The Big Bang Never Happened--The Science of the Censored Papers

[@markmcd2780]

For several decades I've held the view that cosmology is broken. It began with the number of times I saw articles and research about how cosmologists were surprised at a wide variety of things being discovered - the thought was, if the theory is correct, why are we constantly finding things that break the paradigm? e.g. stars older than they could be, larger than the theory allows, finding the universe is anisotropic etc. Then there is how the BB hypothesis needs 3 different levels of magic to work - Inflation, Dark Matter & Dark Energy. Without these 3 things, which were invented solely because the BBT didn't work and which are defined by being precisely what it needs to work, we would have to go back and start again. If Redshift (RS) =/= Velocity, then we have no evidence for the BB at all - even the CMB can be explained differently. And as Arp points out, there are high-RS objects we can see have physical attachment to low-RS objects. Even ONE of those breaks the whole BB model.

[@kailiburns366]

Have fun with the new James Webb pictures where we have fully formed luminous galaxies like our own 250 million years after the BB which shouldn't be possible. And there's 10x more than the community at large anticipated. More rescue devices incoming.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

Amen brother

[@MICHAEL-yd3yj]

@@kailiburns366 Much of the argument stems from an article written by Eric Lerner (author of the book "The Big Bang Never Happened"). Lerner's article, published in IAI news, argues that the new James Webb Space Telescope images contradict The Big Bang Hypothesis. Lerner appears to suggest that the distant galaxies seen in the images are older than the Big Bang theory would allow since they seemed to resemble fully formed galaxies. However, the data from JWST suggest that galaxies form more quickly than we think, not that they necessarily contain elements from before the Big Bang or that the universe is not expanding. The observation of these well-formed galaxies at such an early time does not debunk a theory as well supported as the Big Bang. Lerner also cherrypicks quotes from astronomer Allison Kirkpatrick, who said in an article published in Nature, "Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning wondering if everything I've done is wrong." Kirkpatrick has since explained that she was reacting in awe of what astronomers have learned from the first JWST images, not as proof of astronomers panicking that the Big Bang Theory has been debunked. In an article on CNET, Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST "support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today - they were much smaller!"

[@MrWolynski]

On star evolution. The rabbit hole goes deeper. Https://kzbin.info/www/bejne/eX6TeZxmjtx0gKM

[@anameza1036]

same here they can't understand anything they see💥

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

The difference between this guy and most of the theoretical cosmologists is first that he is smart, secont he is capable of critical thinking, third he knows aplyed science and the most important he is independent. I really think he is many levels ahead of some internet famous "cosmologists" like Anton, Dr. Becky and others. I hope someone take notice untill he is alive - I wish him long live.

[@possumverde]

He's also better at misrepresenting existing theory/data in order to form strawman arguments.

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

@@possumverde ... yeaaap ... the stupidity goes to the people not to the trees ...

[@j.pershing2197]

Haltpn Arpe is the man.

[@StephenGoodfellow]

So pleased for Eric Lerner. It's been a LONG journey!

[@robertanderson5092]

In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

[@richardgomes5420]

We are talking about Science here, not Religion. If you prefer to talk about Religion, there are still 6,000 religions alive today, all disagreeing of one another. There's enough content for an entire life full of superstition and myth (which is what Religion is about) but... again.... not here. Maybe in another channel.

[@JeremyWyattsMobile]

@@richardgomes5420 The quote is from the radio comedy, "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[@cedriceric9730]

@@richardgomes5420 so are you suggesting science is your religion?

[@richardgomes5420]

@@cedriceric9730 read once again.

[@cedriceric9730]

@@richardgomes5420 yes , science is your religion

[@joeosp1689]

An entertaining and easy-to-understand book about the Big Bang debate is Axis of Beginning.

[@observingtheanomaly3484]

You are doing great, Eric! I'll be sharing you're cosmological work in addition to you're fusion research. I'm so glad I discovered your work from a small local NJ newspaper.

[@jimb4090]

Would it surprise anyone if Hubble, himself, rejected his own cosmological red shift and Hubble constant findings well after receiving the Nobel, in letters to other cosmologists? It shouldn't....because he in fact did. But by that time too many careers had been based on those findings and they weren't about to repudiate their life's work. I'll have to dig out the source and will provide that when I find it. Guess I read too much....

[@tombapilot04]

Please do.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

I will love to hear the Hubble's rejections over his law because I have, too, rejected it by my self. I am on the opinion that this is only an optical phenomenon of depletion of energy of idols of the galaxy's sources, because of the distance the troth is that we see only idols and not the sources anymore, and they have travel over their trajectories away of the spots of the idols and as they don't anymore there to supply with energy the idols the light from them is normal to has a depletion of energy and to red shifting, even to go to the microwaves and some time instantly to disappears and to give as the filling that we have expansion with a speed many times over the speed of light. Only a phantom phenomenon of a mirage of the light. Please write me a source, where I can read the Hubble rejections.

[@infiniteuniverse123]

Hubble never accepted Lamaîtres interpretation of the expanding galaxies. This fact was once written in Wikipedia but has now been erased due to conventionalism where the "external reality" is completely ignored. There was a choice to be made in 1929. The laws say only the galaxies were expanding but religion said the universe was.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

@@infiniteuniverse123 The correct is the images of the galactic sources of light, it seems to expand.

