The Big Bang Theory and How They Got It Wrong

[@baraskparas]

1/ Hubble constant is the calculation they use which I find an unsafe and cavalier way to calculate because the constant may not be constant. I agree. Nervous but well done.

[@brianflint133]

The Hubble constant assumes that 'red shift' is a result of a expanding universe with time. My theory is that red shift is the result of photons travelling for vast period of time, and in the process loosing energy by the photons inter-reaction with Hydrogen atoms which exists through out the universe. As the photon looses energy , its wavelength increases and this is what causes the 'red shift'. In my theory the so called Hubble constant is really a measure of the amount of mean number of Hydrogen atoms ( sort of dust ) which exists within the universe. The size of the universe as we see it is when there is no more 'red shift' to happen. Gama rays will 'red shft ' for longer time period of travelling but eventually they to 'red shift ' to become part of the noise level of radiation. So our 13.8 billion light years for the size of the universe is just a measure of how much time a photon will 'red shift' ( due to energy loss - not expanding universe ) to a virtual zero energy level. There is no reason for the size of the universe to be many times larger than the 13.8 billion light year figure.

[@baraskparas]

@@brianflint133 Sorry Brian but my last comment appears to be irrelevant to your main point. Your point is probably correct but not the whole story since the Doppler effect is evidenced when one side of a spiral galaxy is blue shifted while the other is red shifted. Some photons are lost to Rayleigh scattering. I have a hypothesis that photons are an energy package that decelerates superluminal fundamental particles ( call them axions or virtual photons if you like) thereby propagating themselves indefinitely. These are emanating and entering the core of long lived elementary particles thereby giving them mass and charge. You must be correct , partly, because by the time they get here from the edge of the visible universe they are microwaves. Even though I believe the universe is expanding it is because of additional material coming into existence via dark energy so that expansion contributes to redshift. One KZbin physicist presenter found galaxies actually touching had 2 wildly different red shifts.

[@brianflint133]

@@baraskparas I agree that some 'red shift' will occur due to the Doppler effect. The idea that space can stretch ( expand ) and thereby stretch a photon so its wavelength gets longer is false in my view. I am working on how the photon looses energy when passing by/through an Hydrogen atom. One possibility is that the relative permeability of the space around the Photon as it travels past the Hydrogen atom is very very slightly greater than 1. This speed of the photon ( which is the speed of light in a pure vacuum ) becomes very very slightly slower than the speed of light. This means it has less energy. I guess the energy loss goes into the Hydrogen atom as kinetic energy. The photon is around a 1000 times ( depending on wavelength ) the size of the Hydrogen atom with its circulating electron. As the photon leaves the vicinity of the Hydrogen atom the space around it has its relative permeability return to 1 and the photon with its slightly lower energy state has its wavelength slightly longer ( this could be like I part in 10 to the twenty or thirty ie very small )

[@baraskparas]

@@brianflint133 So many unknowns in physics. I don’t agree with expanding space or general relativity but that the universe is itself growing therefore expanding. Permeability of most materials is close to one but permittivity varies more wildly so any gases including H2 at 3 degrees K will retard photons. Once they leave the H2 or any other gas combination they resume their former wavelength and speed so if that is progressively degraded in the manner you hypothesise could be an additional factor. Best to start with a Google search of research literature to check if it is a unique idea or have others independently hypothesised it in the past and put it in the too hard basket.

[@Problembeing]

Photons are still a theoretical particle. Redshift is intrinsic to the object as well as longitudinal. Have you looked at Halton Arp’s research?

[@DL77zz]

You dumb have you ever taken a look at the quasars,'redshift how can you apply Hubble explanation to that and still hang on to the Big bang ? Dont you realize that you see fully formed galaxy where there shouldnt be any?

