The doppler effect is real. A moving source that is going away from an observer will show a shift to lower frequencies (red end of the spectrum so to speak). I would expect that the Galaxies are expanding and generally rushing away from each other. They should be slowing now in their expansion due to the effect of what we call gravity.

Instead they appear to be accelerating which would suggest a force or energy that is somehow emanating from free space. This is what defies our current understanding and prompts one to think about the possibility of another explanation or that the original premise of acceleration is false. For my money a better premise would be that there is another much more massive , encompassing universe just beyond our vision that is attracting our universe due to gravity.

The cosmic background map has been used as a dis-prover of the "tired light theory". For me I would want to linger a little longer on trying to see what else would cause a frequency shift in light before admitting to dark energy.

The doppler effect is real. A moving source that is going away from an observer will show a shift to lower frequencies (red end of the spectrum so to speak). I would expect that the Galaxies are expanding and generally rushing away from each other. They should be slowing now in their expansion due to the effect of what we call gravity.

Instead they appear to be accelerating which would suggest a force or energy that is somehow emanating from free space. This is what defies our current understanding and prompts one to think about the possibility of another explanation or that the original premise of acceleration is false. For my money a better premise would be that there is another much more massive , encompassing universe just beyond our vision that is attracting our universe due to gravity.

I tend to agree with the possibility of a larger universe. A larger source of gravity would explain the expansion acceleration. I saw a program that indicated that many galaxies are moving toward one direction, not necessarily away from a center, but longitudinally. That too may be gravity induced.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

Ya know. It seems to me that we may have it backwards. It is said that the farthest away galaxies are receding the fastest. Well the farthest away galaxies are showing us what happened 13 billion years ago or thereabouts. That long ago, things were traveling faster than now due to the energy of the big bang and gravity did not have enough time to slow them down.

What's wrong with my thinking ??

Ya know. It seems to me that we may have it backwards. It is said that the farthest away galaxies are receding the fastest. Well the farthest away galaxies are showing us what happened 13 billion years ago or thereabouts. That long ago, things were traveling faster than now due to the energy of the big bang and gravity did not have enough time to slow them down.

What's wrong with my thinking ??

It would be extremely interesting to see what the universe is doing in real time, but no matter where you are in the universe, your point of reference changes, and as what is moving where, and how fast.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Nothing. In the "inflationary universe" by Alan Guth, MIT professor, things were happening much faster than in the subsequent times.
Tullio

---

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

The way I understand it the starting point for the big bang is everywhere since it started with a singularity. I understand it is hard to wrap your mind around that concept since I too have a hard time getting a mental image.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Bob and MusicPlayer,
Both of you raised an important issue. You both said you have difficulty understanding the concept of universal expansion in the milli seconds after the big bang.

Some people try explain this with the expanding balloon theory;



Astronomers will try to explain this by saying the expansion happened everywhere all at the one time. And they will tell you its kinda like an expanding balloon, like in the picture above.

But its nonsense!! Its a mathematical paradox, and thats why nobody understands it. Nobody understands it because it never happened!! But academics who study astronomy and cosmology always think they are much more clever than everybody else, and they are the only ones that understand it. But truth is, they DON'T understand it themselves. They can't, because it didn't happen. Its a mathematical paradox that simply could NOT have happened! And thats why nobody understand it. And thats why nobody can explain it properly!

You mark my words right here and now! There never was a big bang! Its a mathematical error and the astronomers and cosmologists are protecting the theory because they want to be crowned "king of science" and get a Nobel prize when they solve the problem. As a result of the astronomers and cosmologists blocking outside opinion, they are blocking anyone from solving the problem. They are cutting their own throats and digging themselves deeper and deeper into more and more unsolvable paradoxes! The longer it goes on, the worse its getting!

Right now today, instead of astronomy making science simple for people to understand, they burying astronomy in a minefield of unsolvable paradoxes.

There are no black holes, there is no dark energy, no dark matter, no dark flow, no singularities, no big bang or any of the other mathematical paradoxes that the astronomers claim. I tell you the truth, everybody will find this out very soon! I hold the key to solving the mathematical paradoxes. There is an error in the maths! Thats why the vast majority of astronomical theory has "dark" prefixed before it! All of these things are theoretical constructs as a result of mathematical error. Funny, but all these "dark" things in astronomy, you can't take a picture of any of them!!! You can't detect them, they can't be measured, they don't emit any light at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Why?? Because they are theoretical constructs based on mathematical error! They don't exist!

John.

---

Johnny your explanation flies in the face of every observation made since Edwin Hubble pointed his new telescope into the night sky. I don't necessarily believe current astrophysicists have gotten everything figured out but I think they are basically on the right track. The fact that I don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Johnny your explanation flies in the face of every observation made since Edwin Hubble pointed his new telescope into the night sky. I don't necessarily believe current astrophysicists have gotten everything figured out but I think they are basically on the right track. The fact that I don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

Bob,
Yes, my explanation DOES fly in the face of mainstream astronomy. But mainstream astronomy is in crisis. And the whole of theoretical astronomy and cosmology is about to get a rude awakening.

John.

---

... Yes, my explanation DOES fly in the face of mainstream astronomy. But mainstream astronomy is in crisis. And the whole of theoretical astronomy and cosmology is about to get a rude awakening.

Says who?

Oh... Says just you?...


