the big bang ( Questions from a Teen )

There are two kinds of basic problems with the "big bang" idea. One is that it is based on a totally wrong interpretation of redshift data. Halton Arp (Halton Arp's official website), http://www.dragonscience.com etc. and others have shown multiple instances of high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, clearly refuting the entire basis of big-bang.But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to bang its way out of that?Aside from that, time appears to stretch out to infinity both before us and behind us and to my knowledge, there is no evidence for believing anything else. Suppose a big bang DID occur 17 billion years ago.: is time supposed to have STARTED 17 billion years ago? If so, how and why? If not, then an infinite amount of time existed prior to the big bang; the mass of the universe would have sat there at its starting point literally forever prior to that event; why would a situation with an infinite past change?Are we supposed to believe that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs and then big contractions to the original everything-at-a-point condition? The big contraction would be an absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact they don't even have enough real mass in a single galaxy to explain why it doesn't fly apart and are reduced to talking about "dark matter" supposedly making up 95% of the universe (you'd be vacuming the stuff up off your carpet every day if that were the case).Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.

>Both big bang space expansion and black holes are consequences of the >physics of gravitation and general relativity.There is a little club consisting of authors of dead theories from past centuries, including Chuck Darwin, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Engles, Freud, Adam Smith and a number of others, and Albert Einstein is a member of that club.If everybody took what Einstein had to say about gravity seriously, then the USAF and Boeing would not be working on gravity reduction devices, and there would not be a standard government acronym for the project (GRASP, Gravity Reduction and Advanced Space Propulsion).Moreover, given Einstein's description of gravity, there would be no way to believe that gravity on our own planet's surface might have ever changed in any sort of a large way in a short period of time, but it is an easy demonstration that it has. Do your own web search on dinosaurs and gravity and try to catch up.

>You may safely assume that I am thoroughly caught up on dinosaurs and gravity...Maybe...D&G used to be something anybody would get laughed at for talking about and it appears to have presently become a fairly safe subject. Basically, everybody who has ever actually done the math has come to the same conclusion I did. You might want to check out a few snapshots from a recent prime-timne Japanese television program dealing with the topic...The Japanese take this one seriously. If there is going to be such a thing as controlling gravity, the nation which gets there first will have a hell of an edge.

Do me a favor. I'm about a month or two away from having a book on the topic of D&G available for downloading; wait until that is there before starting such a topic.To my thinking, the controversy is no longer who, between Holden, Kronia, Talbott et. al. or Throop, t.o., Ellenberger et. al. is correct, but rather whether or not you can come up with any reason to believe in an "expanding Earth" theory.Many if not most of the web sites you see which deal with D&G are also expounding expanding Earth theories of one stripe or another and this is based not only on considerations dealing with gravity but also with the curvature of a reconstructed Pangaea, which is not the same as the Earth's present curvature.I do not believe in Earth expanding fairies, and I do not see there being the time for any meaningful accretion to have occurred; I view the idea of expanding Earth theories as a mistake and believe in a much simpler explanation for the curvature problems.

>You've never really seen a legitimate physicist or astronomer talking about the big bang theory have you?In fact I have. In all cases they were describing it as a bunch of BS.