Member

In the field of Cosmology at present all new discoveries are taylored to fit the Establishment's cloth; be they the ageing of stars or the understanding of and description of dark matter, red shift and so on.. In fact everything is taylored to fit Big Bang and the assumption that this event occured thirteen point seven billion years ago.

I wrote this many years ago and as someone said to me, 'Historically, nothing informs better than verse'.

The Biggest Bang
Somewhere away in shrunken space
Light years away from earth
Within a microscopic place
A singularity gave birth
It was a huge explosion
The grandest sole event
And so has Science chosen
This blast as Heaven sent (DCH)

I use the word 'chosen', because several theories, including Steady State were debated at the time and this crazy idea won. Also, 'light-years away from Earth' doesn't fit because the containment bladder appears to be the same distance away from us in every direction; which means, I guess, that we are right smack BANG in the middle. {No wonder they couldn't find it]!

I firmly believe that the choice of Big Bang must have been made in haste because there are big holes in it, and not just black ones, that with a bit more thought they may have instead, dropped it in the waste paper basket, which decision could well have shown the presence of gray matter.

My point here is to stress the need to rid our cosmology of a beginning and build a model of it on an infinite and eternal universe. This way all the worthwhile discoveries of the past can be re-examined and shown how they fit into a different structure. Many new results will no doubt cancel out other dubious claims, even without having to examine them, and many will just simply not apply.

So what are the huge holes in the BB Model?

Containment, I think is the easiest one to burst, and when that's gone there ain't much left.

It is claimed that the containment bladder is thirteen point seven billion light-years away and that the youngest and most distant galaxies are thirteen billion light-years away. Now that creates a gap of a mere seven million light years.

The light from those distant galaxies has taken thirteen billion years to reach us. Stars shine globally, (a phenomenon apparently not considered by the decision makers), so those same stars are shining away through the perceived bladder and beyond to at least twenty-six billion lightyears away from us. A bladder containment would have to be reflecting all that light energy, plus any other energy, back into the universe in order to contain it, and that's just crazy - But that is not all.

Those most distant galaxies are said to be rapidly expanding away from us, so we see them where they were thirteen billion years ago and not where they are now, so they have to be another goodness knows how many light-years further way. If we take thirteen billion as measurement of each step, that puts light reaching thirty-nine billion lightyears away from us.ie. Light distance to earth from source + light distance beyond its source + time/expansion.

These several points alone, completely destroy the perceived age and size of the universe,- the time it took from BB to the formation of all the galaxies ie, within the first two billion years. But the way galaxies were probably formed and are still doing so today is by a continuous creation where the clock has obviously been ticking eternally.

Red shift is another cracker. Anyone who has viewed a sunset must wonder at the change to red of the sun's surface as it travels through even a slightly cloudy part of the evening sky. Therefore light travelling over periods of billions of lightyears toward earth will have gone through all sorts of gas clouds and quite likely through a growing nebula or two. Imagine two stars, in reality the same distance from us. Bearing in mind that the light that reaches us is a mere fraction of its total display,  number one beam goes through a nebula and the other doesn't. Is number one further away? And is the sun suddenly a few light-years away from earth when it's 'face is red'? Both stars and the sun are stars so why would one be exempt colour change if it shone through a cloud at us?

There's so much that we don't know, and to model the universe to simply satisfy a 'need to explain' by those who wish to appear learned and infallable is surely not good science. If science would classify its claims so that we the interested public, could accept the rating, like 1 to 10, and respect the doubt, that would be scientific. Hiding the obvious or even the doubt to protect the assumption is down right deceptive.

I would like to host a site where we agree and state quite clearly that our format is for an eternal and infinite universe and is THEORY. We do know some things and can even agree with the Establishment about other things, but, by and large we are formulating and presenting a new and different theoretical model. Let the world be the judge, but only if it's written in understandable terms.

Also, the determination by the Establishment to maintain and contain the universe from Big Bang to the present time required that conservation had to be respected and accounted for. I have shown that the bladder, created to separate space from 'no space' or 'nothing', is just a blowout. The run-away model of expansion and the characteristics of solar light emission just make a contaimed universe a mockery. They even went so far as to suggest that the Singularity was the shrunken contents of a previous universe that had collapsed in on itself, all ready to poof off into another one.

So, all you folk, where-ever you are on this planet, who believe or might be swayed to believe in an eternal, boundless, and infinite universe, where creation is simply the distribution, building and fragmentation and rebuilding of all types of matter and energy, will you climb aboard the good ship, Genesis Continuous and help create the pathways to the real universe.

So that everyone knows what I have achieved so far it is going to be helpful if you read Genesis Continuous http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/gcon.html or the shorter version:-

The Infinite Universe, half way down my homepagehttp://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy  just to see how I have covered the pathways continuum. You will appreciate that far more reference material exists in the main work.

I also consider that we should leave out complex maths as this may very well be one of the causes of mayhem in todays cosmology. Design first and measure later..... Ha ha, a couple of hours afrer writing that last sentence I read this:- "It would be better for the true physics if there were no mathematicians on earth."[Or the universe, say I].

Daniel Bernoulli (Feb 8, 1700 - Mar 17, 1782)

David Calder Hardy Genesiscontinuous Genesis Continuous