Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Drowners Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Science forum

The Big Bang Never Happened


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 25, 2013 2:27:56 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 25, 2013 2:28:03 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 1:01:37 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Ken Scott says: In all fact, the data from Planck merely constricts which inflation theories can be applied. It in fact, is not detecting cosmic radiation left over from the big bang -- because there was no big bang. It is detecting radiation - that is all. The radiation has nothing to do with the Big Bang - it is sourced to the particles that are thermalized by a variety of process - none of which require the Big Bang Creation myth.
>It is just the last in a long line of phenomena predicted by the Big Bang theory that have been found. All of these support the theory, which has not been invalidated.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 12:08:12 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Interstellar plasma looks a lot like this:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/files/2010/04/Hubble20.jpg

As you can see, it is very different from normal space.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 9:41:25 AM PDT
Re PapaSmurerf, 3-27 7:30 AM: "It depends on the state of the plasma discharge mode whether one can see through it or not." This is correct. Consider the discharge in a low pressure sodium lamp. It would be difficult to see through the lamp at the wavelengths of the brilliant D lines, but light at other wavelengths could penetrate the plasma. Which is why glassblowers use special spectacles which band-stop the sodium lines so that they can see what they are doing.

But KS's thesis, as BPL and others have shown, is nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 9:17:09 AM PDT
John Donohue says:
Ken Scott >>You must be mentally handicapped. Plasma Medium is omnipresent in space. You're in flat out denial of scientific fact. Discussion is over, enjoy your creationist circle jerk.<<

It's funny that your main "argument" against real science is to call it "creationist" -- even more ironic when one considers that you and Drifter are actual creationists in the usual sense of the word.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 9:00:17 AM PDT
John Donohue says:
Ken -- it has been established that you know absolutely nothing about physics; it is in question whether you can actually comprehend simple declarative sentences.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 7:53:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 27, 2013 9:00:48 AM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
What a coincidence, I just encountered this question in Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers: exercise 1.2 on page 11.

If v is the actual speed of the object, and is directed towards us with angle a w.r.t. the line of sight, then the apparent speed is

u=v [sin a]/(1-[vcos a]/c).

Which result you'll get by dividing the apparent (perpendicular) distance by apparent travel time.
If v/c > 1/sqrt2 then there is an interval I for the angle a where u > c:

I= (b, pi/2 -b)

with b=0.5 arcsin[(c/v)^2 -1].

Of course, I'd welcome any corrections;)

EDIT: The maximum attainable apparent velocity is unbounded (for different speeds v): u/c (max) = gamma*beta of object, and occurs at an angle (cos a) = v/c. (I was wondering if 1100c was indeed possible, as claimed by Kenny)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 7:30:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 27, 2013 7:47:56 AM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
BPL: ...a plasma medium would be impossible to see through?


It depends on the state of the plasma discharge mode whether one can see through it or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:46:24 AM PDT
KS: Plasma Medium is omnipresent in space.

BPL: No it isn't. Ken, have you even taken an introductory radiation physics course? Do you understand what DW is talking about when he says a plasma medium would be impossible to see through?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:41:39 AM PDT
KS: Explain TON 202, is it a Quasar at z=.366 moving at v=1100c or is it a star in the Milky Way galaxy? What's your answer?

BPL: No quasar is a star. They are the bright nuclei of galaxies with large amounts of matter from accretion disks falling into galactic nucleus black holes.

You've apparently lucked into one of the papers describing a "quasar with superluminal velocity," an optical illusion first seen with Maarten Schmidt's famous quasar 3C 273 in 1973. No actual superluminal velocities are involved. The effect depends on narrow angles and long lines of sight.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:36:41 AM PDT
KS: You have no evidence that the Universe has a net neutral charge.

BPL: You have no evidence that it doesn't.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:35:34 AM PDT
KS: To a fundamentalist Big Bang Creationist everything is relic radiation from the Big Bang. They don't even have a concept of "telescopic range limitations due to plasma seeing conditions"

This is probably due to their lack of education in Astronomy regarding the "atmospheric seeing limitations" of earth bound telescopes, they aren't aware of "seeing" in Astronomy and therefore not able to conceive of "cosmic plasma seeing limitations"

BPL: An amazingly stupid post. The Planck results were taken above the atmosphere, as also WMAP and so on.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:34:38 AM PDT
KS: The Plasma is generated by Lasers and the Electron Density can be coupled to the redshift.
...
I'm still waiting on you to address the object known as TON 202.

