Arguments against expansion
(work against the mainstream)
Author : Luis Biarge Baldellou – Email: email@example.com
I give here arguments and evidences against the expansion (and also against the Big Bang), some are more irrefutable and others creates more or less reasonable doubt. One only irrefutable argument is sufficient to demonstrate that something is false, but I prefer to write all my arguments and let the reader decide which you like better.
These arguments are not sorted from most to least irrefutable, but rather in chronological order so that when I talk about any topic that has already been tried before and did not need to give additional information on it.
The theory of expansion say that expansion is in all places the same and double distance, double speed (according to Hubble’s law) and homogeneous (expansion + stretch).
Anti Big Bang evidences (more of 100)
– Before of all, I list here the facts of evidence according to the universe in this work (all theirs are proved): there is visual expansion (but not real), the light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel)
– Also I say here that I’m according to visual expansion of the universe, but that this don’t mean a real expansion how I demonstrate here. There are many visual effects where really don’t happen how is visual: rainbow, perspective, …
– I’m against expansion of the universe and Big Bang theories and also against “tired light hypothesis”, to be against one don’t mean that I’m according to the other and there are more different solutions of this 2. I give in my page a hypothesis over a visual effect solution, but maybe other against this 2: neither expansion nor tired.
1se – There is not any proof of expansion and Big Bang
(1 se is 1 special evidence, 1e is 1 evidence) These are theories, with one only proof would not to be theories.
1.1se – 5 proof on mainpage : https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/
1.2se – baby galaxies and stars emit microwaves “millimetre/submm-wave Universe, including baby galaxies and stars, exoplanets, and Solar System weather” according to 66 telescopes ALMA in the Andes: http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/937/Launch_Into_Space. This proof is according to CMBR like emission from stars in formation. But it’s not prouved that magma CMBR according with the Big Bang theory that it’s before the atoms emit radiation.
2se – Draw the geometrical figure like universe expand
You consider evident the expansion, so need to be easy draw this figure.
It has to expand equal in all points and directions, flat, homogeneous, isotropic and not lose angle (cubic is flat, but lose angle), also cannot use arc because arc is equidistant only to 1 point.
If you obtain it (geometry don’t know it) it’s not sufficient for expansion, but at least we can obtain the form needed for expansion like say the theory.
3se – Make experimentally an expansion or creation of space from nothing
4se – Many false evidences and proofs, but none experiment consistent
The proofs and evidences (anything impossible cannot have real proofs and evidences) are false, circumstantials, soft, .. but none proof consistent, but all expansion theories are evidents according to astronomers.
Anything so evident like astronomers say would have more consistent proofs, evidences and experiments (suppose all the dinosaur knowing by only an egg similar to an egg of chicken or anything so few real how actual evidences from expansion and Big Bang).
Evidences show are not so evidences: 900e
Proof and experiments consistent would be space creation and show the geometrical figure for expansion, this proof also are not total (necessary, but not sufficient) but more consistent. Actual proof and evidences are nothing: “He/She is all talk” or “tell me who you think you are, and I will tell you who you are not”
The “burden of evidence” need to give who affirm that anything exist, in this case: expansion and Big Bang. Belief without proofs (in this case there are not proofs) only are beliefs: 002e, 003e, …
Say evidences http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence demonstrate that there are not, so: nothing speak over the evidences of Sun existence, over existence of Moon, over evidence that 2+2=4, … In electronic son there is “High fidelity” because there are not full fidelity. (here I speak over anti Big Bang evidence by tell against Big Bang evidence).
5se – None probability of true, but only a belief, sect or religion
The astronomers give by good proofs and evidences from an impossible like any sect.
Big Bang and expansion of the universe is to the science like religion to the society. This means soon the discredit for science.
Universe and science don’t need gods, but Big Bang and expansion (creation) need it.
6se – expansion is creationism (expansion is not from compressed)
7se – Already more of 50 years in belief scientific
Big bang has already near 100 years (1922 by Friedmann) and other belief scientific that give probably near 100 discredit years in science with creationism and probably more from quantum.
Expansion (really creation) of space not only is impossible, also means that belief in it is belief in creation and by that creationism, and creationism is belief in gods.
The science and physic are strict and according to physic laws, expansion (creation) is magic = creationism = gods.
Expansion and Big Bang is belief, religious, they are against science.
Big Bang and expansion theories are for science like religion for society.
8se – Expansion is a triple fraud and don’t mean compression, means creation.
Expansion (of the universe) means normally that anything expand from compression, but the space is not compressed, so the name is false and incorrect, really is creation. With this makes a mental mistaken making think that expand anything compressed.
Definition of expansion: the increase in the volume, the action or an instance of expanding. by Concise Oxford English – http://www.wordreference.com/definition/expansion
in http://www.synonym.com/antonym/expansion/ – expansion, enlargement – Antonym of contraction (Sense 4) =>contraction
If the astronomers don’t like to lie: Why not say: space creation theory or expansive creation of space theory? And against it speaks over expansion of space?
Easy understand this fraud: creation (the real means of expansion of space) is near creationist and this really is near of belief, magic and religion, but this is really what space creation is and not expansion (expansion from compressed).
Creationism means the same in biology and astronomy: magic, belief, gods, …
Use fraud in name or definition means bad intentions, lie in the theory makes thinking is another thing.
Triple fraud by: 1- is creation, not expansion (nothing compress for expand), 2- impossible given how evident, 3- make believe in compress and not in real creation = creationism = belief = sect = religion = gods = hidden belief
A 4º fraud is according to possible Big Crunch: this has relation with expansion and by that a probably compression, but universe expansion is not expansion is creation by that for a probably Big Crunch would need a destruction. (120e)
9se – Universe with expansion visual explain perfectly what we see and measure.
It’s not necessary a real expansion (real expansion is impossible), visual expansion of a universe infinite and without real expansion explain all perfectly: visual expansion, visual expansion in all places and in all directions, flat, homogeneous, isotropy, according to Hubble’s law, according to physic laws, physic laws without changes in space and time, gas – later clouds of gas – later stars – later galaxies, galaxies how brooms that sweep the space, visual effect in all places and directions and flat like perspective, not need to create space, not need magic, not need creation, not need first minute creation, not creationism, not belief, not sect, not gods, blackbody correspond to the first emissions and by that not reflects nothing (6a), not need black energy, not need magic black energy (3e), not need Big Bang, …
Light is curved (blended) by gravity, this can produce visual expansion without real expansion. Exist many optic effects.
It’s not necessary an impossible theory like expansion for explain how is the universe according to the facts that can see and measure: time delay, redshift, …
10se – All begin from that seem to expand (time delay, ..)
The universe seem to expand (visually expand) according to redshift, time delay, Hubble’s law, but this don’t need a real expansion that is impossible (002e, 003e, …)
It’s near that believe in UFO after see an UFO photo, see and mirage and believe that image is true, …
I’m according to visual expansion, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, I take all this like facts, but expansion is not a fact, expansion is only a theory, an impossible theory (1e, ..): creation of space is impossible and magic, expansion in all direction from all points is impossible and against geometry, …
11se – Resume: impossible expansion and equal in all directions
There are many evidences against expansion and Big Bang: against physic laws, … but for me 2 are the most important: 1 -it’s impossible create space and more from nothing (it’s not expansion of compressed space, it’s creation of space) and 2 – expand equal in all points and directions is impossible, there is not any geometrical figure that permits it.
12se – Hubble’s law and distance-speed relation are very perfect to be another thing that an optic effect
The great exactitud of the relation distance-speed (also called Hubble’s law) make think that this only can to be an optic effect.
Example: if you make a file or personns by level the relation has error, is far of to be perfect, is few probably make that grass in distance to be more dense, or all stones equal in all directions, …
But according to perspective the grass in more distance is more dense and better, a file of equal poster in distance seem mathematically descent, …
Universe is a fossil visual register or many billion years and the relation is near perfect (only change in any galaxies by peculiar velocity)
Seem “Too perfect to be true” or very perfect, precise and mathematic, but how normal and easy like optic effect.
13se – All the facts are against expansion
Facts: Universe visually flat, homogeneous, … are all proof or evidences against a real expansion.
14se – Flat and homogeneous are incompatible with expansion equall in all directions.
The universe is homogeneous and at least visually flat, these are incompatibles with expansion equall in all directions
Flat and homogeneous would to be an expansion by axis, how we see in 3d this would be cubic expansion.
Expansion equal in all direction would to be equidistant, arcs, … and the more near is spherical expansion.
Both are incompatibles. Only are compatibles in a optic effect (optic effect is equal in all directions and flat)
This 014e would to be presented in the other form: the only is flat and equal in all directions is an optic effect
15se – Big Bang creationist
Expansion and Big Bang theories need creation (it’s creation, not expansion from compressed – more: is space creation from nothing), expansion need creation of space all time and in all places (also there are not geometrical figure that can make this), this is magic, need belief and creationism. Big Bang also need a moment initial with more creation. All their is impossible (1e,2e,4e) and against physic, physic laws and science in general.
Astronomers say that have proof and evidences like any believer (normally from anything impossible): UFO, astrology, martians, … this makes of astronomers and scientist in general a believer, sectarian and creationism (any mathematician can demonstrate that there are not geometrical figure according to expansion theory).
Science not need creation (creationism), physic and astronomy also not, but astronomers and scientist believe in an impossible, believe in an impossible only can be a belief, magic, religion, … Biology is against creationism (evolution from Darwin) but astronomy make against traveling from physic laws and science to creationism, magic and gods.
This impossible not make possible “tired light hypothesis”, the day that gives bad “tired light” seem strange why give good expansion and Big Bang (also impossible). “Steady State model” is bad because not consider visual expansion. But the impossible is impossible, cannot have the solution, but this not permit admit an impossible how solution.
The real solution need to be according to the facts: redshift, time delay, homogeneous, flat, Hubble’s law, visual expansion in all sides and directions, … and probably according to a visual effect: hypothesis 14h – but this work is not over a solution, is over an impossible: expansion of the universe is impossible and is a creationist magic and belief. At least are today a rational solution how an optic effect (an optic effect is flat and equal in all directions like need the visual expansion of the universe: my hypothesis 14h work in this).
It’s impossible at least by 1e (creation of space from nothing = magic and creationism) and 4e (there is not geometrical figure according to visual expansion of universe). Also use expansion (it’s not compressed) by creation is a triple fraud (evidence 8se)
Astronomers reject my work and say that universe expansion is evident: NO. The impossible cannot be evident. The supposed expansion (creation) cannot be against physic laws and mathematics. An impossible belief convert the scientists in belief, creationist and sect (sect how believers in UFO, martians, astrology, ..)
The creationism (expansion of the universe is not from compressed, is creation and by that is creationism) is the exit of the religions (or modern theory: “Intelligent design”: Intelligent Design Creationism is not science; it makes no testable predictions so it cannot be falsified. Intelligent Design Creationism is a belief system; it is religion. – http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/ or “Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.” and “The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[n 4][n 5] and indeed is pseudoscience.” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. All creationism is anti science even expansion of the universe and Big Bang. – In the same form that for biology also can to be applied to astronomy.
I’m not ashamed of to say the true, maybe you will be ashamed by not recognize it.
This belief makes the scientists a believers and take the control over new ideas in science, so newspapers, … reject any idea against their belief, … This constitute a control according to scientists or according to a power over theirs, but that scientists belief and admit.
Science is dictatorship, also the false and this is according to control it (transgenic, medicine, alternative energy, …)
So, admitting that scientists in newspaper are into the sect and that my work is rejected in all parts and that this is not science, is information general that I go to use other systems, like press note to general press. This is not cosmology, not astronomy and not science, this is sect, belief, believers and creationism (gods, ..) and in the same form that UFO, martians, astrology is not science: expansion of the universe and Big Bang also is not science. (an impossible only is an impossible and belief in it is against science).
Also seem that all the theories are good, all very robust, but it’s not so: 2 theories taken like Big Bang evidences are incompatibles: “39e – Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR” and probably more errors, really nothing is good, nothing is according to physic laws, …
In the same form: How can I consider reject or admit from a sect how this time are scientists believers in creationism?
So, I have been rejected near 2 years in scientific newspaper, no more submission and also not transfer of my copyright. Scientific newspaper also need discredit by rejecting good works, …
Look also my evidences 89e and 110e
I have not prestige today, but according to the so big future discredit for all scientists believers probably is better.
You can continue with your belief or understand that expansion (creation) and Big Bang are impossibles. If you understand this is false you can or not make nothing or help me in viral circulation (I need your help) in email, news, forums, blogs, science newspaper, general newspaper, radio, press, tv, … (I cannot access all and register in all forums, …) and all alternative channels. Thanks.