[@mikiesmith2706]

The Hubble is shit

[@jimb4090]

Already read this book. I'd also recommend Halton Arp books, Jim Baggot "Farewell to Reality", JE Dyson "Physics of the Interstellar Medium", Steinhardt and Turok "Endless Universe", Ratcliffe "The Static Universe" and Lyndon Ashmore "Tired Light". All of these taken together will make you rethink possibilities and what has been theorized before.

[@DiscoGreen]

Especially liked the static universe. I'm very excited for JWST data to be analyzed to explain these cosmological inconsistencies and issues like too much dust, dark matter et al. Thanks gor the book selections. I'll read them.

[@kkijohnson]

yes and the eu guys too,real science is being hyjacked

[@hugo-garcia]

But from where all these plasma came from ?

[@astrogoodwin]

I believe the universe is eternal. This is a hard concept for most scientists to accept

[@Samartitxiki]

Nothing begets nothing, its quite easy to picture a cyclical universe

[@bubblegumgun3292]

@@Samartitxiki >ts quite easy to picture a cyclical universe bruh that's like saying a baby can give birth to itself , this is wacky flat earther mental gymnastics

[@bubblegumgun3292]

no its a stupid concept

[@theeddorian]

It's "most people," not merely "most scientists."

[@TheFXofNewton]

Eternal is anything that exists longer than you.

[@MassDefibrillator]

It's funny just comparing the tone of this video to "Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened!" by Eric Lerner". In this, Eric is calmly, methodically and critically going over observational data and predictions in illuminating detail. Whereas the other video is more about rapidly spitting out dogma as fast as they can, not looking at the data and predictions closely, and just generally, appearing rather "panicked". Doth they protest too much?

[@markmcd2780]

True believers always respond like that if they think their Religion is threatened. 😀

[@anitareasontobelieve378]

This is incredibly interesting and I appreciate this presentation. Thanks.

[@LPPFusion]

Thanks, spread the word!

[@makeaguitarnoise]

Didn't Halton Arp dispute the Red shift of an object as an indication of its distance?

[@markmcd2780]

Yes he did, although as indicative of its velocity - the distance is calc'd from that along with the magic force of Dark Energy. It seems apparent that red & blue shift can indicate moving away or towards but the whole BB paradigm keeps needing magic (Inflation, Dark Matter & Dark Energy) to make it turn out the universe we see & if we reduce the fundamentalism of the Redshift hypothesis we need to rework the entire structure of cosmology. i.e. if everything is NOT being pushed apart by DE, then there is no evidence of a BB.

[@andrewwilgress4100]

Well done. It must have been difficult to have this knowledge with the system pushing back

[@KibyNykraft]

The resistive system is basically the religions. The big bang= prolonged or enlarged christian creationism. As obvious as it gets. Just a change to the surface of it to look more scientific.

[@direbearcoat7551]

This same push back occurs in other fields, such as geology, and archeology. Geology is showing that a catastrophic extinction level event took place about 12,000 years ago, but they want to say the extinctions happened because of human hunters hunting everything into extinction. Evidence shows signs of a technologically advance civilization in the ancient past (very hard stone cut with circular saws, drilled, cored, polished to mirror finish, etc), but archeologists will not acknowledge that very hard stone cannot be worked with bronze handheld tools. So, we're stuck with civilization starting 6000 years ago, and not RESTARTING 6000 years ago... The evidence is showing that a technologically advanced human civilization may have existed, but were wiped by this geologically catastrophic extinction level event. However, too many archeologists and geologists have degrees and reputations to protect. So they push back on the evidence.

[@azurebrown3756]

It make more sense for for the Formation of the Universe to based more on Electromagnetic Interaction.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?

[@anitareasontobelieve378]

Nope. Humans invented all languages and maths. They are abstract concepts we use to help describe the world. That's why math works.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@anitareasontobelieve378 Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas. Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning. (Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language). BUT: a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named? b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct? We truly do not know what we do not know. This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@anitareasontobelieve378 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well. * Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.

[@eclipse369.]

Space. A descriptive word noting distance between objects Time. A word used to measure changes Neither are real things. Light does not travel from a to b nor is it a thing itself. Light. A word used to describe aether propagation. Light can be nothing more than a sound wave of the aether.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@eclipse369. "Neither are real things." Well 2 things: a. "IF" you are correct, then both 'speed' and the 'speed of light' cannot exist (of which many people would probably disagree with you). b. "Light can be nothing more than a sound wave of the aether." Please prove that the 'aether' actually exists and did it come into existence, if so how, and if it eternally existed, then how? SPEED OF LIGHT: (copy and paste from my files): And for those who claim 'space' and/or 'time' do not actually exist except for as concepts, then: Consider the 'speed of light': a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time. b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points. c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept. d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality. e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept. f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).

[@BryanChance]

The amount of money we spend on military budgets, we could provide the greatest healthcare system and take care of many social issues like homelessness and poverty

[@james2hackett870]

Found your book, purchased a hard copy very interesting, silly question has any one calculated the back emf upon a galaxy, size, width, thickness mass so would dictate it rotational velocity?

