The Limit of Visibility
I am nearly reduced to tears of frustration when so many alternative cosmologists are chomping away at the fudge of Big Bang. There are heaps of these spongy issues sitting right on top of more basic and vulnerable components that would bring the whole lot down if concentrated on.- singularity, expansion and containment, where is all the light going to. These are the foundation stones of Big Bang. - Conservation should be but it would seem to be a bit shaky in a BB context.
Why can't we stick to and attack these foundational components of Big Bang
Philosophy. That's just four issues to deal with. On the other hand, the dark
matter debate still continues yet it has been 'exposed'. As the late Professor
Paul Marmet has shown, dark matter is molecular hydrogen. It exists and he
explained the physics of it, therefore hydrogen is not being depleted in the
universe but is readily available for its continuance. Dark matter has been
exposed, so if established science wants to ignore Paul Marmet and still claim
dark matter a mystery, so be it. To ignore is to have it haunt later on.
Let's take 'containment' which is purely a physical impossibility. Every star in the universe shines globally. Our sun is the most glaring, shining, brilliant example of that, dare I say, fact. Is there a side or a part of the sun that does not emit energy waves out and away from it? No.
Are stars 13 billion light-years away at the so called edge of the universe only burning away on one side, that is inwardly turned toward us mere mortals who live nearer the middle? -------- No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not going to swollow that. Since they are 13 billion years old plus, surely they have been switched on, all sides in every direction for that length of time. Therefore I don't think that I'm being a stupid, congenital idiot for believing that their light has had the same length of time to disperse its energy at least 13 billion light years into the far distance beyond the supposed bladder/boundary. And that assumption alone at least doubles the radius of the known universe. - Brick wall? - reflector wall? - What? If it's a black brick it absorbs and causes depletion of total mass. If it's a reflecting wall, we should be able to see the mirror images in it, and we would conserve matter within the supposed containment. So, by that bit of logic, where is and what is the container? The point is that it has to be there to satisfy Big Bang yet is purely fictionary.
But that is only half the story. The next half is much bigger ! (No wonder my maths teacher went mad).
Here are the existing coordinates: Observation, Time and Expansion. What we see out there with our limited technology are galaxies 13 billion light-years away. Sounds great. What's wrong with that? The answer is, that in an expanding universe, what we see was there 13 billion years ago. So we have to add expansion speed/direction and try to calculate where those galaxies are now, 13 billion years later.
( - Told you this half was bigger than the other).
I may have a quirky observational mind, but I cannot see how, in a court of law, or any other debate forum, that such invented evidence could survive for a contained universe, when those simple, rational, practical reasons demonstrate that such a state has to be utterly impossible. Magic, I have been told by respected cosmologists.
We are not going to bring that wall or any other wall down by constantly attacking the fudge, that only the experts claim to understand. I have wasted time trying to understand some of this technocratic stuff that I believe one could debate forever, if we were allowed eternity, yet the foundational stuff remains completely unscathed no matter what.
I have put together Genesis Continuous from basic observation and understanding. I have taken what appears to be a simple evolution of actions that sweep up into a recycling continuity. There is no magic. There is nothing in it that leaves a gap of something impossible or even unlikely. I predicted it years ago and observatories have discovered many of those jigsaw pieces for me in the intervening years. The finer points, the fudge, the obscure, the perhaps, the maybe, of content are yet to be understood, but because they are what they are, the universe exists. Why can't we just start from the ground up and create a new cosmological foundation? We know that containment is impossible, but if we have to stick with theory, just let one compete with the other for credibility. I would like some scientists to take my theories and work on them. Being unqualified I'm at a disadvatage. From the arguments I have written above, if anyone out there can show me how I am wrong, please tell me. Please help........
At this point, let's look at Red shift.
Here is where it all started back in the year I was born 1929. Edwin Hubble discovered that the further an object is away in space, its spectrograph changes. The red content gets longer. and longer and longer, ___________until________________________in my view______wipe out.
Here are extracts from Wikipedia's description of Hubble's Law:-
Hubble's law is a statement in physical cosmology which states that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence in support of the Big Bang. The most recent calculation of the constant, using the satellite WMAP began in 2003, yielding a value of 71 ± 4 (km/s)/Mpc. In August, 2006, a less accurate figure was obtained independently using data from NASA's orbital Chandra X-ray Observatory: 77 (km/s)/Mpc with an uncertainty of ± 15%. ..........
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's Law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:
Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart................
And Big Bang even goes this far:-
The ultimate fate of the universe and the age of the universe can both be determined by measuring the Hubble constant today and extrapolating with the observed value of the deceleration parameter, uniquely characterized by values of density parameters (?). A so-called "closed universe" (?>1) comes to an end in a Big Crunch and is considerably younger than its Hubble age. An "open universe" (??1) expands forever and has an age that is closer its Hubble age. For the accelerating universe that we inhabit, the age of the universe is coincidentally very close to the Hubble age.
http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/redshift.html Also a useful source of Big Bang info.(Name coined by Fred Hoyle)
The problems with BIG BANG, I think went wrong when Hubble just didn't think it through, not only from what I've written above, but by misinterpreting the meaning of red-shift. If over the time period of 13 billion light-years, a beam loses its characteristic structure, one has to wonder what happens to that beam, or what is left of it, when it is totally red and no blue or yellow rays are left? It also has to be remembered that a light beam, because it spreads out radially as it travels just shows how compact it must be when it leaves its source. Imagine a star globally radiating matter, still in a global configuration for billions and billions of miles, that has to be an unbelievable amount of particles in space, still compact enough to be viewed as solid light anywhere throughout that vast circumference from such a relatively small emitting source.
So I think a light beam reaches a Limit of Visibility. The red rays cease to be supported and the remaining components become rays of an invisible type. This means that what was seen as a boundary or limit of galactic existence, was instead, the Range Limit of Visibility.
In an expanding universe, as I have shown above, the galaxies we can see 13 billion light-years away, must have travelled at least another 13 billion light-years out into space, if not further, from when their visible (to us) light rays were emitted. Science had supported its claim of a boundary of containment as being just beyond the furthermost visible galaxies. Clearly, this is a nonsense. Just to build on this scenario, the galaxy, if it still exists, has expanded out to 27 billion light-years, and its collective light is shining another 13 billion lightyears ahead of that, and that's 40 billion light-years.
Further to that is the claim that if there are more and more galaxies beyond the visible barrier, there would be a solid wall of light out there that would blind us. All I can say to that is, thank goodness light has a limited visible life span.
David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
What you see is what you get - even though it isn't there anymore, and 'where the sun can't shine',- nor any other star for that matter.