16se -The universe is flat and by that cannot be curve
Cannot be a thing and opposite. An expansion not flat cannot give a universe flat.
A flat cannot admit none curvature, in same form a sphere curved lose the spherical form.
17se – CMBR temperature
“This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The CMBR according to Big Bang theory was visible at 3000 K, but according to physic cannot dissipate like theory say.
A heat body in a cold environment dissipates quickly, but according to the Big Bang theory all the environment has the same temperature (or near the same: homogeneity and isotropy). – “The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000”
So a body heat in an environment heat cannot dissipate easy like seem in the Big Bang theory, also cannot dissipate to nothing because all is all the universe and all is hot. (energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and heat also).
By that only can to dissipate to new space (Big Bang theory tell over space creation), and according to the temperature of the new space created.
If the new space is created at 0 K is easy to dissipate heat, but need time and space, we see here, but if the new space is created with temperature need more space.
For an ideal relation (space created at 0 K) and a difference of 1 K: “reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree” and “Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100” and “The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K” this means:
3000 – 2.725
x – 1
So according to Big Bang theory and CMBR temperature the emission is at 3000 and at least until 1100/2 = 2450 K
1100/2 = 550 from 3000 is more of 18%
In a hot environment the space need at least grow 18% (supposing creation of space at 0 K), and more with more creation of space at more temperature.
A universe expansion of 18% in volume need at least (in square and spherical: I don’t know the real geometrical figure that universe can expand):
In cubic: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, – 1.06 x 1.06 x 1.06 = 1.19, so at lest need 6% expand (or more).
In sphere: 0.5 radius is (4/3 pi x r3) = 0.52 – (0.52 x 1.18 = 0,6136)
0.53 is 0,623 – is radius, by that diameter is also 0.6
In both cases need at least expand 0.06 or more.
Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) – 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) – 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Put it in 74 km/s/mpc = 266400 km/hour = 2333664000 km/year
1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years” = 3.08568025 e22 meters = 3.08568025 e19 km
6% is 0.185140815 e19 km
0.185140815 e19 km / 2333664000 km/year = 793.348.207 year to expand a 6% by axis
The background (cmbr) is at 13.75 billion lightyears
By freeze the background need to see until at least 12.4 – 0.8 = 12.95
“burst occurred at 13 billion light years” – http://www.edu.cn/20050913/3151504.shtml
This star would to be in the CMBR.
The CMBR probably need to exist from 13.75 billion to probably near 6 billion because the space creation (expansion false) probably is not at 0 K.
(remember that in past the expansion was less, new space created has temperature [or temperature of Big Bang would to be infinite], …)
If the creation of space (expansion) would to be at 0 K the universe that from Big Bang to CMBR size expand infinite times would to be at Big Bang with infinite temperature. The Inflation was before CMBR and size of the universe in CMBR is infinite bigger that in Big Bang.
This is impossible, star without background, and freeze quickly of CMBR in a hot environment.
This seems near the creationism of Darwin that gives to the universe creation less time by bible that dinosaurs exist.
The Big Bang theory also not explain why Big Bang also need to create heat more of matter, space, energy, time, …
Why the CMBR need to be hot? The Big Bang is not a bomb.
Treat to take evidences for Big Bang (impossible) is near to believers that treat to obtain evidences that pyramids was made by martians.
My model (against Big Bang theory) is according to CMBR, this is by pre-stars (gas clouds heating and with microwave radiation stretched by visual expansion).
Also I write over that CMBR: at this distance 1 only degree is equal to 2000 milky way (121e).
1e – Homogeneity, isotropy and flat visual universe are evidence anti expansion.
According to expansion theory the universe is homogeneous, but a real homogeneous universe in expansion would be not homogeneous visually:
The light that we receive from far universe is from a universe less expanded, according to older theory there is relation expansion with stretch that give homogeneous vision, but this would need that the distance visual would be the same that real distance and today is admitted that real distance is more that visual distance.
In the past say that expansion + stretch is adjusted: 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75, but this is not true, this would need that real distance and visual distance would be the same and against time delay.
In other words: a universe in expansion would to be or homogeneous visually and without time delay or with time delay and by that not homogeneous visually.
A universe without expansion need also comoving for homogeneity (use same actual time) because there are visual expansion and without comoving is how a perspective where distance is bad. Really a universe without expansion has homogeneity, but how has visual expansion need comoving to put the distance from our position in the good place.
So in a universe without expansion seem how if this has expansion, but this according to expansion theory, really in a universe without expansion and visual expansion (how is really) the real distance is less that real distance and by that the real comoving would to be in this against relation. The angle don’t change and by that with comoving seem how an expansion in all directions.
In the same form a universe with expansion also need don’t change the angle by comoving and how visually would to show in V inverted (less expanded in more distance), after comoving the angle is bad. A spherical expansion is according to the theory (for 1 point and 1 arc) but is not homogeneous and not flat, but angle is correct. A cubic expansion is homogeneous and flat, but is against the theory and lose angle with distance (V inverted).
This also maybe demonstrate by reductio ad absurdum:
Supposing a universe in expansion (how expansion and Big Bang theories say), this according to time delay show more concentrated at more distance and by that not visually homogeneous, nor isotropy, nor flat, by that with homogeneous, flat, isotropy and time delay the universe cannot expand.
Also according to past theory that give homogeneity from expansion + stretch and speak (I remember) over distance visual equal to real distance give us information over this, in this form 50+50 is bad taken (50% less from 100 is 50, but 50% more from 50 is not 100, is only 75) how there are stars near 4% of distance of visual universe (near the cosmic microwave background) and by that 96% of 4% is near 8% this means that this is visually 10 times less in any axis, and by that 100 times less in 2 dimensions and 1000 times less in 3 dimensions.
2e – From 1e how visually would to be less expanded in distance the parallel lines cross in distance and in more distance not fill the 360º of circle
In distance a universe in expansion would to be less expanded, but how these are concentric circles (they are not separated, we are separated from their) in distance not fill the 360º of a circle and by that rest grades without stars. – this is mathematically impossible.
This information we need to see in inverse form, we are that separated from theirs, so if in 1 billions years ago we see all the circle in 2 billion years ago we need to see less of 360º – also impossible.
How at more distance (past) is less expanded and has form of V inverted, after comoving the angle don’t change.
3e – The dark energy is indifferent from quantity.
According to the expansion theory the expansion is by that energy, but the expansion according to Hubble’s law is the same in all point by that is indifferent over the quantity of dark energy.
Also in some work I read over dark energy concentration, but also it has not importance because the expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy is the same in all points.
Also: over time the universe grow, but dark energy not grow and expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy need to grow in the same proportion that the universe.
Also is not affected by attenuation over the intensity and distance of dark energy, …
4e – there are not geometrical figure that admits equal expansion in all points.
According to geometry (part of mathematics) there is not any figure that admits equal expansion in all directions.
In 1 dimension is possible equal expansion in all points, in 2 dimensions only the centre of a circle and in 3 dimensions only the centre of a sphere.
When I give these arguments (and others, I obtain negatives, .. and notes over curved space, but this is not true, (and more over that a curved space is not flat according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence “A curved space has non-Euclidean geometry” this page speak over big bang evidence)
Also I read over expansion in more dimensions, but this also is not possible.
A circle is only a circle if it’s a circle in 2 dimensions, we can make a circle in a paper and roll the paper, in 3 dimensions we see not the circle, but the circle it’s there because remain in 2 dimensions, in the same form an ellipse we can make a shadow that seem a circle, but it’s not a circle.
In the same form, we see in 3 dimensions axis (4 dimension if we add the time) and by that a visual expansion how theory say need to see in 3 dimensions, a 6 dimensions expansion is not visible in 3d.
For expand according to expansion theory equal in all points and directions need to expand against geometry (and geometry is part of mathematics).
You can say that mathematics may not find this figure, but I show here that there is not figure with that conditions.
We can see this form an arc, an arc is part of a circle (2d) or sphere (3d) in the form that we can know where is the centre, and remember that there is only a point with equidistant. There is not any arc equidistant to more of 1 point. So if the universe would expand like say the theory the equidistant points not have form of arc, circle or sphere.
Astronomers told me that space maybe curved, but if you curve an arc may not be, then an arc, or if it’s arc the centre has changed. If you curve a sphere it is not yet a sphere.
By that it’s totally impossible that the universe expand equal in all directions, there is impossible mathematically and universe can’t expand against mathematics.
Only a visual effect can seem to expand in all points and all directions, this is how optics effects work like for example the perspective.
By that probably only can be an effect optic that seem an expansion, so a visual expansion, but not real expansion. In my web-page I give a hypothesis: https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/bighypo.html#tag14h
By reductio ad absurdum:
If the universe would expand equal in all directions and in all points the points equidistant to 1 point would can have form of arc o sphere because an arc only is equidistant to 1 point.
5e – Create or expand space
According to the theory the expansion is firstly in points of the space empty and without gravity.
Nobody has show that this is possible, a visual expansion is not evidence of a real expansion.
6e – Existence of the black body CMB
“As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The black body is considered from a hot plasma and it’s black body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body) “a black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation”
A body that not reflect any radiation is because there are not radiation to reflect in the past because don’t exist real black body object (in universe with distances only can reflect energy from past not from future, not from present).
A body that not reflect any radiation because there are not this in the past from a universe without expansion with only pre-stars in formation is a good black body without need to be any special composition. Maybe a better black body that this?
For example: Jupiter emit more heat than it receives from the sun (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101210222825AA5wDe9), so Jupiter in a universe without the sun and stars would be a very good black body.
Against this is difficult that a plasma universe very hot can later obtain black body that not reflect these emissions (big bang theory).
Remember that in the universe with the distances that work the reflexion only can to be from emissions from the past.
In a universe in expansion the past of the cmb is the plasma, a universe hotter, …
In a universe without expansion, cmb is a pre-star state, with a past without any emission and with a present with low reflexion because the light and radiation need time to arrive and reflect.
A galaxy has millions of stars, a universe of pre-stars has many millions of pre-stars without concentrate in galaxies.
In a universe in expansion (big bang, ..) there are lights and emissions in the past of cmb and this is not seeing, not reflect, …
In a universe without expansion and with visual expansion (like this universe with time delay, ..) also the light and microwaves are expanded in same form that say the big bang and expansion theories.
May to be the first stars, if the wave stretched correspond to visible light.
7e – Expansion flat and expand equal in all directions is incompatible
According to expansion theory this is equal in all points and directions, this seems near speak over arcs, but an arc is equidistant only to 1 point and not admit flat, homogeneous and isotropy expansion. How positive not lose angle.
According to flat and homogeneous need to expand by axis, so in 3d this is a cubic expansion, but this is against expansion theory and lose angle.
According to 4e there is not figure that expands in all points and directions and also there is not figure like sphere cubic or a cube spherical.
Only an optic effect is like an expansion in all points and direction and flat, from a universe without expansion this is homogeneous and isotropy (like perspective) and it’s according to physic laws.
8e – A universe in expansion needs to obey many conditions
A universe in expansion needs to obey many conditions and all theirs at same time or in series. Each condition is necessary, but not sufficient.
– Need that space can expand and also can expand in all direction and from all the points and the space expanded remains flat. None of this has been demonstrated. Visual expansion don’t mean real expansion.
– Need dark energy and also that the dark energy can expand to maintain the relation dark energy – space or according to 3e: concentration of dark energy not change the relation distance – speed according to Hubble’s law.
– Acceleration of the expansion like they show the measurements, without knowledge of the cause or changed physic laws.
The Big Bang need also obey (and many of theirs in sequential order):
– A pre Big-bang conditions that end in Big-bang.
– The same Big Bang.
– Theories over the first seconds after Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
– Inflation: acceleration of expansion and that later need break it (seem that nobody shows that inflation expansion speed need to break to actual valor). Also inflatio element.
– “cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened at around 3000 K” – exactly how the measures of the CMB need (probably bad measures without take in count black space, … – look 6e), strange that any star has many more temperature. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
– Black body in the CMB – “This made the CMB spectrum the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature” without explanation over this element – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation and 6e
– Why Big Bang happens? What is before it?, how a non universe can create a universe in expansion? …
– Creation (creationism) of all in Big Bang or there is a pre-Big Bang and also or exist all or need to be created all: time, space, matter-energy. If it’s creation in any time is magic, impossible, gods, belief, …
In both cases (expansion and big bang) need that the theories are correct or any change need a change in theory that quickly are solved (99e). Really is strange that any theory give a full result how to show many theories in the past and in all the sciences: flat Earth, Earth how the center of the universe, martians in Mars, …
(and many other theories that born to arrange problems in the actual theory). Many or theirs (or all) are not demonstrated and impossibles (evidence: 4e,5e). Also, many elements unknowns: inflatio, dark energy, black body, … and also impossible details (1e,2e,4e, …)
Maybe the theories have true details, they are many time from hard work, but have erroneous principles and use also other real elements: deuterium, … that ask over who is before in the work and what is the result? (what is before the egg or the chicken): read evidence 99e.