[@philjamieson5572]

Your presentations make a lot of sense and gives us a lot of food for thought. Thanks for this.

[@bryanstrom812]

I was in a library and spotted the title "The Big Bang Never Happened". I wondered if the title was purely an attention grabber (like click bait, but in a library!) So I had to take a glance. I looked at the index and contents, and skipped around. I wound up reading the book. It was so solid and logical. At a later point, I wanted to invest in LPP, but it was not possible at the time. But I later did invest when the chance came. It is my most speculative investment, yet the most solid.

[@tintweezl]

How does one invest in LPP?

[@godthecreator1665]

I guess I put back that big bang how fun this will be.

[@wesjohnson5204]

Love the Emperor analogy, still laughing! I wish i could remember all this for my next argument.. Thanks again.

[@911TruthFighter]

Why no mention of P.M. Robitaille or Hilton Arp?

[@911TruthFighter]

Halton ARP. Damn spelling ‘corrected’ me. Arp re red shift, Robitaille re the CMB.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Mentioning Peratt brings in Arp whom Peratt cites I believe, but not sure either cites Robitaille.

[@DiscoGreen]

Why are they trying to silence you and Elliot McGucken?

[@markrix]

$$

[@Annonistrator]

Is that a serious question. If someone isn't being silenced nowadays they're probably wrong LMAO. It's almost a testament to the veracity of the information.

[@DiscoGreen]

@@Annonistrator if you aren't in the string theory big bang camp they won't even consider you

[@cedricpod]

wrong gender preference

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better.

[@kkijohnson]

man im so happy someone else agrees with me

[@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser]

Tell me something I don't know, And I'm not a scientist, AND I don't own any multi trillion dollar telescopes!!

[@rickb06]

It is so refreshing to hear something NEW, something logical and something edgy that isn't immediately determined to be junk science after a few moments of pondering. The Big Bang theory was the logical leap inspired by Einstein's preposterous theoretical misnomer of relativity.

[@pbjandahighfive]

Due to semi-recent updates that KZbin made several of the links in the description are cut off and do not properly link to the resources you were attempting to share. Please fix them when you are able.

[@DiscoGreen]

Please cover the JWST deep space image!

[@dennispickard7743]

It’s a ridiculous cartoon - no need to thank me 😂

[@clebruckus9421]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed,big bang over

[@dadejazzba402]

...from nothing...equal amounts of positive and negative energy

[@clebruckus9421]

@@dadejazzba402 very doubtful as it defies the first law of thermodynamics

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@dadejazzba402 Nothing is a logical contradiction.

[@danielfoster2788]

Great work towards the viability of gravity propulsion crafts. I will be sharing the graviductor.

[@greengraciano6846]

Graviductor?

[@sophisticatedmammal1826]

There is an obvious absurdity at the heart of BBT. If light is traversing empty space then expansion is a reasonable hypothesis to explain the red shift. If light is traveling through a universe filled with 95% dark matter and energy as predicted by BBT then the red shift is more likely caused by these “dark” phenomena. BBT has invalidated it’s own basic rationale.

[@ConsciousnessWatch]

Powerful and helpful presentation. Thank you.

[@tenbear5]

MIssed you Dr Lerner having discovered your 1st series of talks [when you wore that jumper]. Glad you're still with us. The current paradigm, though quite obviously seriously flawed, is vehemently defended by those protagonists whose careers have been made from it... and despite the overwhelming evidence against, will, i fear, continue to do so to the grave. I think this is where science loses all integrity, but it's in the nature of folk and I don't believe we can change that any time soon. I know the same problems arise in theoretical particle physics and have mused this is because they are stuck rigid to the reductionist materialist world view and simply cannot contemplate any alternative which might challenge it. Ultimately this affects us all, and the world we live in... and I would go further and say a lot of our [world] problems stem from this reductionist point of view. I remember having wonderful heated arguments with the boffins at CERN, but they maintain there antique Rotherfordesque billiard ball interpretation of atomic structure, and so we simply had to agree to disagree. It's been over 100 years since the Copenhagen Agreement, so for over 100 years we have been going in the wrong direction. I think it's about time we had a paradigm shift, because the current one simply doesn't work.

[@tintweezl]

What QM paradigm strikes your fancy if not Copenhagen interpretation?

[@HellCatt0770]

So good to find this you! Like others I’ve seen the fundamental flaws in the current cosmological paradigm and the worrying lack of alternative explanations! I arrived at this conclusion on my own watching mainstream astronomy and physics- how many more of us must there be questioning the narrative?

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

even the idea of initial homogeneousness can't provide for the present situation of conglomeration of matter into ordered structures. The fantasy creation of dark matter/energy is the biggest disappointment in cosmology.

[@Albiee0]

I was just wondering whether youve had time yet to do a video where you try to explain the anisotropy / cosmological alignment ...with the ecliptic?

[@orionspur]

Fascinating lecture. More than happy to discard the BBH. So if we run time backward say 100 trillion years, how was mass distributed then? A uniform fog? Did space "start" empty and slowly (over countless eons) fill with mass by some virtual particle process?

