Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,272 
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 23rd, 2008, 09:38 AM
Big Bang Busted!
(The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)
02/21/08
There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916, evidently for vainglory, money and self-aggrandisement. I bring you free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.
The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. Schwarzschild's paper is a piece of flawless mathematical physics, but Hilbert's is a poor show. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he gives another valid solution and also simply and dramatically demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.
The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black holehttp://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...sjcrothers.htm
Big Bang Busted!
(The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)
02/21/08
There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916, evidently for vainglory, money and self-aggrandisement. I bring you free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.
The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. Schwarzschild's paper is a piece of flawless mathematical physics, but Hilbert's is a poor show. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he gives another valid solution and also simply and dramatically demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.
The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black holehttp://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...sjcrothers.htm
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,272
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 23rd, 2008, 10:13 AM
Quoting MikeyDB
I was pondering that very aspect of my relationship with the man, I'll just cast him aside and get a new scientist lover, they're cheap and easy.
Hey Beve ...
Does this mean you're not Stephen's gardner any more...
Does this mean you're not Stephen's gardner any more...
Executive Member
Posts: 9,234
February 23rd, 2008, 12:06 PM
I went through that math once, thirty five odd years ago, and I'm not going to do it again but here is a cute article that is sort of on topic by Luke McKinney.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-dimensio.html
I went through that math once, thirty five odd years ago, and I'm not going to do it again but here is a cute article that is sort of on topic by Luke McKinney.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-dimensio.html
Executive Member
Posts: 9,234
February 23rd, 2008, 12:32 PM
This article might be marginally easier to read:
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
5-27-4 Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world. An Open Letter to the Scientific Community Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. Signed: (Institutions for identification only) Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA) Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
This article might be marginally easier to read:
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
5-27-4 Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world. An Open Letter to the Scientific Community Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. Signed: (Institutions for identification only) Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA) Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