All these conditions are necessary, but not sufficient.
Against it a universe without real expansion and only with visual expansion only need to obey a condition: that the light may to be curved to show how if distance is growing to show how a visual expansion, and result that the gravity can curve the light (it’s demonstrated). And a visual expansion is equal in all points and direction (according to physic laws) and flat and homogeneous.
My hypothesis 14h is a possible solution that obeys at visual expansion and light curved by gravity, may not be the solution, but the real solution would be probably in that direction. My work is not the 14h hypothesis, is the demonstration that the universe cannot expand.
A visual expansion without real expansion obey all the conditions observed, don’t fail in the impossibles and don’t need theories neither elements theoretical not demonstrated. Also, the explanation needed may to be search without a universe in expansion: black body, deuterium, …
I say in the resume that the expansion of the universe is not only few probable, it’s impossible.
9e – Why the expansion is accelerating?
The expansion of the universe is accelerating, “models attempting to explain accelerating expansion include some form of dark energy: Cosmological Constant, Quintessence, Dark Fluid or Phantom energy” – this is useless because they work over expansion from compressed (gas, ..) but expansion of the universe is really creation. Creation has not motion, expansion from compressed has motion and the universe expansion has not motion.
All this is impossible, dark energy maybe expand any compressed (gas, …) but the universe is not compressed by that the so called expansion is really creation and none energy can create space.
For understand why expansion accelerate we need to change the model:
In a visual expansion, but without real expansion this acceleration is easy to understand, a visual expansion without real expansion seem to expand by light curved (this is a fact and according to physic and with real proofs and not magic like space creation):
In this model the near space (probably milky way gravity) blend more the light. All the light that comes to us is curved, but all the same quantity in only near space that create a vision of accelerated expansion.
The universe expand, but only visually, this visual expansion is by grow of gravity in very big distances (millions of light years) and give a visual image of universe expansion: redshift, time delay, Hubble’s law, …
Near us (probably by milky way gravity) the image is curved more and this seems accelerating near us.
For example, supposing that a 1 million light years give a visual acceleration of 1.
1 million light years – 1,000,001
10 ” ” – 10,000,001
100 – 100,000,001
So really seem that expansion is accelerating. But the expansion and acceleration are only visual.
10e – How brake the inflation?
In inflationary the expansion speed need to be many bigger and more according to 9e, then need to break (nobody speak over this break, why break?, how brake?, what physic laws carry to this brake?
With actual expansion speed: 70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc) is impossible the universe size and by that in inflation need to be many bigger.
11e – Why the expansion is accelerating?
The expansion is accelerating, but in all the registered expansion 17.5 billion years only in present days is accelerating and according to registers this need not to be local. Why is accelerating? What physic law change this? How can to be in all the universe without instantaneous?
In the past also is visible that the expansion speed was less.
How optic effect is easy to explain.
12e – The universe repeat the forms and facts.
All stars are spherical, the universe seem equal in all directions, the galaxies are seemed, but only there is 1 expansion speed (all the universe equal), 1 acceleration of the expansion, 1 inflation, …
13e – The unreal believe don’t make it real.
Many times the people think that Earth was flat, many theories according to it, but that’s not true, in same form the expansion of the universe is impossible and soon or later this theories will die.
14e – Cosmic noise
One of the points that give credibility to big-bang was the cosmic noise, but this is easy to understand also with a visual expansion: in this the wave is stretched and by that fall the frequency.
This point is put because the cosmic noise is not an evidence for Big Bang and expansion of the universe, it’s only an evidence of that the universe visually expand how time delay and redshift. Also see 6e.
I don’t believe that this is shows in tv box, also the noise of a tv box is seeing without antenna, ….
15e – Why the expansion is after Big Bang?
If the universe expand probably would expand before of Big Bang, really would to see different facts.
Also the inflation is a result of expansion after Big Bang and without value without Big Bang.
What physic laws may change the Big Bang to expand the universe after it and not before it, and also for inflation after it and only at first times?
Expansion and Big Bang theories need this correct sequence, but without explain why the universe take this sequence.
16e – The CMBR begin to be visible at 3000k.
The theory need this temperature, but seem few probably, the stars and many bodies (magma) have more temperature and not un-combine the atoms.
This theory seems more to use this temperature to adjust with what they like adjust.
I would see probably 30000k or 300000k, but not 3000k.
17e – Many theories seem not continue to the facts
Many theories seem made to arrange problems I later that the reality continue to the theory and not how would be that the theory continue what we see.
Many or all of theirs are not demonstrated.
In the past always in this form normally end in errors and failure. Wait that the universe make that say the theories normally is an error.
In the nature there are many probably facts, but only a few of theirs are true.
18e – The begin of Big Bang theory is erroneous.
All the begin of Big Bang theory has error that later has been arranged with new theories: Is it possible that an error initial can arrive at good final?
19e – Big theories can seem goods.
In Big Bang theories has worked many very big intellectuals, but from bad principles. New theories arrange errors of another, … this may seem that the theory is good, but all the initial work is erroneous, the space can’t expand in all directions and all point equal, …. (expansion is impossible).
Many of this work with proof and error go in a good direction same with bad principles, suppose: I give a hypothesis with error: “no, that’s wrong”, change it: “this is better, but this point is bad”, … so until obtain a credible hypothesis, but with bad principles and bad at all.
If initial information is bad all the work is bad, and if anything is impossible remain impossible. In expansion all is impossible: expansion of space, expansion in impossible figure, …
20e – The universe in expansion need inflation.
The inflation is necessary in other case the universe would be shorter and all the theory erroneous.
The maximum speed of any that accelerate (distance – speed) cannot be same that average speed.
So inflation is not a solution, without it there would not be expansion theory, not give solutions, give the minimal need to not close this theories, don’t arrange nothing, also not consider 9e that probably from now would need to add to inflation theory.
The theory don’t explain why occurs the inflation, how the universe with physic laws create and end this time, why only 1 time, … – inflation is not a solution is only a patch needed in expansion and Big Bang theories for not crash directly.
The universe is not a house where if I need a staircase I put it, need to explain why, how, …
21e – Vision of CMBR
In the future the CMBR will be not visible.
CMBR is in all places, but all places in the past of 17.5 billion years, by that need to be at 17.5 billion light-years in distance.
In the past for example at 100 million years old, the CMBR would to be at 100 million light-years, and at 200 million to see at 200 million, but how the universe not expand so quickly (distance – speed) each time see a universe more distant and with more speed. Today we see a CMBR near c by that in the future we cannot see a more distance point of the universe with more speed.
Seem at least strange that in past the CMBR would have less expansion speed and in any time (1 or more million years) this would be not visible. I consider another evidence this strange relation. I don’t believe very much in the coincidences.
22e – In the universe with so many much expansion how can create new stars.
According to inflation, expansion and 9e, in this very extended universe how is probably that born new stars, with space expanded many times.
23e – How expansion take in count galaxies.
According to the theory the expansion not affect in zones with gravity, but a galaxy normally has many millions light-years in size, so: how can the universe take in count this distance?
If the expansion would be in all places and gravity adjust it, a galaxy with many million light-years would need this all the time to adjust it and constantly (the expansion occurs all the time) and probably with adjust very slow in relation at light-speed and would be visible, …
If the expansion is not in galaxies: how the universe take in count this spaces and adjust resulting not error in Hubble’s law? Seem processing computer in the universe?
Only an optic effect make all this good.
24e – According to expansion we can speak over 1=2
The quality of space is their size, how can change this quality and become 1x space = 2x space = 20x space, …
A gas or solid has a quality and this is the mass, if it changes is taken how a miracle or simply impossible: Why space can change their quality?
Time also has a quality: the same time and can change, may have different measures and references, but it cannot change (we can put 1 second new between 2 anothers, …)
Why if the quality of space change is not considered impossible and different of any other element?
Why is it not considered against physic and mathematics?
Why is evident that space expand?
25e – There are not explanation of why occurs things in expansion.
Inflation, first seconds, Big Bang, pre Big Bang, brake of inflation, .. Nobody explains why occurs.
The expansion theories explain how occurs but not why, what immutable physic laws permit this changes, …
In biology (for example), .. may occur a thing or not: a lion can take a piece or not, act the natural selection, but this is cosmology and the physic laws are immutable in time and space. Physic laws explain well how a star end in supernova, but not how and why begin inflation, …
That physic laws are unchanging is show easily by fossil register of the universe: we see 17.5 billion light-years radius and 17.5 billion years and not changes. CMBR can to be explained how in 6e.
26e – Things of Big Bang occurs only 1 time.
In all the visible register of the universe 17.5 billion years and light-years only occurs 1 Big Bang (not visible), 1 inflation (not visible), … and the actual size of the universe is many times bigger. Also, actually expansion is accelerating and also 1 times only in all the register (in far past expand slowly – also 1 only time).
27e – Many informations of incredible theories and nothing over visible things
There are many theories over expansion and Big Bang and nothing explain: why accelerates? Why after inflation brake?, …
28e – For expansion there are not knows physic laws
29e – What physic law allow expand empty space?
30e – Only an expansion by axis (3d=cubic) can to be flat and homogeneous
31e – How galaxies can sweep a universe in expansion?
32e – Each person has a different idea of expansion and Big Bang
33e – Only can to be an optic effect
An optic effect is not against physic laws (all expansion theories are against physic laws), is visually like an expansion equal in all directions and points, is flat and homogeneous.
Not expand space.
My hypothesis 14h give a possible solution growing visual distance by gravity, the distance increments always and little sufficient in so very big distances. Is proven that light is curved by gravity and according to physic laws: Gravitational lens, …
34e – Physics cannot admit any form of creation
Nothing of create (or expand from nothing) space, create an universe from a Big Bang, create matter and energy, time … in a Big Bang.
The only 1 possibility is that matter-energy exist from always, same time and space, there are conversions matter-energy and the universe is infinite in space and time.
35e – The only 1 is that can expand visually like say the theory of expansion is an optic effect.
Optics effect relation distance with anything (perspective with visual size), they are equal in all directions and from all the points, is flat and homogeneous, not lose angle (a cubic is flat, but lose angle).
It’s according to physic laws and mathematics, a real expansion would be magic, against geometry, not flat, ..
A visual effect with light curvature is according also with Hubble’s law, redshift, time delay, …
36e – Nothing can to be created or destroyed
37e – Physic facts cannot be against physic laws and mathematics.
38e – The reality is easy and clear according to physic laws that also are easy and clear.
Expansion and Big Bang is against this point.
39e – Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR
“Deuterium, …in the First Three Minutes” – http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence – in this page speak over the evidence for the Big Bang
“cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened at around 3000 K” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation – during the CMBR
This 2 theories are incompatibles and both are considered evidence for Big Bang (blackbody CMB and not visible later of CMB).
At least 1 of this theories is false, maybe the 2, impossible that both are true.
If in “First Three Minutes” born Deuterium (and arrive to us when many other elements like inflaton, black body, .. has not arrived and posterior in time of creation theories) there are already atoms in this 3 minutes and would to be the back CMB in white and not in black.
If hydrogen atoms are formed in CMB (3000ºk) it’s impossible that deuterium exist from first 3 minutes. Same problem with inflaton. CMBR is visible, inflaton and first 3 minutes are only theories.
Both are considered evidence for Big Bang and big theories.
If at least 1 of this theories is false, sure there are more. All impossible is considered evident in expansion.
40e – Impossible galaxies collision and new stars in present days.
According to expansion theories the present universe would to be many times expanded from far universe.
According to this theory in more past more easy to see galaxies collision and more difficult at present days, the vision is stretch, but in that past time the real distance was many more little, stretch of vision is not expansion.
41e – Inflation theory is not a good theory, it’s needed for not crash the expansion theory.
Only by inflation can explain how the universe expand visually at light speed and to have that size, without this theory would to be impossible that an expansion in relations distance-speed could expand so much.
In an accelerated expansion or speed, maximal speed cannot be the same that average speed.
Unfortunately inflation theory don’t explain why and according to what physic laws brake from a so big expansion by megaparsec to the actual (all the time registered of 17.5 billion years have near the same expansion and today accelerates, also without explanation).
By 9e the radius need to be many times bigger from 45 billion light years (10x to 20x)
42e – The background (CMB) expand near light speed.