[@JeremyWyattsMobile]

@angelmakersweetrolls I read that the James Webb telescope may have detected galaxies with a red shift of 20. This is one way in which these theories are being tested. If galaxies with a higher and higher red shift are discovered, as observation techniques improve, then there will eventually be a point where either no galaxies over a certain red shift are discovered - presumably because they would not have had time to form that soon after the big bang - or galaxies will be found with such a high red shift that they would be inconsistent with the big bang.

[@Chris.Davies]

Not only am I happy to toss out the Big Bang, I'm prepared to accept the quantization of space, and at least 9 dimensions of space, and 2 of time. And that gravity is an effect caused by the density of the ether. I'm even willing to accept photons do indeed lose energy due to imperceptible drag, over great distances, and so the galaxies may be far closer than we think. I'm not prepared to place any bets on anything except the fact we've mis-read the universe rather substantially. About the only thing I am prepared to make a stand on, is that the universe is real, and is NOT a simulation. I am far too insignificant to bother simulating, and the chatoyance of certain quarter-sawn woods is enough to convince me we are indeed physically real. The thing about simulations, is that you only ever simulate what you have to, in order to arrive at your simulated outcome. You always ignore the things which have no bearing on the outcome, and chatoyance cannot possibly have any influence on the outcome of any generalised simulation, and all but the most insanely specific simulation regarding wood-working and its history. I am not prepared to accept that insanely rich and powerful wood-workers of the future are prepared to simulate me.

[@hightowergaming5301]

How does the chatoyance of wood prove that we do not live in a simulation?

[@bubblegumgun3292]

>physically real >ether pick one

[@HENRYIII003]

I like your argument about chatoyance, that's a stylish argument and I hadn't heard of chatoyance. Fun word. Maybe chatoyance could be an argument that we can't truly simulate our civilization because some weirdo might notice it's missing!

[@DonDSelectah]

We mis-read? Nah. For example Nikola Tesla was onto this, but his work was buried. And he is not the only one. All for the love of titles and easy money and power over others. BTW Scientific community can be called parasitic community and it wouldnt be a lie.

[@DiscoGreen]

If we indeed live in a block universe.. one could surmise it is a type of illusion/simulation as its a mere slice you experience.. the only thing keeping me from jumping on the block bandwagon.. is anromeda paradox / relative simultanalty.. these prove a deeper individual reality.

[@johnpublic168]

Would it be possible to access this energy in the galaxy

[@neuhuberful]

Thank you very much for this scientific explanation of our universe that breaks things down so that even the common man can understand your theory behind fusion, it is refreshing to know that the lives of humanity on our planet are in such good hands. The future is looking really bright and will be amazing, i just hope that i can live long enough to experience it.

[@DiscoGreen]

Thank you for these videos.

[@KaliFissure]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2jZZnZtnrVpiM0

[@brynduffy]

This is a brilliant summary! Thank you.

[@randall1715]

Great stuff Eric.. I never bought into the big bang, inflation theory never made sense too me. It is amazing you get shot down in university if you do not conform to the theory. I have enjoyed reading your books. It it past time for a paradigm shift so that we can finally start moving forward again.

[@SpecialK002]

Fascinating work, great presentation. Sounds very similar to the work being done by Don Scott et al at the SAFIRE Project.

[@ZionistWorldOrder]

i wish i could thumb up and like more than once, what is the stance on Electric Universe theory then? Valid? Merits more attention?

[@ChrisHobson916]

I’m looking forward to this later tonight!

[@VishnuOmega2012]

While my model is a form of steady-state, it isn't based on experimental plasma physics, but I have to agree that the Big Bang scenario is extremely unlikely and not supported by most observations

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

5:52 - Fascinating!

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

46:00 - Thank you! Y Pluribus Unum. ^.^

[@DarwinianUniversal]

Imagine there is a new frontier for exploration, but the majority will not venture there for rumours of hauntings. It occurs to me that this is a grand opportunity for those who dont believe in ghosts. Venture forth, discover and stake your claims without crowds, competitors who have volunteered to bow out of this game of all games. This is a hayday for independent thinkers. And at a time when James Webb telescope is likely to make Big Bang theory unreconcilable with observation.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

Things to look for as we move forward with James Webb 1. Galaxies on the horizon of Webbs vision will be fully formed adult galaxies. 2. Galaxies to the extreme of Webbs ability to resolve will have metallicity content comparable with those local to the Milky Way galaxy. This will be because the furthest galaxies Webb can resolve will not be new born irregular low metallicity galaxies. They will be adult, and Big Bang theory will be a bust

[@khufu8699]

We need to understand what gravitation is in terms of no matter. For example, if plazma energy strings attract, what is the mechanics of the attraction ?

[@Samartitxiki]

Plasma is matter, so it has mass…

[@LPPFusion]

on any scale plasma filaments attract through their magnetic fields: electric currents moving in the same direction attract--discovered 200 years ago. If they are large enough, they attract through gravitation as well.

[@GnosticJ]

But obviously something can't come from nothing. It's far easier to believe the universe has always been rather than there was a big bang

[@makeaguitarnoise]

The James Webb telescope is going to settle once and for all the age and size and hopefully the red shift debate. Be prepared for big changes. That's my prediction.