We're still awaiting your book ;-)

Or just like the YouTube PropagandaBuster, are we 'writing' your book for you?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I said Johnney is a good storyteller and he agreed with me. He keeps us in suspense for his revelations, but they never come, and, in my humble opinion, they will never come.
Tullio

---

I said Johnney is a good storyteller and he agreed with me. He keeps us in suspense for his revelations, but they never come, and, in my humble opinion, they will never come.

Perhaps he is trying to 'teach' us and make 'believers' out of us?...

For to be told: Just as for true believers, the final Revelation never comes...

Then also, the exploration of Science merely forever expands the horizon of ignorance ;-)


Whatever might be the Johnney story, it's got to be better than Dan Brown's 'amalgam' or such as the Texas Tony Propaganda YouTube written book...

:-)

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Yes, my explanation DOES fly in the face of mainstream astronomy. But mainstream astronomy is in crisis. And the whole of theoretical astronomy and cosmology is about to get a rude awakening.

Says who?

Oh... Says just you?...


We're still awaiting your book ;-)

Or just like the YouTube PropagandaBuster, are we 'writing' your book for you?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

I say so Martin! I have been pretty clear here. I'm not repeating something i heard somewhere else. This is my personal theory, based on my own personal physics research. So your hearing the results of my personal research.

And i didn't say i was going to publish a book about my physics research. I said i was going to publish a book about the research into the "old book" that i also do work on.

John.

---

I said Johnney is a good storyteller and he agreed with me. He keeps us in suspense for his revelations, but they never come, and, in my humble opinion, they will never come.
Tullio

Tullio,
Now thats just not fair! We have discussed this in great depth!

I tried to publish my physics discovery in a proper physics journal but i can't because i don't have an academic degree and i don't have the backing of an academic institution. So as i said before, i'm currently "sitting tight" trying to decide what to do. If i could find an investor with money, i could go the commercial route and attempt to use my new physics to produce products that use my new physics effects. But i currently don't have any money to go the commercial route. Developing new products is very very expensive, and i'm broke!

John.

---

I said Johnney is a good storyteller and he agreed with me. He keeps us in suspense for his revelations, but they never come, and, in my humble opinion, they will never come.

Perhaps he is trying to 'teach' us and make 'believers' out of us?...

For to be told: Just as for true believers, the final Revelation never comes...

Then also, the exploration of Science merely forever expands the horizon of ignorance ;-)


Whatever might be the Johnney story, it's got to be better than Dan Brown's 'amalgam' or such as the Texas Tony Propaganda YouTube written book...

:-)

Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,
I try my best. I use the skills i have in life to solve problems. But i'm a bit of a recluse and i'm not very good with people. So even though i have solved these problems, i'm just not sure exactly what to do with the results. Martin what i have is very valuable, and i'm not going to just give it away on some internet forum. I have to take time to decide what to do.

But at the same time, i'm over joyed and excited by my discoveries so i chat about them here in this forum. Its like needing to go to the toilet. I'm bursting to tell people what i have discovered. But its a catch 22 situation. If i blurt out my discovery, then it will quickly propagate on the internet and i will never get any credit. If i don't talk about it, i won't get credit either. So i'm screwed either way. I'm sitting on a billion dollar lottery ticket, but i just don't know how to cash in the ticket.

I currently need about 2,000 Euro to build the next set of experiments to conclusively prove the physics. But i don't have 2,000 Euro to buy the gear to carry out the experiments.

John.

---

The LHC whose results I am simulating has cost 5 billion euro. The ITER fusion experiment has cost 15 billion euro and it needs another 10 billion euro before completion. You cannot do much physics today on a budget of 2000 euro, we are far from the "string and wax" experiments. What you can do is to write a paper outlining your ideas and publish it on the Internet. A preprint does not have to pass a peer review. CERN has just launched an Open Science channel. according to theregister.co.uk.
Tullio

---

Very important video to watch here!

Is dark matter real? - with George Smoot and Martinus Veltman (Nobel prizewinners);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX9ShHsQUpk (13 minute video)

Nobel prizewinners George Smoot and Martinus Veltman discuss Dark matter and Dark energy.

4 minutes 40 seconds into the video, Nobel prizewinner Martinus Veltman, when asked what he thinks Dark matter is, he states he "Doesn't think it exists".

That video was recorded a few months ago just after CERN announced the discovery of the Higgs-like particle. In the video, listen carefully to Martinus Veltman, he's the heavy man with grey hair and sun glasses. Martinus Veltman is skeptical of both Dark matter and Dark energy. And he explains exactly why he is skeptical.

I like the way Martinus Veltman describes people in favour of Dark matter as "The Church of Dark matter". Because its a very good description of the way astronomers and cosmologists try to force Dark matter theory down everyone's throat. When the reality is that there is little or no real scientific evidence that it actually exists.

I suggest you watch the video several times because its important!

John.

---

... When the reality is that there is little or no real scientific evidence that it actually exists. ...

And yet the Earth moves and yet the light bends...


?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... When the reality is that there is little or no real scientific evidence that it actually exists. ...

And yet the Earth moves and yet the light bends...


?

Keep searchin',
Martin

Are you mad Martin?
What's wrong with you? Have you read any of the messages i posted in this thread?

I have stated quite clearly in this thread that there isn't a single shred of scientific proof that Dark matter or Dark energy exists!

Do you want me to repeat it again?

John.

---