There was no Big Bang, there is no dark matter.

[SvP]

Since there are quite bright guys here, what are your thoughts on plasma astrophysics?

http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/astro/great_wall.htm

Edit: added another link with shorter summary
http://www.nobigbang.com/

 

[London Geezer]

I love these threads... They turn me on... Will read it all and then get back to a better reply...

 

[epicstruggle]

Since there are quite bright guys here, what are your thoughts on plasma astrophysics?

http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/astro/great_wall.htm

Edit: added another link with shorter summary
http://www.nobigbang.com/

Im putting all my money on the big bang.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

As i mentioned in another thread, i've just started reading a book called Impossibility, and it's about the fact that there are some aspects of our universe which are by default impossible for humans to comprehend or explain. (This is from the back, as i said i've only just started it).

Still finishing to read the whole article u linked to...

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Since there are quite bright guys here, what are your thoughts on plasma astrophysics?

http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/astro/great_wall.htm

Edit: added another link with shorter summary
http://www.nobigbang.com/

Im putting all my money on the big bang.

later,
epic

I'm betting both theories are wrong.

 

[RussSchultz]

Strangely, I'm agreeing with KILER.

 

[London Geezer]

Strangely, I'm agreeing with KILER.

*raises hand*

ME TOO!

 

[SvP]

I'm betting both theories are wrong.

Strangely, I'm agreeing with KILER.

Why?

 

[MuFu]

Well K.I.L.E.R's pretty good with transexual porn and it's a field similar to astrophysics in many, many ways.

Get him to tell you about his "black hole" theory. Quite an eye-opener.

MuFu.

 

[London Geezer]

Well K.I.L.E.R's pretty good with transexual porn and it's a field similar to astrophysics in many, many ways.

Get him to tell you about his "black hole" theory. Quite an eye-opener.

MuFu.

Did i miss anything?

(cant click on the link, i'm at work and god knows whats in there!)

 

[Neeyik]

That site / webpage is a little out of date, mostly because it hasn't looked at the WMAP data or the fact that the evidence for neutrino mass is pretty good. It also resorts to using nifty sounding "facts" such as plasma astrophysics but fails to check the links provided for consistency and actually proof. The article talks briefly about plasma physics at the end and mentions something about how it does away with the Big Bang theory, but offers nothing to say why, how, who, whatever; with a lot of the quotes used being 10 years out of date.

The biggest issue I have with the article is that it poo-poo's dark matter as being an ad-hoc fix to the development of galaxies because no such material has been observed in nature or experiment, but then praises the use of plasma astrophysics, even though the supplied values in the text were only arrived at via theory and computer simulation.

 

[London Geezer]

It very much seems a "Let's change this unproven theory with an unprovable one" move from their side.....

 

[MfA]

Im not going to dive in much deeper, because of the very slim chance that it would be a good use of even my time ... but I find it strange that neither of the 2 introductions mentions how the theory deals with red-shift.

Any cosmological theory has to deal with that at the very least, which in the case of non big-bang theories usually either means saying red-shift is not a doppler effect or to suppose a continual creation of matter.

 

[SvP]

The biggest issue I have with the article is that it poo-poo's dark matter as being an ad-hoc fix to the development of galaxies because no such material has been observed in nature or experiment, but then praises the use of plasma astrophysics, even though the supplied values in the text were only arrived at via theory and computer simulation.

Take a look at this site:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
Scroll down, the index is at the bottom of the page.
There seems to be more data, mostly pictures. No comments on WMAP data thugh.

I find it strange that neither of the 2 introductions mentions how the theory deals with red-shift.

I found the following:
The observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. [...] The inherent part is an indication of the object's youth.

For more details take a look at
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

[Blade]

I'm something of a layman when it comes to astrophysics, but I don't believe in the big bang. I'm also iffy on most other theories about the universe's creation. There's no concrete facts, frankly.. just educated guesses and religion.

 

[KBeee]

there is no spoon.....

 

[SvP]

One more link, Wikipedia this time, should have started there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

 

[Fred]

Whoever wrote that article needs to take a refresher course in Astrophysics, there are some pretty bad misunderstandings of current theory, whether from 1991, 1970, or today.

 

[Fred]

btw, for those who are interested.. One of the reasons why this subject is outdated, is b/c of the results of COBE and WMAP on the cosmic microwave background.

One would expect in a plasma cosmology differing from the standard concordance view, to have a naive 2pt correlation function of the cmb that differs wildly from what is observed (note: this is a semi empirical model, not first principles). Moreover, the cmb would NEED to differ from gaussian fluctuations in a very apparent way. This is not seen, despite just about everyone in the field trying to look for it. If the cmb does depart from gaussianity, it will do it at a scale that almost rules out plasma cosmology.

Moreover, I still haven't seen a model that doesn't predict synchrotron radiation at highly elevated levels at least in some parts of the universe. No tracer of this has ever been found.

 

[SvP]

Thanks for comments, Fred