How fast is the Universe expanding?

[Mara]

Here’s an article from Quanta Magazine on the subject. The universe is expanding, but no one can agree on exactly how fast.

The Dispute at the Heart of Cosmology

[Nigel Nunn]

Thanks Mara 

The implications are so interesting that Fermilab front-man Don Lincoln felt moved to make a video explaining why « No, this does not disprove the theory about a Big Bang, but… « :

Fermilab: Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?

Nigel

– – – – –

Mara wrote:

Here’s an article from Quanta Magazine on the subject. The universe is expanding, but no one can agree on exactly how fast.

The Dispute at the Heart of Cosmology

[Richard E Warren]

Nigel Nunn wrote:

Thanks Mara The implications are so interesting that Fermilab front-man Don Lincoln felt moved to make a video explaining why “No, this does not disprove the theory about a Big Bang, but… “: Fermilab: Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang? Nigel

Thanks very much for always keeping readers up to date and ahead of the learning curve, Nigel. Much appreciate your insights and leadings wrought from having a knowledgeable foot firmly in the scientific world and the other in the realm of revelation.

But the video you linked is very disappointing. The title is a phony hook to sell the current obsession with the rate of universal expansion/contraction. At the 5:33 minute mark, the grinning professor says: « Nobody seriously questions that the universe began 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding  since. The evidence is simply overwhelming. » The scientific arrogance makes me mad all over. That terrible assumption is why I, and probably many others, jeer at the findings and pronouncements of the astro-physics community, claiming as it does, absolutely irrevocably, that the whole universe was once smaller than a sesame seed. That’s utterly, completely, and totally ridiculous, even to we the base and ignorant hoi-polloi.

If the non-physicist world could conceive, or even cared one whit about, what’s being taught by cosmic scientists, there might be more push-back. We’re relying on you the insider, Nigel. And a fine job you’re doing, and without igniting an unholy war on the UB. (See Nigel’s many and excellent Youtube presentations here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nigel+nunn&sp=6gMA

Questions: (Maybe you’ve answered this before, on the old Forum, can’t recall.) What does the AP community reply when asked, « In which constellation did the Big Bang occur? Where was this presumed source and center of the physical universe located? »

.

.

Richard E Warren

[Nigel Nunn]

Rick wrote:

« The scientific arrogance makes me mad all over.« 

Hi Rick,

I think this is why « slow and steady » is the name of the game. As long as we are susceptible to such irritations… 

PS: for a sneak preview, preliminary powerpoints, pdf’s and movie clips can be found here: Nigel – Chicago 2019.

Nigel

[rock]

Big bang or no bang at all?

In his book  Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity Stoyan Sarg (Sargoytchev, actually) explained that the Big Bang theory cannot be right, because our absolute velocity through space has been repeatedly measured and that velocity is far too small to be compatible with the Big Bang. In that book there is Appendix 1 on page 127, showing a table of many measurements, and relevant references listed on page 128.

I quote Sargoytchev:

Page 19:

In order to understand the inertial properties of an elementary particle or a solid object in CL space we must have a reference frame. From the analysis of the astronomical observations in Chapter 10 and 12 of BSM-SG, it becomes evident that the space of the Milky Way (and other galaxies) could be considered as an absolute reference frame. This is confirmed by a large number of appropriately arranged experiments measuring the vector of our motion in absolute space (See Appendix 1). Some of these experiments are made in a laboratory and they usually detect the larger component of our absolute motion, which comes from the solar system motion. Since this velocity is in the range of about 300–400 km/s, it is completely inconsistent with the Big Bang model of expanding Universe, according to which the Universe expands with a velocity approaching the speed of light. This is one of many problems of the Big Bang model, which became inconsistent with the results from the accumulated cosmological observations.

Page 82:

The existence of the physical substance of space, denoted in BSM-SG theory as a CL space, was confirmed by a number of modern light velocity experiments, which detected our absolute motion through space with a velocity vector of magnitude about 360 km/s (see Appendix 1).

In the quoted text CL means Cosmic Lattice and BSM-SG means Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory.

[André]

Hi,

I think this is why “slow and steady” is the name of the game. As long as we are susceptible to such irritations…   _Nigel

Nigel, you seems pretty aware of game’s  rules. And, it goes way beyond any relatives knowledges. Approximate  true knowledge is inclusive in our Though Adjuster. Relative knowledge will pass … in one moment on the circle of eternity. Brotherhood won’t.

I merge with Nigel, Katlheen and emphases discussing relative knowledge and embrace fellows.

[rock]

Also Halton C. Arp has written books about his observations of the red shift: That it may not be evidence of The Big Bang.

(Disclaimer: I have not read these, but the topic seems interesting.)

• Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies
• Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations

 

[Auteur]

Messages