[@Problembeing]

Ds Lo I believe it’s ‘you’re dumb’. I don’t accept the Big Bang theory at all, neither do I accept that gravity or dark matter are the fundamental explanations for any coherent structure or movement of objects. I think it is dielectricity and electrodynamics. Quasars are proto-galaxies ejected or ‘fissioned’ from a parent galaxy. Please do tell me where I am perceived to be ‘dumb’ and this ‘dumb’ person you have replied to will walk you through it.

[@Problembeing]

Ds Lo well, aren’t you lucky. This just in: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3vQpoyPmciKqtE

[@born2bbald12]

Very interesting perspective! I tend to agree upon first hearing it. I'll give it some more thought. I would ask the question, to our scientist friends: do we absolutely understand the following concepts: infinity, light, the propagation of light, magnetism, electricity, gravity, interstellar dust and dark matter? Do we understand how all these elements interact with each other (especially with light)? Thanks!

[@eldorado5505]

imagine a steady state universe that gors on forever has always been there and willalways be there and black holes consume matter break it down and discharge what doesnt come out as flares breaks through the fabric of time and space only to emerge at a point in between galaxies as fundamental particles that coallesce and the process starts over again . black holes are just like whirlpools in the river of the universe redistributing matter to the points of least potential proportional to the magnitude of the energy consumed

[@Faskimy3344]

This question bugged me as well, for quite a while actually, but I couldn't convince myself that, out of my couple hours of self thought process, I somehow debunked decades of discoveries and thousands of hard working, career-invested astrophysicists and theoretical physicists and other scientists. It was unconcievable. So I kept searching (that's how I found that video), untill I got the piece of knowledege that was missing : Photons may not be pictured as small particles holding a certain amount of energy. Photons ARE pieces (or chunks) of energy. They are QUANTAS of energy. A photon cannot lose part of its energy. It is absorbed entirely by interacting with another partricule and ceases to exist, or it remains intact forever. It has its moment where it is emitted and it has its moment where it is absorbed. In between it can’t decay, nor can it be observed/measured in any way. A photon that is traveling in the vacuum of space will always keep 100% of it's energy. When it hits another particle, like an electron, it is absorbed entirely, then the mass it bounced in (in this case, the electron) needs to deal with the gained energy. There is no such thing as photon progressively loosing its energy while still traveling in a straight line. So yep, the Universe Expansion still stands as the best explanation for the observed redshift effect on distant galaxies

[@rezganger]

I thought it was the speed of a galaxy that decided the intensity of the shift,not the distance.

[@rezganger]

@V Lab ?

[@rezganger]

@V Lab and whats the speed of space? please link me a paper about exactly that,thanks.

[@rezganger]

@V Lab and what is that speed relative too?

[@rezganger]

@V Lab and what is the speed of space supposed to be relative to? how do u even know this is anything but clownery?

[@rezganger]

@V Lab so how do u know that is true???when so many notable physicists say its NOT true? U r an idiot,sir.

[@writer684]

that all started from a small dott and then became a unbelivably huge universe absolutly makes no sense whatever they say, where whould all that enegry be in another dimention?

[@eldorado5505]

the graduate student must conform to the idealogies of his professor to graduate nd they jump through the accepted hoops or wont get grant s. the whole setup inhibits people from working on other theories and its a pat yourself on the back mentality for groupthink and conformity

[@brianflint133]

This conforming of ideologies started back around 1930 and has continued ever since. The longer is continues, the harder it is to break it.

[@brianflint133]

With the launch of the James Webb telescope in late 2021, there will in the coming months be views of galaxies ( in the near infrared spectrum ) as they were 8 or 10 billion years ago. The expectation is that they will look different to those galaxies which we have been observing ( 0.5 to say 4 billion years ago ). My theory is they will look the same - that is there will be the usual spiral galaxies and also elliptical galaxies just as we have been seeing over the last few decades. There is an expectation is to see a so called protogalaxy ( also called a primeval galaxy ) which is something like a swirl of gas ( primeval gas ). This is based on the 'theory' that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that the first galaxies formed around 10 to 12 billion years ago. My hypothesis is that the universe is much older than 13.8 billion years . I cannot put a figure on how old it is, but it is certainly more than 10 or 100 times this figure of 13.8 billion years. I have released another talk on galaxies called ' there is no such thing as a protogalaxy' - kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYnUm5iqaLhjga8

[@jessecamping]

Since your career is in electrinics ... what do you think of the thunderbolts project?

