JAMES SORENSEN: Halton Arp & the Big Bang | EU 2013

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. hey James! great talk! turns out we know more than all those knob headed, big bang "scientists", with their fancy degrees! in fact, all the people enjoying your talk do! (thanks Thunderbolts!)
2. Enjoyed everything ...except at the end where he likens Halton Arp with Galileo. Galileo never got the last laugh as he recanted everything 2 years before his death. Galileo was wrong and he ended up realizing this. Ironically, if Relativity is not needed per this video......then all those experiments it nullified become legit again! ...ie 1870 Airy's Failure, 1887 Michelson/Morley, 1913 Sagnac and the 1925 Michelson/Gale.
   
   Galileo was dead wrong.
3. It's perfectly logical, that we see other objects increasingly red-shifted the farther away they are, because we see their age in red-shift. The more distant the younger they appear.
4. What red-shift-astronomers of today are doing is to define the speed of a male bicyclist by measuring the length of his beard.
5. Extremely disappointed in just wasted 5min here.
   Turned on my screen expecting to see a teenager
6. Would have been nice to have someone with actual scientific credentials give a talk regarding technical aspects of astrophysics... it was clear that he was just repeating what Halton Arp said without any real understanding of the concepts involved.
7. Excellent summary!
8. When i saw that it was a priest that came up with the idea of the big bang i gave a big FACEPALM to the current scientific establishment!
9. Don't forget to give a thumbs up
10. Proof that we really don't know shit....
11. I'm amazed how science has given us any answers when the whole edifice of the underlying structure is founded in mud. How can you come to any conclusions about the universe without including charge. It simply boggles the mind how anything gets done when that's a fundamental basis for drawing conclusions. You ignore what has to be one of the most important attributes to the workings of basic matter - charge. Charge accounts  for all types of phenomena and to discount it completely is just insane . . Same with Black holes. The theory is based on a homogeneous universe where there is only one mass???- the universe is not like that and so they don't exist in reality only on paper, yet are spoken about as if they are real - not a eyelid batted. Dark energy, dark matter, pulsars and on and on, all rubbish all epicycles. Every time I see nova or one of them TV specials about the cosmos I now get pissed off -  its filled with crap. Go spend a lifetime of education on a unifying theory of everything - except charge  -  and we'll all watch you fail.
12. I strongly encourage anyone who liked this talk to both read Halton Arp's book "Seeing Red", and Tom Van Flandern's book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated". Van Flandern's work expands greatly upon Arp's, especially by working in the theory of a "pushing gravity" concept. He does go into a lot of Mars conspiracy theories, and unfortunately I think that distracted people from the brilliance of his "meta model". There are big questions with these alternative theories, but they rate favorably overall with "big bang" theory. Those really interested in the science of the universe should really stop being so dogmatic and give other theories more thought. That isn't to say Big Bang Theory shouldn't be studied or talked about, but only that it be added to a long list of wild assumptions about the universe instead of being treated like the absolute unshakable truth.
13. Now hold on a second, I'm not a fan of big bang. My issue with it mostly lies in the assumptions that have to be made, and though quantum mechanics is doing well too provide explanations for those assumptions, and string theory is doing well too Connect relativity with quantum mechanics, assumption is assumption until it's proven. That said, this intrinsic redshift seems to be based heavily on a large assumption itself.
    
    Can anyone here in the comments explain to me why we should assume particles are capable of possessing intrinsically differentiating mass (or as quantum mechanics might indicate having variable interaction with the Higgs field). It seems to me we have no reason to make this assumption. There's a lot of good information here, but this is far from debunking popular science. Keep in mind as you watch this that we have no good reason to assume particles operate differently in other galaxies than they do in our own, it seems more likely that they would operate in a nature similar. Until someone can explain for me why particles would change the respective nature according to the galaxy they reside in I think I'm going to stick with popular science as a 'better' explanation, even if that explanation is also not complete.
14. NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST....
15. Halton Arp, modern day Galileo. 
16. This was a great presentation that brings great evidence to challenge the the big bang that never happened. I like how you covered how modern cosmologist think they have every thing nailed down to the very decimal .000000000000000000000 of seconds of what happened 13.6 billion years ago. this to me is like a monkey looking at a star and telling all the other moneys that it is proven to be 13,234,958,7907.919203957635243648 years old. Great presentation! i also like that you brought out the fact that gravity is built on the electromagnetism rather than some 1600's Newtonian concept. this is totally scrapping Einstein and all this crack pot science built on taking mathematics which has infinite number of possibility to build an equation from and then calling the man built equations the rules to keep Einstein from being wrong. Hence dark matter equations, expansion equations, primordial soup equations, distance equations, brightness equations, size and density equations, Newtonian gravity equations. These are all fundamental flawed and that is not science that is like blindfolding a shooter and spinning him around 13,600,000,283, years with no evidence of the potential of physics happenings of any of the days from the start to the the current day meanwhile  while still being blind folded he shoots a bullet from the earth and hits a stop sign on a planet 13 billion light years away. Science has become far to arrogant and needs to back up and admit that we only discovered electricity a like 200 years ago
17. That's the type of people science needs - clear and precise like James Sorensen's presentation. Out with dogma, put your feet on the ground and account for all evidence without unnecessarily complicating things.
18. A book called the Big Bang never happened discusses electricity and its relationship to the Big Bang.and galaxy formation. This talk captured Halton Arps work well.
19.  A Brave man, I'd say. Basically I can accept ALL those lastly mentioned 12 points. Indirectly this implies that Cosmos - as in the aspect of 'Existence' - is NOT, by it's core 'Nature', a SYSTEM (!!). Indeed (although), scientists can still treat it as such for (their) PRACTICAL purposes.  We can locationally, partially really speak of "system(s)" - like "Solar-System", for example - because of these  'scheme - dispensations'  relative STABILITY.
20. the way this speaker pronounces "measure" and "evidence" is plain silly.