BPL: Your move, Ken. Show how the equation for laser-induced plasma red shift predicts the z value for your TON 202 object. Show your work.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:32:24 AM PDT
KS: The fact that spectral line shifts occur in the lab and are coupled to the plasma electron density is a fact and has cosmological implications that fail weaker models like Big Bang Creationism.

BPL: When you first posted this stuff I challenged you to show how that effect, QUANTITATIVELY, accounted for the known red shift of any cosmological object. You have yet to do so.

Show your work. Or shut up.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2013 3:31:10 AM PDT
KS: "Big Bang Creationists..."

BPL: Ken is unable to post without including at least one stupid, baiting insult.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:25:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 27, 2013 12:29:19 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Ahh, its everywhere. Then why isn't it detected? Why is the detected medium mostly neutral hydrogen?

Why can't you find any scientific papers that are published on the subject? Is there an evil conspiracy to suppress the theory? Or is it simply *contradicted* by evidence?

Translation of your last line: "I have no science to present, any answer to the success of the ΛCDM model at making predictions, nor the failure of observations to support my theory. I shall resort to name calling and leave."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:24:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:29:06 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
How do you get emission and absorption lines from the same object?

(hint: you can't)

EDIT: by the way, you did. You said Bremsstrahlung was responsible for redshift in the ISM.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:23:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:43:59 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Then why does the CMB match predictions of the Lambda-CDM model, including the power spectrum, to within several hundred sigma. More to the point, these predictions where made in the 70s before COBE had even discovered the most course details of the inhomogeneity of the CMB.

Why does the CMB also exibit a perfect sum of spherical harmonics? This only makes sense if the particles emitting it are part of the same process. Why does the power distribution have discrete peeks instead of a smooth curve as one would expect as the sum of billions of sources?

Why do the features of the sound horizon exist in the CMB?

The last question, why doesn't any of your sources actually address this? The CMB's features where *predicted* long before the measurements where taken. What does that tell you?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:18:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:37:42 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Where exactly are the lasers? Besides man-made satellites?

Oh, and while there are many ways to make a plasma, there are also many ways to destroy it. The plasma prefers to enter the bound state of the neutral atom as a gas is a lower energy state.

And the paper doesn't address cosmology or astrophysics. Therefore, it does not address your thesis.

Also, a minor point, where *is* this plasma? I mean besides opaque nebulae and such? Why does the ISM act like neutral hydrogen and absorb incident Lyman-alpha if it is ionized? Why do we observe the Lyman alpha forest?

In case you didn't know, the Lyman alpha forest is a feature of absorption spectra where white light passes through a cloud of neutral hydrogen and all or most of a certain wavelength, called Lyman-alpha, is absorbed. After the light travels farther, it is redshifted and encounters another cloud and the new Lyman-alpha trough is created. It *proves* the medium is not ionized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-alpha_forest

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:15:18 PM PDT
Re Ken Scott, 3-26 9:06 PM: "But they don't shift the same..." Which shows that you know utterly NOTHING about the subject. Emission lines and absorption lines are simply light -- which will redshift via Doppler, gravitation (as from a black hole), or any other mechanism in the same way. Your complete ignorance of the subject is appalling -- and disgusting.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:10:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:12:22 PM PDT
Ken Scott says:
DW: "We can tell the difference between looking through a nebula and a horizon. There simply is no plasma medium. That is all there is too it. Also, it would be impossible for a plasma medium to absorb energy from light to redshift it. Do you have an answer yet as to why 1) the scattering on the medium doesn't blur the objects and 2) the clouds don't heat up?"

You must be mentally handicapped. Plasma Medium is omnipresent in space. You're in flat out denial of scientific fact. Discussion is over, enjoy your creationist circle jerk.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:08:26 PM PDT
Ken Scott says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 26, 2013 9:05:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:05:43 PM PDT
Ken Scott says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 9:00:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:01:39 PM PDT
Ken Scott says:
Robert, actually, there are lasers in space. But aside from that, there are many ways to produce a plasma. The most popular method is through a laser. However, if you want to produce your plasma in a different way, feel free to do so. The phenomenon isn't dependent on the laser, it is simply a property of plasma interacting with light.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2013 8:54:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2013 9:02:39 PM PDT
Re Scott, 3-26 5:14 PM: "while in-fact providing absolutely no evidence or argument detailing why he is wrong." I frequently cite articles in Nature, to which I subscribe.
"redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas" There are no lasers in outer space. Nor is there enough density for the purported action to take place even if there were. Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, the redshifts in plasma do NOT preserve the spectral structure; only Doppler shift does that.
As for the paper you cited, I have looked at it before. It does not support your thesis -- indeed, it does not even address it.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 131 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  3259
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions