Has the Big Bang had its day

[c.k williams]

The Big Bang theory has been the mainstay of cosmology over many decades. However, new technology that reveals previously unknown aspects of electromagnetism doesn’t easily fit in with this cosmological theory one which appears to come from nothing and has nowhere to go. Nevertheless, the Big Bang is supported by some leading thinkers, presumably because they need the focal point that the big bang brings to zero. However hearing the big bang discussed in the media and in cosmology forums one gets the impression that it is written in stone, whereas in reality it is a highly speculative theory. Moreover, viewed in the light of new findings it borders on the implausible.
However viewing the cosmos in a different light, the focal point appears to be its magnification according to that of maximum velocity which for me closely resembles the intensity of electromotive force and the currents they generate. Then why, seeing that maximum velocity is a major part of cosmology don’t the sciences have the enthusiasm to research into maximum velocity and achieve some understanding? is it considered outside its terms of reference?. That is, I believe that comprehension of maximum velocity depends on viewing the cosmos in a completely different way.
For those who are interested one way of looking at maximum velocity can be seen in
www.cosmosview.com however it is anticipated that those who need a zero focal point will simply close their eyes to what they see because they need the straight line diameters that are just not there.

[Fortis]

However, new technology that reveals previously unknown aspects of electromagnetism doesn’t easily fit in with this cosmological theory one which appears to come from nothing and has nowhere to go.
Please explain what these "previously unknown aspects of electromagnetism" are?

[gzhpcu]

The Big Bang theory has been the mainstay of cosmology over many decades. However, new technology that reveals previously unknown aspects of electromagnetism doesn’t easily fit in with this cosmological theory one which appears to come from nothing and has nowhere to go. Nevertheless, the Big Bang is supported by some leading thinkers, presumably because they need the focal point that the big bang brings to zero. However hearing the big bang discussed in the media and in cosmology forums one gets the impression that it is written in stone, whereas in reality it is a highly speculative theory. Moreover, viewed in the light of new findings it borders on the implausible.
What does electromagnetism have to do with the expansion of galaxies? Why do you say the standard BB theory "appears to come from nothing"? How do you account for Cosmic Background Radiation and Hubble Expansion using electromagnetism? What new technology are you talking about?

However viewing the cosmos in a different light, the focal point appears to be its magnification according to that of maximum velocity which for me closely resembles the intensity of electromotive force and the currents they generate. Then why, seeing that maximum velocity is a major part of cosmology don’t the sciences have the enthusiasm to research into maximum velocity and achieve some understanding? is it considered outside its terms of reference?. That is, I believe that comprehension of maximum velocity depends on viewing the cosmos in a completely different way.
For those who are interested one way of looking at maximum velocity can be seen in
www.cosmosview.com (http://www.cosmosview.com) however it is anticipated that those who need a zero focal point will simply close their eyes to what they see because they need the straight line diameters that are just not there.
By magnification are you referring to expansion of the universe? Please explain what you mean by "magnification according ot that of maximum velocity". What "maximum velocity"?

[pzkpfw]

For those who are interested one way of looking at maximum velocity can be seen in ...

Just to confirm: will you be defending/discussing the ideas in this thread, or are you simply advertising the site at the end of that URL?

[captain swoop]

IS this another EU thread?

[Van Rijn]

IS this another EU thread?

I don't think so, though it's a bit hard to tell from his material.

Just as background, he has had two threads already in ATM advertising the same website, and I don't believe he ever once answered a question. I still have this one waiting:

http://www.bautforum.com/1365288-post7.html

[Celestial Mechanic]

IS this another EU thread?
It's hard to say. I tried visiting his website (at home, to be safe) and all I got was a white rectangle on a black background. Not even any text. I suppose it's some FlashTrash site. I won't be bothering with it anytime soon.

[Tensor]

It's hard to say. I tried visiting his website (at home, to be safe) and all I got was a white rectangle on a black background. Not even any text. I suppose it's some FlashTrash site. I won't be bothering with it anytime soon.

I went there. The intro page is flash. There is a place to download his "book". After that, it's some diagrams with this nugget in the second paragraph:


...This natural view of space and time, as seen in the illustration above, shows the difference between straight-line and circular energy. This differential is highlighted through straight lines in circulation that pass through the positive and negative potentials of velocity that reflect magnitude....

Most of the rest of the site is similar. There is a link near the end to an Electric-Cosmos site (so yes Captain, at least tangentially), but not his. I just couldn't bring myself to get past that quoted passage. I've had enough salad for today.

[c.k williams]

With all respect i am getting the same old replies that are designed to sweep maximum velocity under the carpet where it cant be seen. However it is a major part of cosmology that has to be understood, i have shown how i see it perhaps someday i will see the experts version.

[Stroller]

"With all respect" is a phrase almost always immediately followed by statements which demonstrate a complete lack of it. When those statements are interspersed with the liberal use of the uncapitalised personal pronoun the deal is sealed.

It seems to be such a picky bit of grammarian nonsense, but the correlation is uncanny.

[tusenfem]

oh noooooooh!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the spirograph physicist again!

[Metricyard]

Looking at your web site, I came across this formula? from this page (http://www.cosmosview.com/insandoutstime.html).

186032/186032 = 1 – 8456/186032 = 1/22


Other than epically failing grade school math, where does the 8456 come from?

[gzhpcu]

With all respect i am getting the same old replies that are designed to sweep maximum velocity under the carpet where it cant be seen. However it is a major part of cosmology that has to be understood, i have shown how i see it perhaps someday i will see the experts version.
I ask you once more: what do you understand under the term "maximum velocit"? What is its context? And please answer my other questions as well.

[c.k williams]

It appears that maximum velocity is used in cosmology without anyone understanding why its there and without any desire to find out. That is, reading the replies it appears that maximum velocity is a subject that is considered taboo, and should only be met with abuse. Why is this i wonder,just look at the responses, it appears that maximum velocity is something that shouldn't be examined because it is outside normal terms of reference?.

[gzhpcu]

It appears that maximum velocity is used in cosmology without anyone understanding why its there and without any desire to find out. That is, reading the replies it appears that maximum velocity is a subject that is considered taboo, and should only be met with abuse. Why is this i wonder,just look at the responses, it appears that maximum velocity is something that shouldn't be examined because it is outside normal terms of reference?.
Sorry, still do not know what you are talking about. There is no maximum velocity in cosmology. Receding galaxies are due to spacetime expansion, not the galaxies moving through spacetime, so that they can recede faster than the speed of light and not be in contradiction with Special Relativity.

[pzkpfw]

So the answers to my questions are "no" and "yes". (Actually, everyones questions were ignored.)

You can suggest "sweeping maximum velocity under the carpet", C K Williams, but I'm going to lock this thread as it is clear you are not here to participate in a discussion. (Having read your 2nd and 3rd posts.)

Please PM me (or another moderator) if you wish to have it re-opened. (Or anyone else if they want to discuss it...)