[@dennispickard7743]

Ahahahahahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@makeaguitarnoise]

@@dennispickard7743 Whatcha laughing at😁

[@makeaguitarnoise]

@@dennispickard7743 Your right. It's 13.7 or. 8 billion and nothing is going to change that. Bring on Halton Arp.

[@JeremyWyattsMobile]

Latest news (to be confirmed) is that the James Webb has discovered galaxies with a red shift of 20, meaning that those galaxies must have been formed only 180m years after the big bang and scientists are puzzled how galaxies could have formed so quickly. Your prediction might be coming true.

[@dennispickard7743]

@@JeremyWyattsMobile ha ha 😂 too late mate - Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge did work on red/ blue shift along with plasma conduits 30 years ago cosmology is having a meltdown The Big Bang is in serious doubt . You have been lied to mate 👋👋👋😂😂😂😂😂

[@timothyblazer1749]

It's been suggested that Arp's conclusions don't make it impossible to measure speed with red shift. Rather, if you take the red shift and subtract out the nearest quantized value as predicted by plasma intrinsic shift, you would have the remainder, which would be the contributed shift from velocity. There might be a way to then determine the direction vector using very fine measurements of scattering over time. I don't think we yet have the tools to do that, however such measurements could give the rough direction vector. If you have that, then you can calculate the subtended angle, however small, and determine distance.

[@pablorivera376]

If something was eternally motionless, it cannot suddenly begin to move. In other words there is no motionless engine behind motion, motion always existed and will always exist, it is eternal in the past and in the future. The space where matter moves always existed as well. The rest is ideology.

[@chromax1619]

Mr. Lerner, I don't think that you can use Dr. suffix.

[@rightcheer5096]

A lot of money and prestige bound up in the Big Bang Theory, just as a lot of money and prestige was bound up in the Catholic Church, in Galileo’s time.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

The singular big bang is a fairy tale for various reasons.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Red Shift: Consider the following: a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand). b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies. And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy. c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics? * Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also: d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief. g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE: ('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy): Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason: a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself. c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed. d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. 'Space' is most probably gravitational energy fields, electrical energy fields and magnetic energy fields, varying possibly only in density and energy frequency. 'Time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end. * There is really only 1 single truly eternal day that had no beginning and will never ever end. The 'day' of truly eternally existent ever flowing energy.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

And for those who claim energy came into existence, and can possible cease to exist, then I ask: Energy coming into existence: a. Where did the stuff that made up energy come from? b. What stuff existed to allow energy to come into existence? c. What laws of nature were in existence to allow this to occur? Energy ceasing to exist: d. Where does energy go when it ceases to exist? e. What does energy turn into when it ceases to exist? f. And again, what laws of nature were in existence to allow this to occur?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

And for those who claim 'space' and 'time' do not actually exist except for as concepts, then: Consider the 'speed of light': a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time. b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points. c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept. d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality. e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept. f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).

[@Ramon4U2]

Just great. Thank you so much. It is maybe interesting to note that also Prof. Allen Hynek was seriously hypothesizing that the Redshift could be explained by photons loosing energy over time. He explained his ideas at the International University of Lugano in 1980, a private university led by Prof Henri Van Praag from the Netherlands. I later wrote a book published in 1993 called Galactic Worldview as a guide for a conceptual art exhibition of mine, where i concluded that all matter in galaxies, so also the stars, planets and moons etc., follow a helicoid path in intergalactic space and that the Copernican idea of the earth rotating circular around the sun was in reality not correct. I also concluded that the Big Bang idea was wrong hypothesis and replaced it hypothetically by the concept “The Great Becoming”. There is indeed a need for a paradigmshift from a Heliocentric to a Galactic Worldview. I wish you all the luck with your project sir. I'm sure it will work.

[@onehitpick9758]

Cosmologists have been dismissing "tired light" theories of redshift simply by calling them "tired light theories", with no real basis. To me, it's undisputable. If light goes past any mass, the light is bent relative to a remote observer. The mass must accelerate ever so slightly in response, so the light loses energy. This has to be. The argument against this simple phenomenon causing redshift is that we would see distortion. I counter that we certainly see distortion when light goes close enough to a strong mass, and this is evident in all the deep field images. If light simply goes by nominal masses, the rays all follow similar paths and the remote images are minimally distorted, on average.

[@kennethferland5579]

@@onehitpick9758 Very intersting and compelling theory.

[@anitareasontobelieve378]

Ate you actually suggesting the heliocentric fact of our solar system is incorrect?

[@tintweezl]

@@onehitpick9758 The problem is that if the mass which the light bends around speeds up in response, energy is conserved and there is nothing left to be accounted for as a tired light redshift.

[@onehitpick9758]

@@tintweezl If the energy of the light/mass system is conserved, then if the energy of the mass goes up WRT to an external observer, the energy of the light "pulse" has to go down. Since the light's velocity can't go down (according to theory and observations) the lights frequency has to go down. E = hf.

[@philoso377]

I have only one question. Can we have red shift and no expanding universe or Big Bang?

[@JackOkie]

Absolutely.

[@philoso377]

@@JackOkie is red shift cause by recession velocity or what?