Strange at least this so very big coincidence.
If today the universe would expand a few more quickly (megaparsec) the CMBR would not be visible, if a few less also not visible: the CMB is all, but only in 17.5 billion years old and to see that need to stay at 17.5 billion light years from us.
Strange also that universe accelerate many in inflation, later brake and just expand today in the form that CMB is visible. Really the possibility of this so good value is probably less that 1/1 trillion
In a universe without expansion and only visual expansion there is not problem: they are pre-stars and by time arrive to us without problem, first light at good distance arrive.
43e – Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force)
44e – Instantaneous and inexhaustible
Without this: inflation, brake of inflation, CMBR, dark energy, acceleration of expansion, … are not possibles. Remember that all physic laws needed are unknowns.
45e – Expansion need physic laws unknowns (and/or 28e)
They are also against mathematics and need instantaneous or near, … but all astronomers say it’s evident.
46e – Expansion need to take in count size of galaxies.
According to the theory the expansion is only in places without gravity, but in this form galaxies (many with million light years of size) not expand and expansion according to Hubble’s law need to take in count this space.
Really if universe expand equal in all direction and point in all direction there are galaxies that need to be compensated.
The problem also exist in perpendicular: according to the theory expand equal in all points, but in this condition need to expand all points in perpendicular until the infinite and galaxies and points with gravity create here a big problem.
And all this without create waves by zones with expansion and without it, and in all the universe.
Also would create pieces without space, probably light cannot travel in pieces without space and this don’t happen.
47e – A universe in expansion would to be against Hubble’s law
A flat and homogeneous expansion (the universe cannot be flat and homogeneous with 1 not homogeneous expansion) only can to be according to axis (by that speak over flat in relation to 2d), in 3d is cubic.
A cubic (flat) expansion is homogeneous, but not equal in all direction and fault angle in distance.
An expansion equal in all direction is impossible (more near is sphere, but only in 1 point), unknown geometrical figure (don’t exist).
An expansion cannot be at same time cubic and near spherical, cannot be by arc equidistant (sphere).
The excuse of more dimension is bad: we see in 3d, the expansion is show in 3d, …
More: dark energy is needed and say that exist clusters, but the expansion is equal in all point and directions according to Hubble’s law, by that dark energy is the same more or less or none. In a universe in expansion (creation) also dark energy would need to create more.
48e – Only an optic effect is according to visual expansion and physic laws. (47e, ..)
49e – Why we are not at universe end?
According to theoretical size of the universe (45 billion light years) we have many probabilities to see universe end (9e)
In expansion is few probably not to see the end or need to have a radius of 10x-20x or more.
This would be a good evidence of a finite universe.
50e – Expansion & Big-Bang can’t explain Universe start & end and nothing of nothing
51e – Casual that expand equal in all point and with fossil register
52e – few probably not to see any end of the universe and see all the CMBR (and 49e)
53e – Science must not admit superstition and data without proofs
All the expansion theory has not proof (astronomers say that have), not evidence, not knows physic laws, …
All impossible cannot have proofs.
People that believe in UFOS also say that have proofs and evidences.
54e – The theory explain how could pass, but admit impossibles
All bad, nothing balance, but all is say evident. All time are forget the impossibles, forget that nothing balance, …
55e – Angle fault
In any expansion different from spherical the angle fault (v inverted), in a flat expansion (like cubic) as well.
The theory say that we are who separate, by that we can consider the concentric circles (or spheres) how distances in more time from we are separated, but the angle fault and this is impossible, the universe we see don’t have angle fault.
Only a spherical expansion has not angle fault, but is not flat, …
56e – CMBR temperature
This has 3ºk with a difference of 1ºK and by that say that is very homogeneous, but this is by stretch of 3000ºk and differences of 1000ºk (not so homogeneous).
Really is an anti Big Bang evidence (6e with blackbody) and not any evidence for Big Bang, pre-stars also give a very good explanation.
57e – There are many optical effects and are different of what really happens
58e – The expansion need a proof
If you see it so evidence: why don’t you present a real proof?
Draw the geometrical figure of the form that expands the universe.
The so called proofs and evidences are not so. Particles physic is not proof of expansion of the universe, …
Expansion and Big Bang is all against physic laws, geometry (part of mathematics) and without proofs and evidences.
59e – Expansion and Big Bang theories are near perfect, but impossibles
Very good theories, very good minds searching solutions, .. but is impossible and against physic laws and geometry.
60e – With actual and registered expansion the universe would be more little
Need inflation to create a bigger universe (41e)
61e – Only is possible a universe without expansion
Only a universe without real expansion and visual expansion is homogeneous (after comoving), visually expand in all direction and places, not need geometrical figure, flat, homogeneous, not lose angle, is according to physic laws, Hubble’s law, redshift, time delay, … is not magic and is possible.
62e – Universe is physic not philosophic
All expansion and Big Bang theories seem more philosophic and metaphysics that physic, seeking explanation of how can to be, but not according to physic laws, … admit impossibles, …
63e – Expansion and Big Bang are against know physic laws.
64e – From where expand
Is easy to say that from itself, but this is more philosophy.
Create a first space from nothing and expand from itself. Good.
65e – From where born so much mass-energy without space?
The theory only speak over space expansion, so in the first time (creation or exist already) need to exist or create all the mass-energy of all the universe.
If mass-energy was created: why later not more?
66e – How was created mass, energy, time, first space, …?
67e – Why brake the inflation?. And Why so much?. And Why now balance with speed and distance of the CMB?
And also: how brake homogeneous the inflation in a universe without instantaneous signals? How accelerate today the expansion in a universe without instantaneous signals?. Any tell me that with a physic law, then: What physic law make these changes at same time in all the universe in a universe without changing physic laws and with an unknown physic law?. Remember that after inflation time the universe would have more of 1/2 of radius actual and in acceleration near actual size.
By logic and according to physic laws that not change and according to not instantaneous the inflation would not brake.
68e – Big Crunch has not relation with escape forces
69e – Error predictions and theories
All the sciences, .. have error in predictions and theories and in time go better with proof and error, but in astronomy all is without error and without experimentation and without learn.
All the expansion without proofs, perfect, against physic laws and mathematics and all evident (and according to astronomers with many proofs).
70e – Deuterium
Blackbody has not arrive to us (only know like theoretical) and in time was all the universe according to the Big Bang theory, same with inflaton.
None proof of dark energy.
But Deuterium become from First Three Minutes and it’s past from blackbody and inflaton. Why?
Probably a more easy form of obtain approbation for a theory is to join with an element with so quantity like is the Deuterium.
71e – If Deuterium theory is fake. How much more? (and 39e)
72e – What is the relation between particles physic and Big Bang?: none
Then what relation there are between particle accelerator of CERN and Big Bang: none
Expansion and Big Bang may to be relation with particles, but particles has not relation with Big Bang. In the same form that Big Bang can have relation with CMBR, but CMBR has not relation with Big Bang (there are many other solutions) (and 8e).
So a proof of particles physic is not a proof of Big Bang like say astronomers.
Particles physic has not relation with expansion and Big Bang, nothing, a relation from Big Bang to particles is not a relation from particles to Big Bang, so all these probably proofs are none.
In this point are so guilty who have joined this 2 matters how who have approved it. This problem (and considered actually like an evidence respect to CMBR and Big Bang)
Example: A car may mash a foot, but not all the mash foot are mashed by cars
73e – If in Big Bang was creation this is magic
Also space expansion how creation, … creation is against physic and according to magic.
Why physic only admit magic in expansion and Big Bang?
If in Big Bang or in expansion there is creation: goodbye physic.
74e – What is more impossible that expand or create space and in all directions and places?
75e – Life has begin and end, matter-energy not.
76e – If anything seem impossible and all indicates that really is impossible: Why is evident that exist?
77e – Expansion and Big Bang have nothing logical
78e – What happens when people needed to demonstrate anything is false, but believe in it?
People that believe in UFO say that have evidence and proofs, scientists and rationalist can demonstrate all is false, but what happens when the scientists believe in expansion and Big Bang? How do you demonstrate that all is false?
The impossible cannot have proofs and evidences.
The universe and physic have not magic, but expansion and Big Bang have magic: the magic only is in the mind of who admit it, in this case: scientists.
The scientific need to be skeptical, not believers.
In the same form that scientists believe in expansion and Big Bang also can believe in: UFO, magic, fortune-telling, astrology, martians, …. (really UFO is more probable that expansion, expansion has probability of zero, UFO only a few more, but UFO is physically possible and expansion is physically impossible).
It’s near impossible make understand to any that believe in any impossible that their belief is not true, always think that has evidences and proofs (sects, believer, religions, …) and same occur with scientists or pseudo that have their believer over expansion and big-bang and believe there are evidences and proofs). Many believers are also fanatics.
79e – Expansion and Big Bang only obey at magic laws
80e – What happens if the scientific is believer and not skeptical? (and 78e)
How can submission my work to people that believe against it?. Scientifics that believe that expansion and Big Bang are evident?
81e – Particles physic and expansion have not relation
82e – Science not admit miracles (creation=miracle and magic)
83e – Big Bang is or magic (creation) or it’s not the begin and there is a pre-Big Bang
84e – An optic effect is flat
Is flat, homogeneous (in universe after comoving), expansion visual (light blended by gravity), according to physic laws and mathematics, not magic, according also with redshift, time delay, Hubble’s law, ….
85e – If universe expand only in places without gravity there are problems
Expansion is according to Hubble’s law, need to take in count size of galaxies in all directions, …
86e – If space expand (or create) we need to close the physic and believe in magic and gods.
87e – 1 only mm created (or expanded) need to take place in all the universe or compress the near space
88e – Expansion cannot be at same time anything and opposite
If it expands flat not expand equal in all directions, if it expands in all directions cannot be flat and homogeneous, we see only in 3d and by that a flat expansion only could to be cubic.
The universe cannot be flat and homogeneous with an expansion different of flat.
Flat and expand in all directions are opposites.
89e – Expansion and Big Bang are impossibles total
Expansion (creation) is impossible total and any mathematical can demonstrate that there are not possible geometrical figure.
They argument that there are more dimensions: but our vision is 3d and cannot see more dimension, if we see expand in all directions and points this expansion need to be in 3d, not in 6d because we see it and we can’t see 6d
Also argument that the space can to be curved, but curved space is not flat, and geometrical figures curved change: a sphere curved it’s not a sphere.
See also 88e
Expand (creation) of space is impossible (magic, creationism), but that expand equal in all direction and from all places, flat, … is impossible by geometry (part of mathematics)
The only possible expansion (in case of to be possible a creation of space) flat would be by axis (by that is called flat because flat in 2d is by axis), and in 3d would to be cubic, but a cubic expansion lose angle with distance and in general is against expansion theory.
An expansion different to an expansion by axis (flat) cannot give a universe flat, homogeneous and isotropic and this 3 are facts.
An impossible cannot have proof and evidences, but all belief (normally of an impossible) like sectarian, belief, .. say that have proofs and evidences: UFO, astrology, martians, …
Really against say astronomers http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence there are no one evidence (impossible) and at least 2 theories (taken like evidences) are incompatibles: 89e (1 of their consider evidence the deuterium – Would also consider an evidence the stones?)
Physic laws are strict, without changes and useful in all places, but according to expansion theory this physic laws change before and after CMBR, really expansion is against physic laws.
All expansion and Big Bang not take in count physic laws, don’t explain according to what physic laws, only explain the information that needs for adapt to their theories. This theories only are filler for holes. Don’t explain: Why blackbody? (only know as theoretical) (6e), Dark energy? (3e), inflaton?, …
In my evidences (by contrast with their Big Bang evidence) show that their evidences are nothing and same proofs. Probably many of the proofs are over particles (really particles and Big Bang are not relation).
There are theories that relation particles and Big Bang, but this is an error admitted, there are not relation, and maybe a theoretical over Big Bang show anything over particles, but that anything in particles has not relation with Big Bang. Suppose: a car has wheels, but the existence of wheels is not proof or evidence for cars. And in general an impossible cannot have proofs, but belief think that have it.
If like making proof that expand (create) space or show the geometrical figure to show the form that expands the universe. And also in this point (impossible) would not be sufficient (necessary, but not sufficient).
Belief in impossible create sects, in this case of scientists. This belief is creationism against science: expansion is really creation of space and creation from nothing only is magic, belief and gods. The scientists are guilty by admitting impossibles and all without proofs (the “burden of proof” need to be presented by who affirm anything) and also to dirty the science.
Maybe in any experiment that show like create or destroy mass, energy, … but always there is any physic explanation, in the past also to things not know attribute magic. Physic don’t admit magic and physicists need not admit. The magic only is in the mind or who admit it (believer), but astronomers and scientist admit magic and belief in creationism. The prestige for science will not return until separate science from magic.
