Questioning the Big Bang

No way to baffle the masses with BS by claiming to have found the cure for the common cold, is there? Good point.

If God is God, why do feel the need to make Him fit into the pattern of the big bang "convention"?

I don't. The BB fits God's plan.

Don't bother. He doesn't get it.

It is the fabric of space itself that is expanding

What's this "fabric" made of? Rayon? Dacron??

Who's pulling on it to stretch it?

It is the fabric of space itself that is expanding, and the galaxies are just carried along

Wouldn't the galaxies also expand if space is expanding? When the universe was 10x smaller, were the galaxies 10x smaller? Were stars 10x smaller? Were atoms 10x smaller?

Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept.

I don't know. I just went outside and dropped a rock. It still fell and took .52 seconds to hit the ground.

The funniest thing of all is that a very simple result and observation from the realm of the weightlifting sports is all it takes to totally overthrow Einstein's conception of gravity. Were you familiar with that one?

ROFL! No excuse for me, but we all know about Patrick. :)

I don't pretend to understand the big bang theory, it just sounds like so much gibberish to me...

There's a hell of a good reason for that; it IS gibberish.

The notion of "space-time" is basically Einstein's conception of relativistic time. That's basically BS.

Albert Einstein was trying to use relativistic time to account for the fact that light does not obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities. This was based on what he called "thought experiments", such as the mirror-clock experiment, rather than upon anything resembling real evidence or real experiments. Thought experiments, it turns out, are not a terribly good basis for physics. Moreover, the basic approach is unsound. Louis Carrol Epstein ("Relativity Envisioned"), uses the following analogy: a carpenter with a house in which everything worked flawlessly other than one door which bound, would usually plane the door until it worked. He COULD, however, purchase a couple of hundred jacks and jack the foundation of the house until the one door worked, and then try to somehow or other make every other door and window in the house work again... Light is the one door in the analogy; distance, time, mass etc., i.e. everything else in the house of physics are the other doors and windows. Epstein assumes that relativity is the one case you will ever find in which that sort of approach is the correct one, nonetheless, common sense tells us it isn't terribly likely.

It turns out there is another way in which one could account for light not obeying additive laws, and that this other way is the correct one. That is to assume that light simply does not have a velocity; that it is an instantaneous force between two points, and that the thing we call the "velocity of light" is the rate of accumulation of some secondary effect.

The story on this one lives HERE

The basic Ralph Sansbury experiment amounts to a 1990s version of the Michelson/Moreley experiment using lasers and nanosecond gates, which Michelson and Moreley did not have. Wallace Thornhill, an Australian physicist, describes it:



>I mentioned a few weeks ago that an epoch making experiment had been
>performed in the realm of fundamental physics which had great
>importance for Velikovskian style catastrophism (and just about
>everything else for that matter). The experiment, performed by Ralph
>Sansbury, is amazingly simple but has amazing consequences.
>
>Sansbury is a quiet spoken physicist from Connecticut.  He is
>associated with the Classical Physics Institute, or CP Institute, of
>New York which publishes the Journal of Classical Physics. In the
>Notes to Contributors we find the focus of the journal: "Marinov's
>experiment, Bell's theorem, and similar works reveal increasing
>discontent with the dogmas of modern physics. Some physicists
>postulate that blackbody radiation, atomic spectra, nuclear reactions,
>electron diffraction, the speed of light and all other phenomena which
>Quantum Wave Mechanics and Relativity were designed to explain will
>require different explanations. It is the viewpoint of this journal
>that the new explanations probably will be consistent with
>Aristotelian logic and Newtonian or Galilean mechanics." Volume 1,
>Part 1, in January 1982 was devoted to an article titled "Electron
>Structure", by Ralph Sansbury. The title itself should raise
>physicist's eyebrows since electrons are considered to have no
>structure. They are treated as being indivisible, along with quarks.
>
>The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin,
>for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both
>magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous
>electrostatic force. The Lorentz contraction-dilation of space time
>and mass is unnecessary. Electromagnetic radiation becomes the
>cumulative effect of instantaneous electrostatic forces at a distance
>and the wave/particle (photon) duality disappears. Discontinuous
>absorption/emission of energy in quanta by atoms becomes a continuous
>process. And there is more.
>
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!
>
>As another classical physicist using a theoretical approach to the
>same problem succinctly put it:
>
>"... there emerges the outline of an alternative "relativistic"
>physics, quite distinct from that of Maxwell-Einstein, fully as well
>confirmed by the limited observations available to date, and differing
>from it not only in innumerable testable ways but also in basic
>physical concepts and even in definitional or ethnical (sic) premises
>as to the nature of physics. Thus a death struggle is joined that must
>result in the destruction of one world-system or the other: Either
>light is complicated and matter simple, as I think, or matter is
>complicated and light simple, as Einstein thought. I have shown here
>that some elegant mathematics can be put behind my view. It has long
>been known that inordinate amounts of elegant mathematics can be put
>behind Einstein's. Surely the time fast approaches to stop listening
>to mathematical amplifications of our own internal voices and to go
>into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say." -
>Modifications of Maxwell's Equations, T E Phipps, The Classical
>Journal of Physics, Vol 2, 1, Jan 1983, p. 21.
>
>Ralph Sansbury has now done precisely that!
>
>In simple terms, Sansbury gives the electron a structure by proposing
>a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the
>classical radius of an electron. A simple calculation gives the
>surprising result that these subtrons are moving at a speed of 2.5
>million light years per second! That is, they could theoretically
>cover the distance from Earth to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy
>in one second. This gives some meaning to the term 'instantaneous
>action at a distance'. (Note that this is a requirement for any new
>theory of gravity). (Also I have always considered it evidence of
>peculiar naivety or arrogance on the part of scientists, such as
>Sagan, who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) by using
>radio signals. What superior intelligence would use such a slow, and
>therefore useless, interstellar signalling system?) Such near infinite
>speed requires that there can be no mass increase with velocity. The
>speed of light is not a speed barrier. All of the experiments which
>seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a
>more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle
>is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a
>sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to
>accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion
>of the particle until, ultimately, at the speed of light, there is an
>expulsion of the subtrons. Under such conditions, the particle only
>APPEARS to be gaining mass.
>
>Notably, in the past few months, scientists in Hamburg using the most
>powerful electron microscope have found on about a dozen occasions out
>of 10 million trials, relativistic electrons recoiled more violently
>off protons than had ever been seen before. This may turn out to be
>direct experimental proof of Sansbury's model of the electron having
>structure.
>
>To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of
>the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous
>electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a
>radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is
>now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's
>view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant
>detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due
>to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the
>detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This
>is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have
>the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed
>of light.
>
>In terms of the gun and target analogy, it is as if particles of the
>bullet are being absorbed by the shield from the instant of firing, so
>that when the shield is pulled aside there is no bullet left to hit
>the target.
>
>It is not possible to overstate the importance of this work because it
>lends direct support to a new model of the electron in particular, and
>matter in general, which EXPLAINS magnetism, gravity and quantum
>effects without any resort to the kind of metaphysics which allows our
>top physicists to think they can see "God" in their equations.  The
>new classical physicists can mix it with the best of them when it
>comes to the mathematics but they are more prepared to "go into the
>laboratory and listen to what nature has to say."
>
>This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of
>the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to
>say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true,
>insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is
>a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the
>atom, rather than a warp in space (whatever the hell that means),
>gives us a simple mechanism by which the solar system can be rapidly
>stabilised after a period of chaotic motion.
>
>There is an impression, as I reread the work of Sansbury and other
>classical physicists, that what we are facing is something like "Back
>to the Future". And like the movie of that name, the possibilities
>that we encounter will seem like science fiction come true. But it is
>well-known that science fiction writers are better at predicting the
>future of science than experts!

