Comments on: Quasar Group Undermines Big Bang Theory

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:57:00 +0000

“If an extremely bright object emits gamma radiation at 3×10^8 m/s, and travels through dust, debris, etc…the wavelengths of that light will increase and the frequency would drop bringing it down to infrared.”

So you agree with the tired light theory of redshift now? LOL! Bro, you need to do some more research. You’re basically arguing in favor of my position.

Further, as far as dark matter and dark energy are concerned, The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying, nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data
Shiga D. ,New Scientist, May 2010

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=physics-math

First Results from the XENON10 Dark Matter Experiment at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory
Angle J., et al. ,Phys.Rev.Lett.100:021303, 2008

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.0039v2.pdf

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:48:00 +0000

Well, it’s not actually my “line of bull”. I cite research papers for every argument I make, so it’s actually a bunch of other astrophysicists’ “line of bull.”

The whole series is dedicated to refuting the standard theory of quasars, so watch the whole thing. If you don’t want to watch it, I’m simply going to delete your comments on here since you have provided absolutely nothing of substance so far.

By: User870511

User870511 — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:04:00 +0000

middle being between the outer edge and the inner center. picture 3 concentric circles around the center of a galaxy, in this example the 2nd ring would be the middle.

By: User870511

User870511 — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:59:00 +0000

ok so ive been watching more of your videos and let me tell you, you truly need to stick to economics. Redshifts of 2 objects at the same distance can easily be different depending on brightness. The doppler effect would easily affect redshift. If an extremely bright object emits gamma radiation at 3×10^8 m/s, and travels through dust, debris, etc…the wavelengths of that light will increase and the frequency would drop bringing it down to infrared. Your argument, or moreover disbelief, of dark matter and dark energy is ignorant. There was a time when we could not see atomic particles and now we can, that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before we could see them. We cannot see dark matter or dark energy but we can see the effects of energy on the outskirts of galaxies. Take a look and you will see that towards the outer edges of galaxies stars and objects move faster than objects in the middle of the galaxy. Tell me, what is causing the increase in speed?

By: User870511

User870511 — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:58:00 +0000

I am a physics major going into astrophysics. Notice I said i didn’t watch anything past the first video. I don’t want to listen to your line of bull through 6 videos. Tell me where in your videos i can find your argument, whatever your argument is, and i will watch that portion of your video. Your whole demeanor and arrogance in the first video is what deterred me. I’ll check this post again soon to see what you come up with.

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:56:00 +0000

Coincidentally, I can tell the depth of your knowledge on this subject by your poor grammar and lack of interest in refuting any of the science I present. The first video covers what quasars are and what redshift is. I don’t even make any arguments in the first video. I simply present the standard theory’s definition of quasars.

You are an interesting person though. I’ve always wondered why people would bother to take the time out of their day to bash arguments they haven’t even bothered to hear first. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your thought processes.

By: User870511

User870511 — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:55:00 +0000

what a joke. I can tell the depth of your understanding of this topic by your need to look at wiki for definitions. I watched only the first video to come to the realization that i just wasted 10 minutes and didn’t feel like wasting anymore. You have a business degree and are an economist…i suggest you stick with economics, and leave the astronomical sciences to people who specialize in that area. National spending on space exploration is less than 1% of the budget, I am pretty sure we can handle that. Your attitude toward mathematicians is unfounded, and contrary to your beliefs, mathematicians are responsible for many ideas, laws, and theories that we use everyday. Your clothes do make you look semi-smart…try wearing a bow-tie next time and people might believe you.

By: yas

yas — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:12:00 +0000

“it undermines the big bang theory.”

But it is just fine with “Cloud & rain model” as Universe structure.

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:04:00 +0000

It looks like I’m talking to someone who can’t find any papers that refute Arp’s claims, so they resort to name calling.

By: Sophistros

Sophistros — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:33:00 +0000

What a breathtakingly arrogant reply. You have no idea who you are talking to. Having had more time to browse this site since my original comment I can see there’s no point in further engagement, since you seem to subscribe to a weird combination of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo. The Electric Universe is so wrong it’s not even worth arguing with, a crank theory that falls down at the first hurdle. And as for your attitude to vaccines – well, that belongs somewhere in the tenth century. If you want to carry on along this lonely path, that’s your choice. But you seem to define yourself by disagreeing with the mainstream, which is a dangerous thing to do. You will be wrong most of the time. And you are.