Here the problem is that astronomers belief in expansion (creation) but also all scientists that admit the impossible and by that all scientists are members of this belief-sect and according to creationism.
You can continue in your belief or understand that expansion (creation) and Big Bang are impossibles. I’m not ashamed by saying the true, maybe you will be ashamed by not recognize it.
Expansion is opposite to compression and creation is opposite to destruction.
This so big and profound belief (cannot be another thing over an impossible) not permit show the true. I’m treating show it near 2 years, the truth is that universe cannot expand.
90e – Many supposed evidences and proof have not double direction
For example: Big Bang theory say that by Big Bang would to have CMBR (this is for many people the maximal proof), but CMBR not need Big Bang (other possibilities how visual expansion and Big Bang is impossible).
Same with many other supposed evidences and proofs: A go to B, but B not go to A.
Same with all: redshift, blackbody, time delay, Hubble’s law, …
91e – Astronomers and scientists in general today are sectarian.
People that believe in anything without proof are members of sects. Astronomers and scientists that believe in expansion and Big Bang, believe in any impossible and by that are members of a sect.
In expansion there are nothing true, nothing proof, … by that only believe without proofs, all impossible.
92e – The paradoxical of that farthest stars is the maximum we can see in the future
The CMB is expanding visually near light speed, is also in relation with the years we can see (first stars) but also will be the max visual distance in future according to expand very near of lightspeed.
93e – The called expansion is really creation
Expansion also is related to compression, also is impossible anything expand from compressed in billion years at constant quantity all the time without know the cause. Remember that according to the theory only expand (create) space in places without gravity and by that empty or almost.
If it’s expansion also can compress the space with near space, but this is impossible according to Hubble’s law, so only can to be creation
Expansion – compression would to be easier understand overall in relation with galaxies and places with gravity, but against Hubble’s law
Also in an expansion and creation would be possible places without space (at same time that places with more space [compressed], …) and in that point probably cannot travel the light, bodies, … and this don’t happen: near galaxies, … If it’s probably in places with space compressed also is possible in places with less space and without space.
This and 94e show that only can to be creation (and creation is magic, believe and gods)
So only can to be creation. (and 94e) (expasion is opposite to comprension and creation is opposite to destruction)
94e – In compressed space the light and bodies would travel more slowly
And by that at less compressed space more quickly would travel the light, also body travel more quickly in an space less compressed, …
This is more near philosophy and against fossil register visible of far and past universe.
This and 93e show that only can to be creation (and creation is magic, believe and gods)
95e – Attention, many believers are fanatics
Many believer are sure over their beliefs, consider they are true, are sure there are evidences and proofs. Many believers are also fanatics and many also in time convert in fanatics. (78e)
96e – It’s easy confuse live with universe
We born and die, we make (really convert things) and believe so that universe born and die that matter is created, but we don’t create things only convert matter (a chair it’s not created, only transform the wood, iron, ..)
We are also accustomed to new animals and children: from a man and a woman born a son, but this is also not physical creation, this is biology how born and die of an animal or person, but their mass is not created and not destroyed. In this form 1 man + 1 woman = 3 (+ 1 son), is against mathematics, but according to biology.
In physic the things are not created, not destroyed, only transformed. Create and destroy only may to be made by magic and gods.
Try to apply our biological born, die, creation of new objects (transformation) to physic is a big error, but our mind is accustomed with this form of thinking.
97e – Each person has a different idea over expansion and Big Bang
When an idea is rare and difficult (how expansion and big-bang) each person has normally a few different believe over it, I ear many different ideas over expansion and big-bang, this normally occurs with false and very difficult ideas.
The physic is easy and very strict, this so many difficult and many ideas is another evidence against this super-strange-difficult idea that astronomers have created with expansion and big-bang: no geometrical figure, creation or expansion of space, big-bang (initial moment of creation), gods, magic, …
Some tell me that don’t believe in Big Bang, but believe in expansion, … and give me very strange theories, always so strange and against physic laws how mainstream of expansion and Big Bang theories.
False normally is complicated and strange: UFO, astrology, martians, … the true normally is easy and clear.
Science is easy, clear, exact and strict: 1+1=2 and not 2.1 or 3, all people that knows it gives the same result, not admit magic, belief, gods, …
98e – Our eyes mistake us in daily: Why do you believe don’t mistake in far?
Our eyes mistake us every day in many things: mirrors, objects underwater, objects underwater with waves on the water, smoke, heat, reflects, reflects in curved surface, mirages, rainbow, aurora borealis, nightfall, stars that seeing by night seem to travel, colours changed with few light, the grass far seem more uniform that near grass, …
Mostly we have costume and already our mind understand that errors: mirror, … and correct it, but according to astronomers this can’t happen in far universe. In near events we can go to the object and see that we have to see a mistake, but in far universe it’s impossible to go there and sure what happens really.
But I don’t say that our eyes mistake us, I say that probably redshift is a visual effect by blended of light by gravity. In any case expansion is impossible.
99e – Mind so good for UFO would consider today UFO true, evident and with proofs.
If so good minds (doctors, graduates, …) work to demonstrate that UFO are true today the UFO would consider true, evident and with proofs. In same form with any other impossible.
Consider also the form that these theories work: you make a proposition, if this is according to examiner, go in the mainstream, is reasonable, … is approved. If has any error tell you, then you can change errors to prove another time for approbation.
In this form any impossible can to be consider evident, but an impossible continue impossible same with the better approved forms.
Do you believe this is not the form that occurs with expansion and Big Bang theories? And also with related theories?
100e – If you can create anything from nothing is probably I believe any possibility of expansion of the universe
In this form (space, matter, a stone, ..) I would consider is possible that universe expand, but not all sure (you need also give a geometrical figure), but also I would consider the physic has not value and the good is to believe in gods and magic.
Really create anything from nothing represent the end of physic how science. This in all form of consideration actual: quantum physic, particles physic, end of first law of thermodynamics, …
101e – Expansion in places without gravity and nor in gravity places is incompatible with physic laws
The explanation of the theory that expansion is only in places without gravity is against physic laws and mathematics, but according to the theory because in other form can’t explain.
Against physic laws because then only empty can create space, is against all physic laws, take in count size of galaxies, take in count perpendicular expansion with galaxies, …
Against mathematics because nothing adjust: the space need to be in count the space with gravity: galaxies, … and has not computer for that.
102e – Think in a universe from 0 to all seem ridiculous
Think from a Big Bang with nothing (0 space, 0 time, 0 matter-energy) to transform to the actual visible universe (and more) seem ridiculous, create all from nothing, so big space is equal to 0, ….
The matter-energy all is created in time 1 (in a few seconds or less), time born in big-bang, space all time grow how time, but time is lineal, but space it’s not
If time and space are lineal this probably would need that how we can change the position also would change the time, …
This big universe (many billion year light in radius, so many volume) is from 0, not expand over nothing (a balloon expand over space, using more space – but universe create-expand over itself).
The big power of Big Bang what without time and space and nothing create in less of 1 second all.
And all this against physic laws and against mathematics, and against science in general.
103e – if time 0 creates Big Bang how time 13.5 billions years don’t create nothing more that space
If time 0 (null), not space and not matter-energy create all we know (and all we don’t see, but form part of the universe): How is it possible that time infinite bigger: 13.5 billions years, space infinite bigger and matter-energy infinite bigger don’t create more Big Bangs, …
Any quantity divide by 0 is infinite.
104e – Expansion and Big Bang need changes in physic laws
Without changes in physic laws expansion and Big Bang are not possible.
Expansion: actual acceleration of expansion after 17.5 billion years seeing in fossil register.
Big Bang (also): the same Big Bang, brake after inflation, inflaton, first seconds, CMBR, blackbody, dark energy, …
105e – Why expand empty space and not expand not empty space?
The logic indicate the contrary, where there is possible make anything, but not where there is nothing.
It’s near understand that who has nothing can give to others, but who has anything cannot give to others. Or that you can drown in water where there is not water, but you cannot drown if there is water.
The most elemental logic indicates the contrary to the affirmation of this theories. Maybe the solution is that astronomers consider the universe without logic and only making what theirs desire.
This seems paradoxical
106e – The universe-nature usually re-use the same figures, but not expansion form.
Spheres in universe there are many, re-used, bodies like rocks, …
But expansion of the universe (unknown geometrical form) only 1 time is supposed, so that neither mathematics know the possible geometrical form.
107e – Homogeneity is a fact, expansion not
Homogeneity is a fact, it’s not possible expand in homogeneity, according to expansion theory (same in all places and equal in all directions) by that expansion is not possible.
Same with isotropy, flat, not lose angle, …
Homogeneity, isotropy, .. are anti expansion evidences. Expansion visual is possible without expansion real.
108e – Is easy to say that not expand in places with gravity
According to the theory the universe not expand in places with gravity, but this is easy to say (and need to say it the theory) but against visual.
In an expansion, by comoving the galaxies also need to expand according to angle not change, in the computer graphics comoving the galaxies need also expand for not change angle of vision with distance and to continue with the expansion that believe the astronomers.
In other form the galaxies need to lose angle and increase this in places without galaxies, by comoving also is ridiculous.
Against it astronomers cannot explain the expansion in galaxies, but all this works of expansion is full of errors and holes.
109e – Why only space expand?
If space can expand by logic also matter-energy, time, …
In fact according to Big Bang in the first time all theirs was created.
So, close the first law of thermodynamics according to laws equal for all, … Good-bye science, welcome magic and gods
110e – Not seem strange that religions are gratefully with expansion and Big Bang (creationism)
Expansion and Big Bang introduce creation in science (magic, creationism, belief) so is the success of all religion against science, by last (from expansion theory) religions win to science.
All or near all the religions believe in creation: Egiptians … until modern religions.
Graceful today is not obliged science to admit religion, but are the same scientists (bad scientists) who have admitted magic in science.
I hear in a documentary a religious said: “Big bang, OK, but who makes Big Bang: God”
Scientists have introduced belief in science (believe in an impossible), or a black hand. This will mean discredit complete for all believer scientists (all of near all of theirs, today).
The problem is very big: it’s probably that all begin with a bad intention to collapse science (bad intention by a group) but the rest of scientists have accepted these lies and adopted like a true.
In this point is important that you understand that expansion is really impossible: need to CREATE space (impossible) and equal in all direction and points (impossible according to geometry – part of the mathematics) and remain flat, homogeneous, …
All belief create fanatics. All belief believe that have true that have evidences, that have proof: UFO, astrology, sects, martians, …
In near 2 years all my work has been rejected. My work only say that expansion (creation) of the universe is impossible and really is impossible and now I add that who believe in anything impossible only can be a believer.
Here I can remember that all against the scientific belief is today “against the mainstream” and mainstream don’t need to obey physic laws, not need to explain why, … but all “against mainstream” with reasonable information, according to physic laws and against the belief is rejected. (the sect know without errors that they have the TRUE, that have PROOFS and EVIDENCES) – look how real are they evidences in evidence: 900e.
Repeat: anything impossible cannot have evidences and proofs, this can to be over UFO, astrology, strange belief or scientific believers, anything impossible is only impossible, any proof is false or over another thing (particles, ..) and evidence is false or over another thing (visual expansion not means real expansion), …
So all scientists (all or near all of theirs believe today in expansion and Big Bang) are sectarians and believers. Also, mathematics because any mathematics could demonstrate that expansion is impossible (there is not possible a geometrical figure that permits expansion like expansion and big bang theories need).
By this, I accuse to all scientists, from today until admit this impossible of creation (belief, sect, gods) and until the future day that science repair all these errors (expansion and Big Bang theory is not the only impossible error and creation that admit the scientists, probably the begin was the quantum physic).
I know that an intelligent people sometime make stupid things, but: Is it possible so many scientists and many times in this error?
I think probably the scientists with more prestigious and power are the guilty and taken the science how their country estate where can make all they like, by that need in future total discredit. Probably the better today is not have prestige like me because all scientific with prestige will lose it. Probably only believers and members of this sect have prestige today.
Science need to be always skeptic in all, but today is all belief in false believes.
