科学网

 找回密码
  注册
搜索
楼主: henryharry2

[分享] 宇宙大爆炸:最大的科学真理,还是最大的科学谎言?

[复制链接]
 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 14:32:28 | 显示全部楼层
(40) NO THEORETICAL "INFINITE POINT" FOR MATTER—It may be theoretically possible for all matter to unite in a single point, but not in reality.
Some Big Bang theories initially compress all universal matter into a single point and then have it explode. Others begin with all the matter in the universe appearing out of nothing, first in a single point of solidity, and then rapidly expanding outward in an explosion.
*Larson laughs at the idea, as well as all the rest of the foolishness in the Big Bang mentality.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 14:38:03 | 显示全部楼层
(42) LOW AND HIGH METAL STARS—According to astronomers, stars with high "metallicities" are stars which have more than the usual amount of elements above hydrogen and helium; "low metal stars" have less of those heavier elements. Evolutionists theorize that the central stars in galaxies are "younger stars" and the stars in globular clusters are "much younger" still. But the "metallicity" of both types of stars are too high to fit the theory! The compositions of the stars do not fit the theory! Both have far too much of the heavier elements.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 16:21:20 | 显示全部楼层
(43) BACKGROUND RADIATION IS NOT A PROOF—Background radiation, first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, clear-cut evidence that the Big Bang occurred. But this radiation comes from the stars; it is not "the last dying breath of the Big Bang." There are several reasons why we can have such certainty in rejecting background radiation as an evidence of the Big Bang.
Background radiation, along with the speed theory of the redshift, are generally considered to be the two main evolutionary "evidences" for the Big Bang. Both are extremely important to Big Bang theory, for they constitute the only presumed "evidence" that it ever occurred. Because of the importance attached to these two lines of "evidence," we will give them special attention. In the process of doing so, we will also consider quasars.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 16:24:14 | 显示全部楼层
They originally said that the proof would rest in four presumed facts about the background radiation: (1) It would come from only one direction from where the Big Bang occurred. (2) It would have the right radiative strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation. But, with the passing years and additional research Into background radiation, all four "facts" fizzled out. It has become a leading objection to the Big Bang Theory.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 16:26:42 | 显示全部楼层
1 – It is omnidirectional. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Background radiation comes from every direction, while the Big Bang theory requires that it should come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang explosion occurred.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 16:29:13 | 显示全部楼层
2 • It Is too weak. Another problem with background radiation, is that, theoretically, it should be far more powerful than it is. Because it is so weak, it does not meet the requirements for an after-radiation from the Big Bang. The radiation remaining from the Big Bang would have been between ten and a thousand times more powerful.
"The big bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case." —*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-20 09:50:43 | 显示全部楼层
6 - A failure from the beginning. In 1926, *Arthur Eddington predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles. Later this radiation was discovered, and was found to have a temperature of 2.7 K, which was fairly close. Eddington's prediction was made prior to and totally separate from Big Bang theory. It was a prediction about stars and had nothing to do with the Big Bang.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-20 14:24:19 | 显示全部楼层
7 - What !s the source of background radiation? The more researchers explore the universe, the lumpier they find it to be; but with two outstanding exceptions. The first of these is background radiation (microwave radiation), and the second is infrared radiation. Both of these are extremely smooth, and both are found in outer space.
Evolutionists declare that background radiation is the last dying breath of the original Big Bang. We have already discussed a number of reasons why that is not true (omnidirectionality, temperature, etc.)
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 07:28:09 | 显示全部楼层
(44) THE REDSHIFT THEORY IS INCORRECT—The Red-shift is the second primary "evidence" used by evolutionists to prove the Big Bang theory.
"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler effect, is the key to cosmology." —*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 252.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 08:32:12 | 显示全部楼层
But there are other possible reasons why that energy loss could occur as the light travels across the vast distances of outer space. Here are three of them:
[1] Gravitational Red-shifts. The pull of gravity on light rays could cause a loss of energy. This would include not only the star it first left, but other stars it passes by. From a study of eclipses, we already know that gravity actually bends light rays slightly. Gravity can and does affect starlight. It could also gradually slow those light rays as they speed through space. The result would be that the farther away a star is from us, the more it would reveal a redshift. None other than *Albert Einstein predicted that it would be discovered that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift. His prediction was first shown to be correct when the companion of Sirius, a small dwarf star, was found to bend starlight from Sirius.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 13:38:20 | 显示全部楼层