[@Bloodhound_Dogg]

Okay I went to sleep

[@fivish]

The red shift cannot possibly mean that galaxies are moving away at anything even close to the speed of light. Can it really be that space itself is expanding at faster than light speed. Does anyone believe this.

[@mrkakbuhn5781]

Well i get your point, but that doesn't explain why we cant see further than the edge of the observable universe which is roughly 14 billion light years away.

[@brianflint133]

The size of the universe as we see it is when there is no more 'red shift' to happen. Gama rays will 'red shift ' for longer time period of travelling but eventually they to 'red shift ' to become part of the noise level of radiation. So our 13.8 billion light years for the size of the universe is just a measure of how much time a photon will 'red shift' ( due to energy loss - not expanding universe ) to a virtual zero energy level. There is no reason for the size of the universe to be many times larger than the 13.8 billion light year figure.

[@eldorado5505]

and the math ...what makes them think that they are capable of understanding the math of the universe . duh its why relativity , string and quantum all have their problems is we just dont have it right yet and are too conceited to admit that we probably never will be able to

[@russellbarton7893]

I've also figured out what Black holes are, All great theories are simple, and great theories will explain more phenomena then other theories. All Black Holes are, are planets. extremely super dense large planets. It has been said, that if planets becomes too big that it would be a star, but if the planet or body of mass doesn't have hydrogen or any elements that can create or cause fusion, then there won't be a star, and if the planet has more gravity than a star, the star will orbit the planet, and not how we perceive the normal model of our solar system. This also explains why galaxies seem to have more mass then what we can visually see. Meaning there isn't dark matter, or energy, the dark matter is just matter we can't see. because planets or just plan mass doesn't give off light like a star, you won't visually see it. and if this mass has enough gravity so that light can't escape it, would explain why is doesn't reflect light.

[@DL77zz]

You still Need to explain how Planets are able to grow ,i suggest you take a look at subquantum kinetics that explains It

[@russellbarton7893]

@@DL77zz Planets, or Mass will increase in size and not grow by accumulating smaller particles then itself over a period of time. If you look at our solar system, and look at how the planets are situated. The sun is

[@russellbarton7893]

@@DL77zz What do you mean? It should be common sense, on how planets can gain mass, or increase volume by the addition of astronomical particle. I haven't brain stormed on the topic of astrophysics for some time now, but i come to a conclusion that the universe that we currently observe, is like observing a wall. A wall that is centimeters from your face. This wall is very dark. All you see is darkness, but the wall is there, you just don't see it, because its too big to notice. Almost all physical matter contains something that spins. From the minute atoms, to the galaxies that trillions of miles in size. Now if the universe isn't spinning. The rule to be made, is that all the galaxies we currently see, are spinning around something that is so big, we can't not see it, nor its motion.

[@eldorado5505]

there are other guys that have been ostrasixed because they dont believe red shift (is due to acceleration ). and a lady. they have found quasars in galaxys that are close and not speeding away. einstein wasnt a big bang (or quantum )guy and i think he reluctantly went along because of peer pressure .and no other explanation and was getting old. for me 13.8 billion years is geologic time right on its face . astronomical distances would match astronomical time (trillions and zillions) if you can find it there is a cosmic background picture of the formation of the milky ways black hole formation . strangely it looks like the cbm (but different colors) this or brians exlanation of that "noise "is probably closer to the truth . funny thing ...its a THEORY with all kinds of adjustments to even make possible yet you will be called a goof if you dont treat it as science fact .

[@eldorado5505]

GOD///?

[@josiplipotica7791]

🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂 now I can go to sleep.

[@fumarate1]

This bored the shita out of me.