Is probably that the only few skeptics need all of theirs work against the mainstream because they cannot work in mainstream, but in this near 2 year (1.5 years, I have not found any in “against the mainstream” that it’s where I move my work). I only have received all form of reject, study advice, offends more or less personal, and all types of strange ideas all without obey physic laws and so impossibles like Big Bang, …
Here I remember that to know that anything is false is not necessary to know all (against astronomers and amateurs tell me). To know that magician make tricks it’s not necessary to know all the trick (even no one), only is need rationalism and skeptic, to know that UFO don’t exist not is necessary to know all supposed vision of UFOS, …
So: no scientific newspaper, no forum, no emails, no blogs, … I have only obtained impression of all believers in this new sect that thinks that expansion is evident, also that Big Bang is evident, but nobody thinks that not obey physic laws, not obey mathematics, is not possible, …
All people reject my work and nobody give me reason, but also not logic arguments (I would have error, but my true is the error of this theories = “The universe does not expand” is the name of my web), all work I begin end against a wall of belief (all sure that expansion is evident and with proofs) that believe that have the reason.
I accuse to scientists to make the against to the real scientific work, against biologic that treat to teach the evolution of Darwin and fight against the creationist (today called the intelligent design) that promote the religions, and have a skeptic mind and perform against impossibles, they have open the way to creation, magic and religion in themes how this of expansion and Big Bang.
Power and prestige scientists and also newspaper, .. believe and are members of this sect, also is probably they don’t admit anything against their belief. It’s probably that exist really this sect and control the scientific information, the rest are normally useful believers. (it’s probably not to be casual, to be made by interest and bad intentions).
Thinking that against belief in this impossible would be controlled and not permit me access to scientific newspaper, .. I ask you to help me if you think I have any logic real in my information: I need viral email, forum, news, blogs, universities, skeptics, … give information to give this work to know for people and counteract my enemies (they have many means and power). I cannot register in all forums, … Need to hit the wall created by creationism to demolish it.
Also scientific newspaper take the copyright for it against the intellectual (cost of demonstration, .. but that obtain the copyright by himself). I was according to it to obtain the information ahead, but like this is part of the sect now I consider another problem today to add.
Think also what happens if Darwin could not public their information, today we treat creation theories how the unique in biology.
Probably this sect makes proselytism in creationism theories: universities, newspapers, … Imagine proselytism in universities over UFO, martians, astrology, gods, …
That religious are according to creationism is logic, but that scientists are according to creationism is strange, unprecedented, …
A group that makes proselytism and with control over mediums not permit access of against ideas to theirs.
A big magic trick from scientists: open the science to creation, magic and gods and against the same science (creationism is against science).
Expansion of the universe is creationism in all time and places, Big Bang also need a big creationism initial.
You cannot convince to a believer with the true, in the same form that all the evidences I have writed and sent to scientific newspaper has been rejected.
Expansion is opposite to compression and creation is opposite to destruction.
More: believe in an impossible like this makes impossible to understand and admit the true.
Resume: expansion of universe and Big Bang are simply impossible, but many scientists belief in expansion and Big Bang (both impossible totally)
You can continue with your belief or admit this true. The answer is binary: expansion (creation) or not expansion. I’m not ashamed of to say the true, maybe you will be ashamed by not recognize it.
111e – Do you believe that I need to be submitted by believers in expansion?
In time my work will be admitted, the same people that admit it will be discredit.
Also these people believe in the belief of that universe expand and probably no one information change their belief (until now I have not obtained advance).
Then: Do you know where can I submit my work?
If you think this work has logic: Can you help me by sending it to your email contacts for viral expansion of this work?
112e – Any logic person understand that expansion is impossible
But scientists probably are not logic, they are believers.
113e – Physic laws are the same in space and time, but against expansion theories.
All physic laws are constants, work in any place and any time, but expansion, big-bang, inflation, … are all against physic laws or need new physic laws unknowns and changes in the knows physic laws
114e – If scientists think evident what is impossible: Where is the limit? How much more things are bad?
115e – Bad day the day that scientists make a sect.
All the science today is contaminated with believes, the power is taken by a group of believers and all scientists that are not against it are also of the same sect.
Never in the past was a coup so big against science and this was from into.
But seem not strange today: economics, politics, countable engineering that obtain the globes and crisis in economic, laws, power of nations, … are all near the same: deceive and treason to all sectors and society. Why not the science?
116e – Universities of astronomy can to be another thing that proselytism
These universities of astronomy and science in general form homogeneous individuals without mind that believe in impossible things and consider that the true.
Seem not rare that many universities have a religious direction.
Obtain a so homogeneous minds seem strange, but they are obtained that. In the past was necessary bonfire and torture, but today the civilisation has advances, only is needed formation and people not skeptic. The victory of the “single mindset”.
117e – for astronomers any strange thing according to expansion is proof and evidence
All the evidences are not true or have another explanations: 900e, 6e (a better explanation of blackbody), …
More: admit contradictory theories: 39e. In many points admit a thing and inverse: expansion would need to be cubic and spherical at same time, 39e, the universe need physic laws and don’t need theirs, …
Proof: any impossible cannot have proofs, but in expansion and Big Bang any relation in any form with theirs taken as proof: particles, …
118e – Science not need gods, but expansion (creation) need theirs.
Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe – error: Big Bang and expansion need gods or magic (creation is against science and only can be by magic).
The problem bigger is that in affirmation how this that who affirm this not sees that make a contradiction, he is only a believer in expansion (creation, creationism, magic, religion, gods).
119e – All scientific believed in expansion don’t make it true.
120e – Big Rip and Big Crunch have probabilities less of 1/billion
This 2 theories (ridiculous) have been accepted, but have a very few probability (and near all the other theories related to expansion):
Big Rip seem few probably, in inflationary the expansion speed was very bigger by megaparsec, today accelerate, but in a relation many times less and few change in all fossil time registers. By that is near impossible. In inflation according to expansion theory the expansion need to be infinite times bigger. In relation distance-speed the less distance was the bigger expansion and don’t was ripped. The expansion today is the same in all points and today is very little compared to inflation. Big Rip has relation with expansion from compressed but not with creation and not motion.
Big Crunch also seem few probably, the physic laws would need to change and according to the register time of the universe all expand all the 17.5 billion years, there are not instantaneous, … and in general is few probable. Expansion has not relation with escape forces, … not concentration laws, … not changed laws in 17.5 billion years.
Big Crunch also has relation with expansion – compression, but expansion of the universe is creation (creationism) and by that Big Crunch would have relation with destruction – more gods and impossible (008e).
The only probability in all cases (expansion and not expansion) is Big Black-holes (Big in joke against Big Bang, Big Crunch and Big Rip), today already in the middle of galaxies there are black holes growing and attracting more and more stars.
Probably the end of the universe would be big Black-holes and any absorb another, but probably not end all in 1 only black hole (the space is infinite or near), also is probable that far star in each galaxy scape from black-hole central (gravity is slow in distance) but probably in time absorbed by 1 or another black-hole that travel free by the universe.
There is a little probability of dissolve black holes, but seem very little: black body only emit particles in the axis, the black holes today are very little compared to galaxies and in future will be of all the galaxy, is probably that a bigger black hole not lose particles if this can escape from so much gravity, … but it’s possible.
But astronomers give probably this 2 theories and accept theirs.
121e – Bad information and calculus in the CMBR
¿What can to be the precision of the CMBR map? ¿How is it possible unknown the origin of microwave (not light), from what is stretched and know the temperature stretched, …?
If we divide the CMBR map in 1ºx1º we obtain 360×360=129600 zones, in 10ºx10º are only 1296 zones (each photo need a large time of exposition by so big distances and so low signals).
1º with a radius of 17.5 billion light years, give us a side in CMBR of
sin 1º = x / 17.5 billion light years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle) by sin A = a/h = opposite/hypotenuse
x = sin 1(=0,01745) x 17.5 billion light years = 17500 million x 0.01745 = 305 million light years represent 1 degre in each axis.
Do you believe a precision of 305 million light years by degree is very precis in the CMBR for temperature, … in CMBR image?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
If a measurement of 1º x1º need 129600 photos, more probably use 10º x 10º that only need 1296 photos (also maybe more grades in each photo), in case of 10º the side is 3050 million light years (1 Light Years = 9460730472580.8 Kilometers) in http://www.calculateme.com/Astronomy/LightYears/ToKilometers.htm
So 1 only degree can contain probably 1000 or more galaxies (1º = 305 million x 9460730472580.8 Kilometers) = 305 x 9 trillions of kilometers = 2745 trillions of km or simply 305 millions of light years.
“The stellar disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years in diameter” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way so 305000000/100000 = 305000/100 = 3050 milky way could have 1º or 1025 milky way plus 1025 empty spaces with size of milky way (without take in count that image is 3d and by that can to have many more galaxies)
Also they don’t know why black body (is theoretical) (6e), don’t know origin of that microwave stretched and now temperature 3ºk what is from 3000ºk and differences of 1000ºk.
How possible is not know the origin of that microwave and to know their temperature without to know the origin?
But according to astronomers is evident and correct all information over CMBR, homogeneous, soup, few difference in temperature, … and the theories given like good, evident and proof.
In the CMBR image, you can see also black zones, more bright zones, …
122e – Expansion theory say galaxies are before stars
Expansion theory say that galaxies are before that stars, but this is not possible and have the same problem of homogeneity that if stars are before galaxies.
“fluctuations gravitationally attracted gas and dark matter to the denser areas” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
This solution is incorrect in all: a galaxy of gas has not gravity and by that it’s not a galaxy, also has the same problem to create stars that exist with cloud of gas from homogeneous gas.
Really the solution is that stars are before of galaxies, in first universe probably there are only gas (hydrogen) and none gravity, the gas travel free in space and create cumulus or clouds of gas obtaining gravity, from here more density and pre-stars and stars, stars in cluster create galaxies.
All the problem begin with the affirmation (without sense) that a homogeneous universe cannot create stars, this is false, example: level an embankment and in few time the rain create track. The universe has infinite time to create stars from gas homogeneous and gas is homogeneous, but can move free without gravity making clouds.
More: the problem with galaxies of gas would be the same because the gas in the galaxy would be homogeneous, but more: how there are not gravity the gas also could escape from the galaxy. A galaxy of gas has not gravity and by that is not a galaxy.
More: “fluctuations gravitationally attracted gas and dark matter to the denser areas” this would create a not homogeneous universe probably with empty areas and another areas more dense, but the universe is homogeneous, there are not sides without galaxies. All this also is against physic laws: need physic laws changeable for this, strange conditions, fluctuation not see in all the fossil register visual of 17.5 billion light years.
“a team from California Institute of Technology found six star forming galaxies about 13.2 billion light years (light travel distance) away and therefore created when the universe was only 500 million years old” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution – this show that really the stars create galaxies, this information not show, but 6 stars in a space near milky way is not a galaxy and has not gravity by that this information need to speak over 6 near stars that create a young galaxy.
Galaxies are formed by stars and gravity creating clusters, this traveling by the space and by gravity attract more stars growing the galaxy.
123e – All before CMBR according to theory use unknown and changing physic laws
All universe before CMBR and not visible according to the theory is strange, changeable (need physic laws with changes), and only give an explanation the theory like it needs to be to adequate to the theory, never explain why the universe make that strange things: Big Bang, first seconds, inflation, end of inflation and brake of expansion, inflaton, blackbody, …
124e – Impossible is impossible even with scientists belief in it.
125e – Why expansion and Big Bang are evidents?
Why have an evident page: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence? Why impossible and evident seem the same in astronomy? Why admit astronomers like proof things without real relation (particles, …)?
Why astronomers in general belief in all this impossibles?
I receive in many conversations always that expansion is evident.
Probably say: “evident” is the only defense in all this inconsistent theories.
126e – Universe don’t need explanation of expansion
Expansion and Big Bang and relations theories, nonsense, … are really not necessary, only to confirm the belief in expansion (or creation) from nothing. But all against physic laws, …
All the universe past, present and future can to be explained by a universe without expansion with visual expansion (probably by blended of light by gravity) and all this explanation is according to physic laws, …
All we see and measure from universe near and far is all according to physic laws in a universe infinite without creation and with visual expansion, against it a universe in expansion is against all physic laws, it has not logic, all explanations and theories are full of holes, need belief, creation, magic, process from imagination minds, impossible process, …
127e – Don’t exist: black energy, blackbody
Dark energy: 3e
Nobody has seen theirs, they are against physic laws, … a universe without expansion (only visual expansion) don’t need none of this, …
128e – The basic origin of expansion and Big Bang are impossible
Expand space and equal in all direction and from all point and flat and homogeneous expansion is totally impossible.
Accepting this can accept anything, also 2+2=5, …
129e – Expansion is not possible cubic, but also not spherical.
Cubic is flat, but like expansion cannot be cubic it cannot be flat, also not spherical and by that cannot have arcs and equidistant.
130e – How is the universe
The universe not expand, only visually expand (probably by light curved by gravity), nothing of dark energy, nothing of inflaton, nothing of blackbody material in CMBR, nothing of deuterium in first minutes, nothing against physic laws, nothing of magic, nothing of creation.
