Center of the Univers

subtillioN

Let me translate that for you:
"We have a rule not to accept any challenge to our favorite theories."

All I have done is show an alternative. You have a rule not to look at alternatives? How scientific is that?

Give me a break.
[g)]

Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to debate my points?

subtillioN

That is the most dogmatic statement I think I have ever read.

Basically you are saying that your precious BBT is beyond reproach. Are you that attached to it? That is a serious warning sign that you are being unscientific.

CrystalStudios

You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point........

.....it's a weak theory.

Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!!!!!!


What the hell do you expect?

subtillioN

Is it some complex idea? No it is obvious when someone refuses to admit that his favored interpretation is not a proven fact.

Do you realize how childish your name-calling is? What is this... Kinder-garten?

Either way the very same evidence that the BBT has claimed for its own 'proof' actually is more coherent when interpreted via Plasma Cosmology. If you don't know a damn thing about it how can you sit there and claim that it is wrong?

The BBT is FAR more theoretical than Plasma Cosmology. If only you knew the difference.

You don't even know what you are talking about. Try debating the actual theory... oh yeah... that means actually LEARNING it.


I expect serious debate which you are incapable of.. Instead all I get is a barage of name calling for even challenging your pet theory.

String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics... So what if Physics is taken over by a faulty theory, it certainly isn't the first time.

Rogue

I hate to take this thread (judging by the main heading - I didn't read it all) in the wrong direction, but string theory a joke? String theory has united all of physics, solved all the problems of the differences in the forces - and you think it is a joke? So you're arguing an irrational theory which goes against all the structures of physics, and indeed you also deny the exist of string theory as the proven structure behind physics - and expect someone to listen to that? You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existance is completely incorrect.

subtillioN

You people are incredibly dogmatic. String Theory is FAR from proven and it only "unites" physics by way of a kludge connection between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It is way too abstract to be realistic and there ARE better models.

subtillioN

The equations are quite correct, but the interpretations are incorrect at the core and all across the board!!!

That is why they continually fail to understand the core causality which they claim does not exist.

Rogue

Well, you propose some bizarre ideas. I surely hope that you have at least one PhD in physics. There is no level of non-graduate level education that could prepare you for properly proposing any such claims other than that, and I should know.

So, why not enlighten us with your level of education in physics?

subtillioN

Is "status" what you consider enlightening? If so then an attempt to truly enlighten you is hopeless.

If you want a small clue then read the intro at this site. www.anpheon.org

Rogue

Apparently you are dodging the fact that you perhaps have no physics education?

It's OK to admit - but understand, from someone who does, that no amount of independant reading will make up for not having a structural education. And the propositions you make of string theory being absurd and the Big Bang being wrong are well, wrong and absurd!

What do you have an education in? Perhaps you can tell us so we can ask questions you might be able to answer.

And to the website you linked - no amount of fancy flash and animated diagrams can combat a theory (that is string theory) which serves to unite every single fragment that has ever been discovered in physics.

subtillioN

I am an eternal student and how could I discuss physics with no physics education? My educational status has nothing to do with the theories that I am discussing because I am not the author. That ad hominem route will get you nowhere.

There is your dogmatism speaking. I am making serious criticisms of your pet theories and you people cannot debate the alternatives I am talking about because you don't know the theories. Science evolves through diversity in spite of dogmatism.

The theory is entirely visualizable at the root causal level unlike string theory or quantum mechanics. The theory stands alone independent of any marketing or artwork.

r637h

This is an excellent thread and this is a "Forum": I believe that just about anyone can properly participate.

I agree with very little of what -tillion has put forth, but there's absolutely no harm in reading what he has to say. Further, his assertion that he is propounding a theory I believe is perhaps a bit over-stated. But why don't we listen with courtesy and decorum (Robert's Rules)?

Back to an earlier post in this thread: Mercury"s precession in perihelion: It is explained by the math of both Newtonian and GR physics. GR is the more precise:
This is because GR utilizes Riemannian Geometry (and Lorentzian transformations); but Riemannian Geometry is, in effect, only a distortion of Euclidian geometry, albeit with the same rigid discipline/proofs as Euclidian.

I would not, but some would question the validity of Lorentzian tranformations in general.

Let's remember that Einstein was in the main self-tutored. Newton, Maxwell and Faraday were all in a similar vein, and Einstein admired them.

Back to the main topic: BB is a given, period. An inflationary Universe was very, very probable. Is there a 'center' to the universe? Nope.

Thanks, Rudi

Hurkyl

But what does the doppler effect have to do with anything? In fact, it's the observation that the doppler effect cannot adequately describe redshifting that is used as evidence for the expansion of space.


Seeing how I don't know what Plasma Cosmology is, and I haven't made any arguments against what Plasma Cosmology really is... I already have. [:D]


Seriously, if you're still talking about the center of the big bang, and think the doppler effect has anything to do with the expansion of the universe as predicted than BBT, then you have no clue about what you're talking.


Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?


Well, the first and most problem is that black holes can't eject matter. Secondly, it predicts arms of a spiral galaxy to be made of antimatter but we don't see any variation in the properties of the arms, and we don't see any matter/antimatter annihilations around the core. Finally, it predicts that comets are actually antimatter, but that is patently absurd because we have watched comets come in contact with ordinary matter, and annihilation doesn't occur! For example, jupiter still exists. [:)]

r637h

"While I'm at it" Dept.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Plasma Cosmology website:

I have a question: What?

In fairness, I don't think the world of M-Theory, either; It very likely does have validity, but it needs Occam's Razor, judiciously applied. It is so loaded with jargon that it defies rational analysis.

Thanks, Rudi

Phobos

There is a good discussion here to be salvaged among the cracker crumbs, trolling, and flame-war-lite. Consider this the 2-minute warning.

subtillioN

No this one is the one I am discussing and ONLY the science stuff..

www.electric-cosmos.org

meteor

Sincerely, I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!! [8)]
What are then quasars for him? The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood, and I can find a mechanism for permit that a quasar can be expulsed
He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?