Science deals with the question of "what" and "how"; philosophy deals with questions like "why?".

I'm asking a "how" question -- How did it come to be that things are the way they are? -- but realize that it may be beyond science to tackle this question at this time.

Albert Einstein was trying to use relativistic time to account for the fact that light does not obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities. This was based on what he called "thought experiments", such as the mirror-clock experiment, rather than upon anything resembling real evidence or real experiments.

We've gone far beyond thought experiments. Particles that have relatively short half-lives live longer as their velocity approaches the speed of light, the result of time dialation. Special Relativity has been put to the test.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation system is heavily dependent on the proper calculation of relativistic effects for its accuracy: if you neglected special relativity alone, GPS positions would drift by around 20 kilometers per day (they're actually good to better than 10 meters). General relativity effects cancel about 2/3 of this drift; the rest is compensated for in the GPS software.

Cool laser puts special relativity to the test; 8 January 2002

Einstein's special theory of relativity has passed its toughest test yet. Achim Peters of the University of Konstanz in Germany and colleagues used a super-stable laser standing wave to check the theory three times more accurately than previous similar experiments. Tests of special relativity are crucial: not only is the theory a cornerstone of modern physics, but tests could lead to a long-sought-after 'theory of everything' or the discovery of quantum gravity (C Braxmaier et al 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 010401).

There are other explainations for all those things. Other than that, relativity does not pass the test which the basic Sansbury experiment presents to it.

Forgot to mention, there's one other tiny problem with Einstein's conception of what gravity amounts to, i.e. an intrinsic property of mass and space. That would not allow for any sort of a major change in gravity on this planet within recent geological times, would it?

Nonetheless, it turns out to be a trivial demonstration that there has in fact been just such a massive change. The kinds of super animals which used to walk around on the planet would be crushed by their own weight in today's world, and that's easy to demonstrate; in fact, whenever a whale gets washed up onto shore, that's precisely what we observe. The biggest flying birds in our present world are albatrosses, condors, berkuts etc., and those get up to about 30 lbs at which point taking off and landing become sufficiently difficult that it is not difficult to see why they do not get larger. The Argentinian teratorn was a 200-lb golden eagle with a 25' wingspan, and it flew. These creatures simply did not experience gravity as we do now; there's no way they could have.

Ralph Sansbury describes gravity as an electrostatic dipole effect, which does in fact allow for changes in gravity in the recent past, when the electrostatic charge near the Earth's surface was greater. Einstein is basically FUBAR.

Yet a little research indicates that the two accounts of Genesis recorded in the bible are condensed versions of two different events, the history of our solar system and the history of Man's creation.

Even less tells us that He created the it all in 6-days, and rested on the seventh.

If God said six days, how much research do you need to do?

I don't. The BB fits God's plan.

What was the light on days two and three then?

It wasn't the stars as was mentioned earlier-they came on day four (per God's plan).

Did He need a bang for three consecutive days?

More stars.

You have spoken volumes.

For your plan to work, you have to believe that God created stars more than once.

Let's just go on the record and state that your entire story is based on the notion that God created stars on more than one occasion, although it is inaccurate.

We are told that on day 4 He created the sun, moon and THE stars.

"THE stars" does not leave room for the notion that stars had been created in advance. If there had been stars previos to day 4, the scripture would have said "The other stars", wouldn't it?

If you want to believe that you are right, you have entirely lost the biblical account for your support. You have made it very clear that you do not believe the biblical record if you feel the need to introduce new events that did not occur, just to support your own belief.

Be careful-this is God's record you are adapting.