131e – Expansion only in zones without gravity is against Hubble’s law
Also here demonstrate that this theories give true anything and opposite.
132e – Expansion and Big Bang are creationism theories.
According to gods, …
Biology not need gods (Darwin) but Universe need it (Big Bang and expansion theories).
All relations with creation is creationism, so expansion of the universe (creation) is creationism.
133e – Skeptical religious that accept expansion really are not skeptical: accept creation, and creation is creationism and means magic and gods.
134e – Many believers are pacific, but proselytism and extremist not.
All my work is always refused, without any proof, … all their consider evident expansion and refuse it, in all points: forum, scientific newspaper …
Strange that all reject quickly my work without examine.
Really in matter of religion and belief there are few moderated people.
135e – Give by proved and evident the impossible also is a form to not find the true
Not only is creationism also is a form to deny the true and not find it.
136e – Physic laws would need to change for adequate to expansion theories.
Without any explanation and condition the expansion theories only find to obtain their interest, but against to physic laws that would need to change in strange forms to make according to theories.
137e – Inflation is crazy into the crazy
All expansion theory is crazy, but inflation is the bigger one, need accelerate expansion by million times and later brake to be according to vision with fossil register of 17.5 billion years without appreciated changes in speed, but that need an already bigger universe to be at least so big as the vision of 17.5 billion light years in radius.
Against this seem that all astronomers and amateur consider inflation a robust theory: a blogger told me that I was the first he knew against inflation.
138e – Astronomers thing theories are robust, but really have not sense
Inflaton has not sense, but astronomers consider it robust. Blackbody also and don’t know the cause and why don’t exist today and is only theoretical (6e), the theory accepts radius of the universe equal to visual radios actualized (comoving) (9e), …
39e show 2 theories are incompatibles.
An also all the rest, all is full of errors and holes, …
A theory over anything without proof and experimentation would to need to be more robust, this theories have not sense, against physic laws, …
Other sciences advance with proof, error, experiments until obtain more robust theories, but astronomy at least over expansion and Big Bang is always against this: near ridiculous
At least would to be without errors, according to mathematics and know physic laws, but neither of this, are full with elemental errors: 9e, …
Nothing is correct, nothing balance, but all is given as evident (really any evidence or proof from impossible cannot be very robust)
139e – Dark energy create space like if electric energy would create cables
How is it possible that energy create anything? How is it possible that energy create anything (also by transformation) without lose itself? How is it possible that cumulus of dark energy don’t affect Hubble’s law? How is it possible that more or less Dark energy don’t change Hubble’s law in none zone of the universe?
Energy cannot create nothing, but also nothing matter or energy cannot create nothing (creationism).
Energy creating space would represent more space and less dark energy, so the expansion would to decelerate, but this not happens. The relation space – energy would increase same with lose or not of energy, for not decelerate the dark energy also need to be created (double creationism: space and the same dark energy).
140e – Universe without expansion is according to physic laws
Easy and strict physic laws, nothing magic, nothing creationism, …
141e – A curved universe is not flat
Flat (the same word say it in 2d) is without curved, where the angles of a triangle add 180º, by that a curved universe is not flat. Also a sphere curved is not now a sphere, …
142e – false: “Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state”
In http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence give how evidence : “Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.” this only can to be thought by anything that believe in expansion.
I don’t see and think another thing: 6e, 56e, 121e
143e – If not know say don’t know, not say expand (create)
Only because not know how is the universe and seem to expand (create) not means that expand (creation, magic, gods)
So to all not know scientists can give a magic answer: electricity = magic, …
In all, the expansion (creation) is impossible. And not only is impossible, also there are other solution according to physic laws like bend of light by gravity.
144e – Creationism = success for religious
The expansion and Big Bang are creation from nothing, this is creationism and creationism is the success for religious, the religion into the science.
So is not strange that ear in a documentary that say an astronomer that biologist believe less in god that astronomers.
God is into the astronomy.
145e – What strange cause admit expansion when tired light and steady state was rejected
Tired light theory and Steady State was rejected by impossibles, but: why expansion was not rejected if it’s also impossible?
Probably by power, black hand, .. really expansion (creation) is creationism and belief, sect, religion and the other 2 no. So this is according to religion into science.
146e – If expansion is real by visual, also are real and not only visual: mirages, rainbow, aurora borealis
900e – Big Bang evidence are not evidence
You can read the evidence for the Big Bang in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence
All these evidences are not evidence, impossible cannot have evidences.
I separate this evidence in 4 groups:
– Evidences of that the universe expand visually: Hubble’s law, redshift, time delay
– Evidences (I doubt in this) according to expansion visual: Olbers’ paradox
– Anti Big Bang evidence: Homogeneity, Isotropy (evidences: 1e,2e,7e,30e,88e)
– Not evidences: a theory cannot to be an evidence, the indifferent: blackbody (6e), …
These evidences are less good that say that: the wheels are evidence of exist cars.
901e – There is no proof over expansion and Big Bang
A proof over particles is not a proof over Big Bang.
Many proof are “necessary, but not sufficient”: 8e
Impossible cannot have proofs
902e – Only there are proof and evidences anti Big Bang and anti expansion
No always there are proof of anything true, many times there are not
903e – All have errors
So many theories, so many supposed evidences and proofs and all is bad.
So many information over impossibles: expansion or creation of space and equal in all directions and points.
All is against physic laws, mathematics
Many parts have not solution and not interest in solve: nothing speak of how brake from inflation (and inflation is mainly accepted), not explanation and why Big Bang?, from what Big Bang?, why accelerate expansion, ….
Always create new theories to arrange errors and holes for the exist theories, and every new theory create more problems that solve.
Give by good anything and opposite: (39e – Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR), expand equal in all directions and flat (and not exist geometrical figure), expansion velocity and need pre-speed to adjust, …
Give theories just: according to the theory the universe has 45 billion years of radius that is just the visual distance in comoving, this is impossible or we are just at universe centre (9e).
In to end say that the expansion is evident.
904e – Expansion and Big Bang are unsustainable
All bad, all errors, impossible, anti expansion evidences, magic, sect, …
905e – Facts bad interpreted and bad understand
906e – I don’t use magic, not anti physic laws, …
In all my work there is not magic, not anti physic laws, not believes, …
907e – Each people believe a thing different over expansion and Big Bang
908e – Any strange theory supported by big brains can seem good
909e – That scientific believe in expansion not means it’s true
Today the scientists believe in expansion and say there are proofs (particles firstly) and evidences (900e) but all this is error.
It’s not the first time scientists have error, but probably it’s one of the first times that scientists believe in an impossible.
Bad time for science, but I’m not guilty, guilty are scientists the day thought this impossible like true.
997e – Believe that expansion of the universe is evident without any proof.
Add to 8e. Take like evident the expansion real of the universe.
Really there is not 1 only proof over expansion, the particles physic has not relation with Big Bang. A probably fact is not evidence of expansion and Big Bang, only a proof real over expansion is so. Show a particle predicted in theories is not evidence of real theory (track on Mars are not evidence of martians in Mars). In the same form the cosmic noise predicted is not an evidence of Big Bang, is only an evidence of visual expansion and stretch of the wave by visual expansion. In the same form today any theory could explain because we don’t see the martians in Mars, but these exist, and without proofs how in expansion of the universe and with impossible conditions.
A positive proof of a predicted theory is not a proof, these are necessary, but not sufficient, for expansion and Big Bang need all (and probably more) of evidence 8e.
998e – Physic laws are strict and immutable.
Visible in the fossil register of the universe.
Expansion and Big Bang theories don’t explain according to any law, why, …
999e – If you give the impossible by real the real seem ridiculous
I think this is another evidence, many people told me that my arguments and hypothesis are ridiculous, but my arguments and hypothesis don’t create theories not demonstrates, not use elements not knows, …
If we think that any medicine cure all we consider ridiculous the need and form how to work real medicines.
There are many examples of this: astrology, futurology, UFO, …
In this theory the big results, theories, elements need for expansion, … make believe that this is so big that it’s an evidence anti expansion
Here my arguments and hypotheses result ridiculous in relation with so big theories and power of expansion, big bang, inflation, … Is so ridiculous how a spatial travel where in the films we see pass the stars, but in a real travel this not occur. But in all my work I don’t speak over none not demonstrated.
None of the big bang evidence is true (how in all that it’s not true), so I can examine this evidence give in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence that I divide in 3 parts how I say in https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/bigscience.html
Any notes more:
– for me the better evidence is that space cannot expand, by other this is evident, but for me is impossible, but how I said before if you admit the impossible how real the real seem ridiculous.
– Who says that anything is true need to demonstrate, but nothing over expansion of the universe has been proved and in these conditions many people affirm that it’s evident, I say: not.
– I read that in a homogeneous universe would not be stars: this is false, if this would be true an embankment with rain not would create canals, but in few time create theirs. The universe has much time, probably infinite in past to create first stars. (an idea false how this maybe with power, but also false).
– That people think any idea not means this is true.
– It’s difficult to explain to any that thinks know the true that is false. If you consider that universe expand really (without any proof) you will consider this work ridiculous.
– From the universe we only receive light (apart any particle), and light may be curved by gravity.
– That I don’t know a solution for visual expansion and not real expansion not means that I don’t know what is false how real expansion.
– I’m treating to explain this from more that a year and all say this is bad, but this is not bad, the universe can’t expand.
– Astronomers thing against my thinking, they think in big-bang, inflation, cosmic microwave background, string, galaxies, stars (in this order in time), I think in a universe infinite in time and space with hydrogen and not empty, first stars, first galaxies.
– In all this work I use only facts demonstrated and you can see this is not any of theirs. I don’t use any theory without confirmation.
– One only evidence anti expansion and big bang is sufficient, but I give here 4.5 of theirs
– If really the universe would expand would need many conditions (necessary, but not sufficient) how: expand or create space in points empty and without gravity, can expand space, expand equal in all points and directions, that dark energy expand space, that dark energy also increment or has not importance in quantity, any geometrical figure that permits Hubble’s law and against geometry, … I speak over this in my web.
– The expansion and Big Bang theories and other theories relationed are very good theories (how many of theories) but with an error: start with impossible principles
A universe in expansion not only seem few probably, it’s impossible
Remember that 1 only evidence against expansion and Big Bang is sufficient.
How expansion is impossible, only can to be an optic effect.
Homogeneity and isotropy they are not evidence for Big-bang, they are really evidences against big-bang and expansion.
Expansion is only an optic effect (What happens really?).
Press note: Nobel Prize Physics 2011, error and also in the Theory of relativity, another proof against expansion
(or to who give this year the Nobel prize in physics)
Also more big information over other Nobels: the Theory of relativity is also false
Note of prizes, why, if is good, if they are intelligent, another solutions, … and also for the Theory of relativity
This article show detalls over Nobel prize 2011.
This prize this year is related to Big Bang and universe expansion theories, but this (prize over accelerated expansion) and Big Bang and universe expansion of the universe all are false.
Remember that universe expansion and Big Bang theories are so, theories, without any proof (astronomers speak over proofs and evidence, but if really would be 1 evidence it was not a theory).
I give here 3 proofs over my affirmation:
1 – Nothing can to be created from nothing (creation from nothing is against science, by that only can to be pseudoscience, believe and creationism): The so called expansion theory is really creationism theory, the space is not compressed and more by expansion in places without gravity, by that is creation and not expansion (it’s not compressed). So expansion theory really is creation of space from nothing, but more: Big Bang is creation of all from nothing (from nothing is created all matter – energy, create time and space).
2 – There is not geometrical figure according to expansion: expansion according to the theory expand equal in all places and directions, but there is not geometrical 3d figure that admit that, sphere only admit from center point. Astronomers speak over more dimensions but we see the visual expansion and by that need to be according to 3d and against geometry.
3 – The light is curved by gravity, normally is called gravitational lens, made few days write “Dark energy spotted in the cosmic microwave background” in http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46572 , this say that this is an evidence for dark energy but really is not: this say: “On average, a CMB photon will have encountered around 50 large-scale structures before it reaches our telescope,” , “This process, called “lensing”, eventually adds up to a total deflection of around 3 arc minutes – one-20th of a degree.”, they add “A universe with no dark energy would have a lot of structure. As a result, the CMB photons would undergo greater lensing and the fluctuations would deviate more from the original Gaussian distribution.”.
3.1 – if a light make a arc this means that the way that travel the light is more that real distance, a angle means triangle, … in a triangle the hypotenuse is sorter that addition of cathetus, and by that the visual distance is more that real distance.