[@JackOkie]

@@philoso377 ​ @YK Chan The cosmos is 99% plasma, a great deal of which is electrically charged. I can't -lay my hands on the research at the moment, but it was demonstrated in the laboratory that plasma can induce redshift. BTW, plasma responds to a current according to well-known physical laws by organizing in charge-separated forms, so the aggregate charge might be neutral, but any local area is almost guaranteed to be positively or negatively charged. Recession, like black holes and inflation and other fantastical imaginings, is a crutch attempting to keep the BB going. I think it was Arp who detected that redshift was, at least in some cases, quantized. He also found many examples of high redshift objects clearly connected to lower redshift objects. But as others have pointed out here, the default mode in science for the past few decades is to ignore inconvenient facts.

[@philoso377]

@@JackOkie thanks to nice explanation it make good sense but I’m still looking for a definitive answer. I’m not an advocate for the expansion theory but I’m not satisfy with what we have so far, including Arp’s work and his doctrinaire assumptions. That dominated body of galaxy always the birth parent of the alleged daughter quasars. Quasars line up along galaxy axis were born in succession and cannot born together. Rapped things up declaring that red shift is intrinsic without further substantiation. Yes we do have impressive contradicting observations and circumstantial evidence are not definitive proof.

[@babygrand734]

By far the clearest explanation of the nature of the universe I have ever heard. 50 years ago I knew the expansion had to be wrong. I thought perhaps the red shift was caused by time dilation of photons traveling at relativistic speeds. Might relativity considerations help to explain the red shift?

[@frun]

Red shift can be explained by the density gradient of ether.

[@Psychonaut165]

Here’s a thought experiment for you. I’ve always wondered if it’s possible our universe is actually contracting. Could you tell the difference between being in a contracting universe or an expanding one? If you were in a contracting universe as you get closer and closer to the center you would continue to accelerate the closer you got. So let’s say you were half way between the outside edge of the universe and the center. Everything that’s closer to the center than yourself would be accelerating away from you at increasingly high speeds. Just like you would be accelerating away from everything further out than yourself at increasingly high speeds. So no matter where you would look what you would see is that the further something is away from you the faster it’s moving away from you. And only the galaxies directly adjacent to yourself would appear to be getting closer which is exactly what we observe 🤷‍♂️. This would also explain why the observable universe is getting smaller and smaller. So even though the universe would actually be contracting wouldn’t it appear as if almost everything is getting further and further apart? 🤯

[@PisceanKiwi]

All is atum. The universe is an egg shaped rotating torus field. Blueshift is high energy, redshift lower. I'f ground state is 1, mean high blueshift is Phi 1.618, redshift mean low is Phi-1 0.618

[@hightowergaming5301]

@@PisceanKiwi where are you getting this conjecture? It resonates pretty nicely with me.

[@MegaBanne]

@@Psychonaut165 Then you would see more blue shifts instead i guess. The red shift effect due to motion only happens when the light source is moving away from the receiver. It is like a car traveling towards you. First it makes a higher pitch noise. After it has passed it makes a lower pitch noise.

[@karenandjohn6620]

Excellent! Thank you Eric

[@TheGarrymoore]

Really fresh ideas, however, I did not hear Eric explain the red shifts of galaxies.

[@Valisk131]

Thought provoking video. Thanks for posting.✴

[@sciencetroll6304]

" In the beginning there was only nothing, and then nothing said ' Let there be light ' and there was light. And then nothing created all the Heavens. " Sounds legit to me . . . . . not.

[@BromptonChpt3]

and yet, we are here! how possible? you got nothing,,,,nothing is nothing. and then you got SOMETHING. BOOM! This guy full of shit.

[@8slkmic]

1:26 so 30years ago he wrote a book that the Big Bang never happened, NOW he’s claiming it again?…

[@binnieb173]

What does he mean that the actual observed temperature was 2.7k? How did we observe the actual temp of the early universe? Also, he asserts that the red shift means that objects are moving further away and larger... why does the red shift have anything to do with the size of an object?

[@rodocar2736]

I dont know, but CMB temperature at z= 10 is approx 10K, accord to Big Bang theory

[@tedburke8187]

Of course you are trying to tell the people the truth, so expect ruthless attacks from the establishment

[@matte2160]

So am I understanding your implication that it’s magnetism that’s responsible for the cosmic web? EDIT: Apparently, I was ahead of his point. Question is was answered.

[@maxqubit]

Wow ... what a talk! Fab

[@cosmoscarl4332]

Oh boy! The electric universe guys are gonna jump on this!

[@AbhTri-kq8hc]

Lucidly explained, even a non-physics person like me could understand it.

[@andrewharpin6749]

If the redshift could be measured experimentally within the solar system, would this not have already been covered by the radio connections to interplanetary spacecraft?

[@LPPFusion]

No you have to have extreme accuracy to separate out an intrinsic Redshift from that caused by the spacecraft motion. One part in a million trillion.The LISA array could do it with suitable modification, but it is not even fully funded.

[@PabloMayrgundter]

59:18.. he says he doesn't know

[@WhenHopeWhispers]

A new episode!

[@serijas737]

A crisis opens up doors to new possibilities. Discussing further theories might bring us to "new" [ways of] physics. This work is very, very important as it will shape not just the way we see the universe but our place within it. An universe that never began and has no end is something to wrap your head around.

