Big Bang

[Doveaman]

It would if intrinsic redshift were a reality.

It is.

True, but this does not seem to be the case here. These "anomalous" observations have other explanations.

Explanations are not observations. Observations are real. Explanations are our fallible human interpretations of those observations. This is why scientists can't agree on those observations.

I doubt that any ignoring that may have been done has anything to do with dishonesty.

Photos have even been cropped to hide the connections between the objects. I'd say that's evidence of dishonesty.

Secondly there are scientists that have taken a look at these issues and have concluded that there is no evidence for intrinsic redshift or redshift periodicity.

And there are scientists who still don't agree. You would think that there would be agreement among scientists on things based on scientific observations. After all, they are all seeing the same phenomena. If scientists can't agree on what they all see then how can we trust them?

Yes but there have been more recent observations with a larger data set that show no evidence of intrinsic redshift.

And there are those who observe that same data and are even more convinced that it is indeed intrinsic redshift.

Consider this:

Check the following links:
-Evidence against non-cosmological redshifts of QSOs in SDSS data

-NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

I don't think dismissing the observations as mere chance encounters can be considered evidence against non-cosmological redshift. To me it seems more like evidence of denial.

This is a good summary of the "Red Shift Controversy."

-The Red Shift Controversy

There is a growing number of scientists who no longer support cosmological redshift. So the controversy continues.

 

[Hespera]

It is.
Explanations are not observations. Observations are real. Explanations are our fallible human interpretations of those observations. This is why scientists can't agree on those observations.
Photos have even been cropped to hide the con nections between the objects. I'd say that's evidence of dishonesty.
And there are scientists who still don't agree. You would think that there would be agreement among scientists on things based on scientific observations. After all, they are all seeing the same phenomena. If scientists can't agree on what they all see then how can we trust them?
And there are those who observe that same data and are even more convinced that it is indeed intrinsic redshift.
I don't think dismissing the observations as mere chance encounters can be considered evidence against non-cosmological redshift. To me it seems more like evidence of denial.
There is a growing number of scientists who no longer support cosmological redshift. So the controversy continues.

I made the mistake of sitting thru an episode of "American idol" a while back. There was one thing that interested me, and it was about people's self image, perception of self as contrasted to what everyone else saw.

Like, this girl thinks she is such a good singer and her voice would shatter glass! Then she goes off mad, those judges are all like, against me, the whole thing is rigged. Just no conception at all of the fact that they just are not any good at what they are trying to do!

Now here, we have a guy who knows just utterly squat about science of any kind. Says the most absurd things about biology / evolution that a middle school student should know better.

But, lo! here in matters cosmological he holdeth forh as with evolution, and displayeth his great knowledge! He makes not merely discoveries just from some pictures that them scientists cant figure out, but he also he spots collusion, denial and fraud!

Dove does tho know how to make his own dishonest statements, such as this..


here is what his own article says....

However Arp and a few other astronomers still promote intrinsic redshifts as at least a component of the total observed redshifts for quasars and active galaxies.

and here is how it comes out after being interpreted by dove...

There is a growing number of scientists who no longer support cosmological redshift

 

[dad]

Ok, so what is your explaination of the origen of the universe? If you say god did it how did he do it?
I need specifics, not vague Bible verses please.

The early universe was this earth, without the stars. They were made for signs for us. Like a computer sign that relays messages. We are that important. God's will is the greatest force in the universe and other universes. It is interconnected with all things. In this state it is less than apparent, and man is left on his own with a prison of laws more or less. But in the true nature, His will is what things are in living sync to! He even made Adam that way over the universe here, apparently. Like Jesus, the second Adam, who could control nature, many feel Adam could also.

 

[1611AV]

If there was nothing and then the Big Bang exploded into nothingness. What was at the point that the Big Bang originated in? In other words, what space was created for the pinpoint of the Pre Big Bang to occupy and what created that space it occupied?

 

[Nabobalis]

If there was nothing and then the Big Bang exploded into nothingness. What was at the point that the Big Bang originated in? In other words, what space was created for the pinpoint of the Pre Big Bang to occupy and what created that space it occupied?