3.2 – Error in this work is consider that this evidence dark energy because this only evidence that real way is shorter that visual way. If both distances was equal the angle would to be zero.
3.3 – Like the article say from CMB (largest distance) “”On average, a CMB photon will have encountered around 50 large-scale structures”, by that at half distance we can thing in only 25 angles, and according to this an universe in expansion in relation distance – speed (expand equal in all points) only would to be according to Hubble’s law (this is a law that relations distance – speed) with all points with the same angle, but 25 angles give a angle less that 50 angles.
With different angles only can to be according to Hubble’s law without expansion, the expansion is only visual and in an universe like our, that increment gravity (few, but with many million lightyears in distance), the increment in angle give the sensation of expansion.
More that this study of CMBR many light are different angle by gravitational lens that are in many forms: “the Large Magellanic Cloud” and other lens that give different angles.
The visual expansion is near to perspective (distance – visual size), but in visual expansion is needed commoving (actual distance) by the travel in time and by that less visual expansion in the past.
For me is sufficient the 2 proofs I give made 2 years: nothing can to be created from nothing and expansion of the universe is against geometry, this proof 3 maybe good for all scientist that not see this 2 before.
After seen this I can say:
- The universe does not expand
- The visual expansion of the universe is only a visual effect.
- The accelerated expansion of the universe is also a visual effect (this is the obtain of Nobel physic price this year 2011 – false work).
The visual acceleration of the expansion is according to gravitational lens, we live in milky way, this is a galaxy that create gravitational lens, and see: all light that arrive to us is curved by this lens, this is near and represent a value (suppose 0.1 – probably the value is more near to 0.00001 but 0.1 is easy to work). A near body has expansion for example of 1, and added to 0.1 represent 1.1, a far body is 1000000 and represent 1000000.1, in 1.1 the acceleration represent 0.1, in 10000.1 represent only 0.0000001, by that seem that expansion accelerates.
Well this are the work that this year obtain the nobel prize in physic, people that see this 0.0000001 and 0.1 and say that the universe expansion accelerates.
All this: Big Bang, expansion of the universe, accelerated expansion of the universe is false, soon or later the reality will be admit and all this people that believe in this anti-science of expansion of the universe end in discredit with nobel prize or without it.
I’m work 2 years treating to show that the universe does not expand, astronomy newspaper reject it but this not means this is an error, in few days I go to add more info like errors in this believe of expansion of the universe: comic ideas, lakes, errors, …
I send this according to the quickly nobel prize to this theory false (remember without any proof).
A few comic ideas over expansion and Big Bang: creation of the universe from nothing or not universe, creation of time from not time, the expansion has not motion but it’s explosive and with acceleration, hot and inflation like an explosion, in a moment expand very quickly (without motion) and there are not deflation theory or explanation of a little actual expansion (remember in the universe the explosion or creation is not brake like in Earth), thousand of years later by freeze are created first atoms but many time before (first seconds) is created the deuterium (is an atom), the soup CMBR (cosmic microwave background) emit microwave, is very hot but not reflect radiation and not emit light because is a soup without atoms, first atoms are created when temperature is cooled to 3000 k but many stars has more hot and have atoms, the universe is like a body (a boy grow to make a man), in the same side the universe born (Big Bang), expand, has mother cell (Higgs boson), and by that also thing has an end, the universe expand (create) in all places and direction equal but this is same against geometry, dark energy is indifferent from quantity according to Hubble’s law, The universe don’t expand in places with gravity but expand according to Hubble’s law (distance – speed) like a boy that grow all less a leg and grow well without differences in both legs.
I would also to send info that the Theory of relativity is also false, according to the note of this days over neutrino and light speed.
Here I not speak over if neutrino is faster that light speed or not, but I go to explain that light speed is not maximum speed and by that the Theory of relativity is false.
The Theory of relativity (remember is a theory without proofs, with proofs would no t o be a theory) take the light speed like maximum speed like begin.
From where is taken: In the past scientists measure light speed, this is equal in all directions that they take, also considering that the Earth travel by the universe. From here consider that light speed is constant and the maximum speed.
Here all is error and by that all the rest also is error: Why is error?
If we consider the sound speed, this not change with origin speed, here is one of the errors, if this would depend a plain cannot exceed sound speed. If a plain can exceed sound speed is because the sound speed is the same that a stopped plain.
More: the sound speed depend in environment (water, air, …) and also in the speed of this environment, if not depend of this in a plain with more of sound speed people cannot speak and ear. So a plain traveling at more that sound speed into it the sound travel like a stopped plain and out of it at speed according to Earth movement. By that into it people can speak and out of it crash sound barrier.
By all this is really that light speed also is equal in all directions, first it’s indifferent from stars speed (remember, not has relation with speed of emissor), and second the Earth is like the interior of the plain in the example.
By other side, in sound we can obtain Doppler effect (and also in light) and also addition and subtraction of speed, probably with light speed also but remember that light is 300000 km/sec, and by that a plain at 3000 km/hour is 3000 km/3600 segundo equivalent to 0.83 km/sec = 0,00000276 respect to light speed or near 400.000 times less. (near to relation of sound 1,234.8 km/h with a motion of 33 meter/hr).
In the same form that a sound into the plain is different to out the plain, in incoming sound need to be one only form and not 2 or more, in the same form that people into the plain don’t ear the sound barrier probably the sound that become to the plain adjust to that system.
By that, Light speed is not maximum speed, and according to this also is incorrect all the Theory of relativity.
That the Theory of relativity is false is also demonstrate also by other ways: physics say that a photon against another give light speed, this means that c (light speed) + c = c, if you make that a photon travel from A to B and another from C to B (A, B and C are 3 points at same distance and in straight line), the distance is make in half time.
Also is demonstrated but physics deny it: “The Wang Experiment: Light Traveling Faster Than Light?” in http://metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/archive/010824FTL/Meta-in-News%20010824.asp that say: “A new laboratory experiment at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton claims to have achieved propagation speeds of 310 c (c = speed of light)”
But physic work in demonstrate that nothing can travel quicker that light speed and use pseudoscience to show that 2 bodies with speed near light the addition is not more that light speed.
Until today probably the only proof according to the Theory of relativity is the clocks the satellites that delay, but this can to be by more options: not or less gravity, not atmosphere, … and in all conditions if a fly that fly into a supersonic plain: What has more speed fly or plain?
Really in universe are not reference points, then why can have relation speed, maximum speed, size, time in relation with a maximum speed?
The Theory of relativity treat to join : speed, time, gravity, size (at more speed more little), .. but this is more mathematics that reality.
A work with bad bases is all bad, the base of the Theory of relativity is that light is constant and maximum speed and this is false, probably maximum speed is infinite, but this not means that can to be taken.
So, in this work I show that expansion and Big Bang theories are false, also that the Theory of relativity is also false. Mathematics are good for mathematics, work against science is only pseudoscience. Believe in expansion and Theory of relativity is only a believe against science.
The actual nominated Nobel prizes of physic are not the only bad, all prizes in relation with this 2 bad theories are all bad.
That people believe in any question not make it true, thing the bad face that take all this doctors and scientist when see that all this is against science and only a believe like in past was that the Earth was flat, … All this big scientist will be discredit.
More of 2 years make I write to astronomy and scientist newspaper and this is rejected, but by many rejection the universe does not expand and Einstein was error.
You can compare this information with that give you a scientist and note where is well and bad or how answer your questions.
And the article error that I say before is not rejected : that say that angle in light show evidence of dark energy, but this show really that not expand and that light way is more that real way.
1 – I’m not who need give proofs, I’m not who affirm, the burden of proof need to be given by who affirm anything and never they have given 1 only proof (impossible cannot be proved, or it’s proved like any believer : UFO, astrologers, religious, …)
1.1 – Imagine to have to demonstrate that in alpha centaury are not persons.
2 – I give proofs in all points, but remember the proof would to give how that affirm, I negate it.
3 – Fist of all we need to remember the facts (facts are real, interpretation may be yes o not): light is curved by gravity, the universe visually expand, Hubble’s law, time delay, homogeneity, isotropy. Any theory needs to have all this in consideration.
4 – Proof: Big Bang and expansion theories say that universe expand, this is that space expand, but the space is not compressed (and this expand in places without gravity, by that it’s not compressed by gravity) in all time and directions. This is creation, by that it’s not expansion and is creationism.
4.1 – create anything from nothing is against physic laws, also against mathematics (1=0)
4.2 – Creationism is against science and according to magic, believer, religion. Also is in the side against Darwin.
5 – Proof: There is not geometrical figure that permit expansion in all directions and point like need the expansion theory (only a sphere can expand from 1 point but not from all), the figure need to be in 3d (3 dimension), we see this in 3d, by that is a bad answer say that can to be in 6d because we see in 3d and not in 6d. Geometry is mathematics and by that expansion theory is against mathematics.
6 – Proof: I give more proofs in my web, for me this 2 before (4 and 5) are the very best, but more in this actual page. They say evidences for Big Bang in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence – see also 900e (they are 1 by one analyzed in other points in that page)
7 – All expansion theory is full of inconsistencies. In a moments is 1 thing and in other another (expansion and creation, explosion and not explosion, motion and not motion, inflation and not [without speak over brake of expansion], …. In all moment is against physic laws and in many moments use laws against other moments (why is not explosion Big Bang and it’s hot, why is not explosion and expand, why create all in no moment [in that time was not exist time])
7.1 – more incompatibilities in 37.2 in my page https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/comparative-big-bang-with-my-hypothesis/
7.2 – Deuterium (an atom) of first minutes is incompatible with first atoms in cmbr and blackbody (and they take both like evidences)
7.3 – Inflation is acceleration of expansion but it’s not explosive, and there is not motion, also they don’t explain that if was inflation would need to brake the inflation and why. Without inflation is impossible that in relation distance – speed max speed is equal to average speed and why we see the same that we would see without expansion (same lightyears that from initial lights in time).
7.4 – The can explain why the expansion is accelerated (I explain why in my comparative page), they speak over “Quintessence, Dark Fluid or Phantom energy” but for this need motion and expansion has not motion, also not expand over any space, by that they speak over anything and against it also here.
7.5 – In the theories over expansion sometimes speak over expansion or creation, over motion and not motion, over freeze over any hot first and not explosion, …
7.6 – They invent all: hot without explosion, first atoms in cmbr and before, inflation that is for acceleration but later without brake (change of the laws, …), expand at light speed and according to distance speed we see all the distance at light speed, …
8 – In my web I give comparative between my model and of theirs, mine all coincide without invent any law, without any only theory not checked (I only use that gravity curve the light), in the model of theirs all change, all are new theories that make more mistakes and holes that clarity, … all against physic laws (creationism, geometrical figure, not expand in places with gravity ,…) – https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/comparative-big-bang-with-my-hypothesis/ – I don’t invent nothing, they all: big bang, acceleration of expansion (the causes), inflation (they need it but change laws, …), explosion without explosion, their evidences, …
9 – The facts cannot to be negated, but their theories are impossible, by that any solution need to be but another different and according with the facts.
9.1 – After study I understand that probably is near an optic effect, for example perspective is relation distance – visual size like Hubble’s law is distance – visual speed, and with mathematical relation both.
9.2 – An optic effect not need comoving, but Hubble’s law need it, by that it’s not an optic effect but near it.
9.3 – My hypothesis (my hypothesis may be wrong, but the universe cannot expand) is that probably is by the gravity that curve the light : if you consider a universe without expansion and Big Bang the universe initially was cold and without light and by that only atoms and without gravity, the gravity grow in time and this curve the light, the gravity grow all time (very few) but in very large this few curved more is appreciate (I speak over million light years in distance) and this is near a separation or expansion and by that need comoving.
9.4 – 9.3 is always according to the facts, is according to physic laws and not use none theories or hypothesis and not use not demonstrated fact, also is according to mathematical relation like perspective and according to comoving, also according to blackbody, according to accelerated expansion (near us by milky way the gravity grow more and in relation accelerated because is more in relation to near distances that with far distances, is more 1000.1 that 1000000000.1), this is not creationism, not tired light theory, not expansion theory, not against geometry, …
10 – I ask me how is possible that people many intelligent and scientists can deny an impossible theory (tired light) and accept another also impossible theory (expansion of the universe and Big Bang). Both theories cannot to be true, but both can to be false.
Tags: accelerated expansion of the universe, Big bang, Big rip, galaxies, universe, universe expansion, mathematics, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, expansion, infinite, magic, creation, creationism, belief, believer, sect, Nobel prize, the Theory of relativity, relativity theory, Einstein, pseudoscience.
Author: Luis Biarge Baldellou
Copyright ©2010 Luis Biarge Baldellou – You can copy all or part of this work giving this web page direction.