[@hollymedici2936]

It scares me how many people believe you can get something from nothing we need to keep holding Thier feet to the fire for an explanation of this nonsense

[@davestorm6718]

Thanks, Eric. Sorry I missed this when live.

[@dueldab2117]

Is this electric universe stuff?

[@lawneymalbrough4309]

Good work on the electrical nature of the universe. Magnetic fields do indeed permeate the whole universe. Also gravity permeates the whole universe. It's a dance of forces. I may need to study that.

[@Mobius3c273]

Could red shift be caused by curvature of spacetime over distance and time. I think all theories that only use a linear sense of Time finite, or infinite are doomed to failure. My model proposes a spacetime that is looped back on itself in a manner just like a mobius strip.

[@patrickmchargue7122]

Will observations by the JWST help buttress the theories behind an electric universe?

[@thecollector6746]

LOL...: "No"

[@patrickmchargue7122]

@@thecollector6746 Why so certain?

[@thecollector6746]

@@patrickmchargue7122 All the predictions of the Big Bang cosmological model have been demonstrably proven true up to approximately 300,000 years of our Universe's existence. That's why I am so certain.

[@uraloser5553]

@@thecollector6746 But what about the star that's somehow older than the Universe, the Black Holes that are "Too Big" you'd think that nothing would be older than the Universe, but apparently, there's exceptions to the rule.

[@AdamRogers]

thank you.

[@j.pershing2197]

Halton Arpe broke the idea of Big Bang, Neutron Stars and Black Holes.

[@andrewgoldstein5633]

I was going to say this is gibberish pseudo science but I've been silenced by conspiracists

[@donaldclifford5763]

The science speaks loudly.

[@pablorivera376]

If something was eternally motionless, it cannot suddenly begin to move. In other words there is no motionless engine behind motion, motion always existed and will always exist, it is eternal in the past and in the future. The space where matter moves always existed as well. The rest is ideology. I am sure the univers is a eternal but I would like to know by which process it recycles death stars and make new ones.

[@necrology-3103]

1:03 I Wish someone would do the maths ignoring "conservation of Energy". love fusion but not yet necessary.

[@chapter4travels]

No one would love to see the LPP fusion device work more than me but he is wrong about needing fusion. Advanced fission gives us every advantage that thermal fusion promises. Molten salt reactors, both thermal "burners" and fast neutron "Breeders" can do everything thermal fusion promises except we already know how to do it. LPP fusion is aneutronic fusion and that's a different animal from thermal fusion and would change the world overnight.

[@chapter4travels]

@@nobody7158 That is correct, aneutronic fusion.

[@MegaBanne]

It is thermal fusion and aneutronic. I mean they need temperature in the billions of kelvin to achieve the optimal conditions. But I constantly hear how easy it is to make molten salt reactors since "we already know how to do it". But why aren't we using it right now then? I mean I am openminded about it. But I feel like there is a lot of words and little result. When it comes to Focus Fusion i can understand why things take time. It is a bran new technology that they are developing. There are achievements and setbacks. Nothing is sekret.

[@chapter4travels]

@@MegaBanne The distinction I'm making is thermal fusion's end product is heat. You can make electricity with it or do many other things appropriate to the output temperature. Aneutronic fusion makes electricity directly and bypasses the low-efficiency power conversion systems. If LPP fusion can make electricity as cheaply as the theory, they change the world literally overnight. Molten salt fission is progressing slowly because its fission and fission scares the shit out of everyone. This is unjustified but real politically. Don't look to the US for any commercialized progress, the NRC is the gatekeeper and they hate nuclear. Look for US technology commercialized outside our country. Thorcon Power in Indonesia, Seaborg and Copenhagen Atomics in Denmark, Moltex and Terrestrial Energy in Canada. All using US technology that the US rejects.

[@earthexpanded]

Nice work. This topic really needs shaligrams involved. In my video "Underground Science #271 - On the Formation of Shaligrams" I discuss how they actually formed. They are considered to be fossils but are not; they are of the same nature as galaxies but on a scale where we can look at them from a very different angle, yet with the process encapsulated in stone. In fact, shaligrams are composed of black shale that contained quartz, pyrite, and other minerals that was caused to flow in many ways that formed "ammonites" by toroidal flow patterns that etched the stone. And this variation in materials, as I document in my content, causes smaller grained particles (shale) to travel physically in an opposite direction to larger grained particles (quartz, pyrite, etc) within the toroidal flow in a manner where the currents collide and interact within the observable structure of the stones. This is very reminiscent of the different directions of travel of ions compared to electrons, that you mention. Every shaligram is unique, making them similar in nature to Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. They are not just basic ammonite shapes, but rather complex and truly revealing of the nature of reality. I have an entire playlist titled "Shaligrams" with over 50 hours of purely analyzing the details of shaligrams and demonstrating that they cannot have formed by the encapsulation of a shell from an ancient creature that then fossilized; they can only be explained as the result of physical current flows. And these current flows are scale invariant, in that they can happen even on the scale of galaxies. And they do and did--the same processes can be applied to galaxy formation. Admittedly I did not intend to be in this position and am only as prepared to analyze what my research reveals as I have been able to, and I fully understand that when the world at large becomes aware of these types of connections, that physicists and geologists, etc, will make many breakthroughs in understanding by their own preparations coupled with exposure to largely unknown and unaccounted for concepts and aspects of the nature of reality. I sincerely hope you take some time to look into this, it is very important.