That no one knows.

 

[Hespera]

If there was nothing and then the Big Bang exploded into nothingness. What was at the point that the Big Bang originated in? In other words, what space was created for the pinpoint of the Pre Big Bang to occupy and what created that space it occupied?

Come on, we ahve been doing serious research in physics for only a few years. These are incredibly difficult problems. We dont have a cure for cancer or the common cold yet either.

At the time of the American Revolution people still were searching for a great southern continent that they thought was down there somewhere.

"god" is a facile explanation that pleases some, who just must have what they think is an answer.

it just makes things worse, of course, coz then its where did god come from,how did it get so smart, how does it talk to itself across 15 billion light years of space, etc etc. where did it get all the stuff to work with..


Is there a really big problem with just saying we dont know a lot of things and hope that maybe we will some day?

 

[1611AV]

Come on, we ahve been doing serious research in physics for only a few years. These are incredibly difficult problems. We dont have a cure for cancer or the common cold yet either.

At the time of the American Revolution people still were searching for a great southern continent that they thought was down there somewhere.

"god" is a facile explanation that pleases some, who just must have what they think is an answer.

it just makes things worse, of course, coz then its where did god come from,how did it get so smart, how does it talk to itself across 15 billion light years of space, etc etc. where did it get all the stuff to work with..


Is there a really big problem with just saying we dont know a lot of things and hope that maybe we will some day?

Just checking in on science. keep searching...

 

[Doveaman]

Dove does tho know how to make his own dishonest statements, such as this..
here is what his own article says....
However Arp and a few other astronomers still promote intrinsic redshifts as at least a component of the total observed redshifts for quasars and active galaxies.
and here is how it comes out after being interpreted by dove...

You might have a point if I was actually responding to that quote. I wasn't.

There is indeed a growing number of scientists who no longer believe in big bang and cosmological redshift.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Big Bang Never Happened

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

 

[badtim]

"growing" in this case meaning (referring to your Arp letter thing) from 34 to somewhere over 300? well, over 300 when counting "independent researchers", whatever they are.

sure, it seems to be "growing" to an nearly-visible fraction of .0001% of working astrophysicists or cosmologists.

the implication that i assume you were hoping to make, that this "growing" is evidence of widespread discontent with current theory, is just not true.

 

[jonmichael818]

It is.

Sure it is.

Explanations are not observations. Observations are real. Explanations are our fallible human interpretations of those observations. This is why scientists can't agree on those observations.

Yes explanations are fallible, but that argument goes both ways. Did you ever think "your" scientists might be fallible?

Photos have even been cropped to hide the connections between the objects. I'd say that's evidence of dishonesty.

Any evidence of this, besides speculation, accusation or conspiracy theory?

And there are scientists who still don't agree. You would think that there would be agreement among scientists on things based on scientific observations. After all, they are all seeing the same phenomena. If scientists can't agree on what they all see then how can we trust them?

We trust them to the extent that their explanations are the best we have of the observed phenomenon, not that it is absolute fact. Besides, your so called "growing number of scientists" argument is hardly convincing.

I don't think dismissing the observations as mere chance encounters can be considered evidence against non-cosmological redshift. To me it seems more like evidence of denial.

Of course that is not the only argument that is being made.

John Bahcall and collaborators made a noteworthy contribution when they showed that NGC 4319 absorbs some of the light from Mrk 205, just as expected if NGC 4319 is projected in front of Mrk 205.-Hubble Haritage Project

The above quote is referencing this paper:
-The near-ultraviolet spectrum of Markarian 205

 

[jonmichael818]

The early universe was this earth, without the stars. They were made for signs for us. Like a computer sign that relays messages. We are that important. God's will is the greatest force in the universe and other universes. It is interconnected with all things. In this state it is less than apparent, and man is left on his own with a prison of laws more or less. But in the true nature, His will is what things are in living sync to! He even made Adam that way over the universe here, apparently. Like Jesus, the second Adam, who could control nature, many feel Adam could also.

Any proof for these ideas, other than the bible says so?