist.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: zynner A lot of the other stuff, such as dark matter, are theories that were invented in order to save the BBT from itself. Rather than reject the BBT when the evidence did not stack up, they just added additional theories. Check it out. ~ zynner

Dark matter was first hypothesized in 1933 by F Zwitcky and had nothing to do with BBT.
I think you're taking that guy's preachings a bit too easily. Do you honestly think that the tens of thousands of physicists out there wouldn't have realised what he's written in the books?

[zynner]

Pooeypants --

I am not saying that he is right. I am saying that he and others are bringing up evidence that points to the necessity to re-examine the truth of the Big Bang Theory.

For every debunk, there is a debunk of the debunk.

The point is, look at the evidence.

~ zynner

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: zynner Pooeypants -- I am not saying that he is right. I am saying that he and others are bringing up evidence that points to the necessity to re-examine the truth of the Big Bang Theory. For every debunk, there is a debunk of the debunk. The point is, look at the evidence. ~ zynner

It's being re-examined all the time, whenever the point a new probe into the skies and find completely new data, they'll make whatever adjustment is necessary to the model.
What I'm pointing out is that his "work" has no significance in the Cosmology department. He has some interesting concepts but they're either invalid or unverified. Should he be able to find supporting evidence, I will be more than welcome to accept what he has to offer.

[Fonceai]

Photonic redshift isn't the only proof of the Big Bang.

There is also the ambient temperature of the universe, certain mass distributions, and other evidence.

[zynner]

Chris,

I cited the book. I posted a quote that gives the general gist. Anybody can check out the book.

If someone wants to look up papers at a university, that is up to them.

~ zynner

[Chris]

So wait, have we ever had any hard evidence that redshift is invalid? And where is this proof?

Oh yeah, I have to look that up for myself.... :rolleyes:

This goes in line with SHW making the point that if you make an assertion, it should be up to you to provide proof instead of telling us something and then saying something similar to :you don't believe me (it) go look it up yourself"