[@adamrspears1981]

Are you refuting the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang Model, or both?

[@indranilchattopadhyay9470]

If the cosmos is not expanding, then how could you relate the red shift with the distance? Or more generally what exactly is red shift?

[@robst247]

That's where this 'theory' collapses. Electromagnetic phenomena in plasmas cannot account for increasing red shift with distance from the observer (i.e. us, here on Planet Earth). That observed and accurately measured phenomenon is how we know that the universe is expanding. His 'theory' can neither disprove nor explain the observed expansion, so its useless.

[@robheusd]

This is not explained - some unexaplained phenomena causes light rays to loose energy over distance wihout changing the light (no blurring, etc.). Even though this is the case, would you discredit the theory if most other phenomena can be explined by the theory then the BBT does? BBT has it's own problems, like what is dark energy,. dark matter, and what happened at the beginning?

[@ExplainedThroughRap]

Very interesting! We dropped a rap explaining the big bang theory 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@andreaskarlsson6352]

This redshift was disproven 30 years ago

[@zyxzevn]

There are some basic EM problems with the magnetic vortexes. Nothing moves if there are no electrical fields to begin with. The electrons (and ions) always rotate into the direction that reduces the original magnetic field. Like eddy-currents. So where does the initial magnetic field come from? You need a current to begin with. The electrons do only move because they do encounter an electric field to begin with. So in nature you will have a balance between the magnetic force and electric force. The magnetic force can be encountered as the hall effect in a conducting space, instead of a directional force. If we just follow Maxwell's laws, we can only conclude that there are many electrical currents in space. And that there is a complex system of electric fields and induced magnetic fields. But we all know where it all starts: We first need an electrical field, and this electrical field can only exist when we have a separation of opposing charges. And since the electromagnetic activity on the sun is very visible, even excessive, we can conclude that certain reactions on the sun cause such separation of charges.

[@DanijelDrnic]

We are swimming in a fish bowl

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Newton: "wait... Leibniz is Humanity's true universal genius?" Leibniz (behind Newton w/🔫): "always have been."

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

13:24, The fluctuations aren't random because the light from the galactic idols isn't depleting the same time. We see only idols of galactic sources and the real source is somewhere else, in the meantime invisible, because to be visible again the light from this spot, again will have to travel a few billions of years till to arrive at the observer and then when it is arriving, it will be again the light from a spot of an idol and not the real of traveling source. It is so simple to understand that any galaxy source isn't a stationary spot behind its idol's appearance, but it is also under unstopped motion on trajectories in a galactic cluster. To mean all of this process, an expansion, then that means that every galaxy of the Universe is moving only in one direction, the direction away from us, and that every galaxy of all between them, all of them they have a parallel direction of motion. Where is the logic on that? Also, from the Lorentz's transformations about the space and time of the object under motion, if space and time were on a fabric, like the Einstein's idea suggests, then when space is expanding then also and the time has to expand. But the reality is in the Lorentz's transformations, which even Einstein had accepted. The transformations suggest that when we have a motion in which space is expanding at the same moment, the time, equivalentily to the γ coefficient, has to shrinking. This makes the space-time fabric unreal to exist, except if someone fell dead because his time has finished!

[@philiprose5895]

Your arguments are cogent but totally dependent upon prior existence of a plasmic world. If we commence from a hydrogen world, initially it would be electrically neutral and only once fusion started somehow, somewhere could plasma be generated. What is your concept of initial conditions and how they came about?

[@LPPFusion]

no, at low density it is easy to get some ionization, and currents. These grow via the filamentation instability. To get neutral gas you need both high density and low temperature--only found on planets. 99.99% of the universe is plasma.

[@onehitpick9758]

Redshift really comes from gravitational interactions over long range. Every time light goes around a mass, it bends ever so slightly, and the mass moves to counteract. When this happens over millions of light years, with every particle light encounters, it adds up to energy loss. It doesn't distort images for the most part, except when gravitational lensing is very strong. On the small scale, it averages out to nearly linear rays. Real cosmological lensing is a combination of refraction, but also true gravitational lensing. It's the gravity that causes the redshift. This is unavoidable and undeniable.

[@kevconn441]

I deny your hypothesis.

[@onehitpick9758]

@@kevconn441 Do you agree that if light changes direction by interaction with any object, the object must undergo an opposing change so that total momentum is conserved?

[@kevconn441]

@@onehitpick9758 No.

[@uraloser5553]

@@kevconn441 Are you familiar with the concept of Solar Sails?

[@kennethferland5579]

I'd like to hear more about the supernova time-dialation observations. To my understanding this was THE definitive observation that put the expansion model on top. But at the time that observation was made we were operating under the belif that Type Ia SN were perfect standard candles due to the Candreshenkar limit. But now we know that magnetic fields and rotatation can push a white dwarf over the limit. How much faith do people still have in the time-dialation observation, I don't hear BB apologists referencing it nor oponents.

[@theonlylolking]

Time dilation is a big bang cope.