Summarizing the above, (1) the speed theory of the redshift (also called the first-order Doppler effect redshift theory) is said to be another evidence of the Big Bang. But we have here of but another instance of using one theory to prove another. There are serious flaws in the speed theory; these flaws would be overcome by accepting one of (or a combination of) other possible redshift Interpretations: (2) Gravitational shift—The pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in starlight. We know that light is affected by gravity. (3) Second-order Doppler shift—A light source moving at right angles to the observer will always be red-shifted. This would occur if the universe were slowly moving in a vast circle around a common center. Everything else in the universe is organized and mutually orbiting; why not the universe as a whole? Orbiting brings stability to heavenly bodies. (4) Energy-loss ("tired light") shift—Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the great distances of space. Either one of these three theories, or in combination together, are easily able to explain why there is an energy loss as starlight moves toward us—and do it without the immense problems faced by the evolutionary theory.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:03:44 | 显示全部楼层
3 - The Arp Discoveries. There is a powerful minority of astronomers who consider the current speed theory of the redshift, which is based solely on Doppler movement-away-from-us effect, to be a "frail assumption." Leading out is * Halton C. Arp of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories. He has produced a variety of convincing evidence, showing that there is no relation between redshift and distance of starlight from us.
Arp has spent over 30 years researching into these matters at some of the world's largest observatories. At the time of this writing, he is on the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in West Germany. * Kauffmann, another leading astrophysicist, in 1981 declared Arp to be "the most-feared astronomer on earth" (*W. Kaufmann III, "Most Feared Astronomer on Earth" in Science Digest 89(6):76-81, 1981, p. 117.) Arp's research is so pivotal, that it threatens to overturn several foundational bases of modern theoretical astronomy.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:08:13 | 显示全部楼层
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the redshift theory. Galaxies are island universes, each with 100 million or more stars. Some of these galaxies have bridgework connections linking them together. The bridges prove that the pair of galaxies are close to each other. Arp has discovered a number of these connected galaxies—each of which have markedly different redshifts than the other! But if the Doppler effect theory of the redshift were correct, Arp would not have made such discoveries, since each pair of galaxies would share the same approximate distance from us!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:12:19 | 显示全部楼层
Arp has studied over 260 galaxies in more than 80 groups. In each one he has found significant redshift differences. Arp has tabulated 24 main galaxies and 38 discordant redshift companions, and has published a catalogue of hundreds of discordant redshifts. Yet he says his research has been ignored:
"This important result has largely been ignored by astronomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework." — *H. Arp, "Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculi arities," in Astrophysical Journal 263 (1982), p. 54.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:18:08 | 显示全部楼层
In addition to *Arp, other important scientists are also urging that energy-loss ("tired light") is the true explanation of the redshift. *Emil Wolf recently published an analysis of the mathematical basis for a non-Doppler redshift (Physical Review, March 31, 1986). *Amato, arriving at the same conclusion, explained that the result would be a much smaller universe:
"Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps says Wolf, by a factor of 100 a more." —I. Amato, "Spectral Variation on an Universal Theme," Science News, 130:166 (1986).
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:34:35 | 显示全部楼层
And *Corliss declares that the tired light theory (the "energy-loss" redshift theory mentioned earlier) is highly significant; and concludes:
"P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology b the standard [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior." —* W. Corliss, "Tired Light Revived," Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:39:56 | 显示全部楼层
At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption: (1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance; (2) Astronomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions; (3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as 'tired light,' showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis; (4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and (5) Observations of quantized redshifts. "—* W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (19,85), p. 148.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:44:10 | 显示全部楼层
2 - redshift distance multiples. A strange oddity has been discovered that does not at all agree with the speed theory, but could fit into some other redshift theories, such as "tired light."
Redshift data indicate that stars tend to clump at certain distances from us! These distances are multiples of 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]! Such a situation totally defies the speed theory of redshift! Is there a possible answer? One possibility would be that starlight loses energy as it travels ("tired light" theory), and this weakening is especially shown at multiples of 72 kps.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:47:41 | 显示全部楼层
3 - Galactic Shape Factor. How can the shape of a galaxy affect its redshift? But this is so. That discovery indicates there is far more to redshifts than we had thought, and velocity has little or nothing to do with the shifts.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-21 14:49:18 | 显示全部楼层
THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE THEORY—*Arp's discoveries disprove not only the speed theory of redshift, but also another theory based on it—*Edwin Hubble's "Hubble hypothesis" proposed earlier in this century, which suggests that objects outside our galaxy are receding from the earth at speeds proportional to their distance from us. That is the basis of the "expanding universe" theory. So, if Hubble's theory is incorrect, we would then have a smaller, non-expanding universe.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2017-11-24 22:53

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表