I wouldn't bet on that!
So the discussion has become a bet?
Talking to you, is like talking to someone who thinks that the earth is flat.
If you just looked at the information that was already available, you would see that the
cosmic background radiation is failed in many ways.
A. It correlates with water.
B. Its data is made up by substracting received signals and not by adding them.
It is like recording a sound far away and straight forward in stereo.
If you substract left and right, you remove what you are trying to hear far away.
Instead if you add them, your signal gets better.
What these "scientists" did was substract the signals.
How on earth!!!
C. If we look at the real signals, and not the presented picture. We can see that I am right,
and that the presented picture just shows a invalid picture.
D. The theory. The universe is supposed to expand. Even faster than light. How can that ever bounce back
a signal. LMAO.
They are not.
Yes they are!
I am trying to get to your level of intelligence here...
You see i added a exclamation mark. Now you need to add 2.
It seems you don't understand the equations.
Well many people don't.
What Einstein did was a simple combination of rules, and putting them in one equation.
Did you know the Lambda was just added, but could be removed as well?
One can add and remove much more..
That is how flexible the equation is.
Because the equation creates many singularities, like black holes, it simply means it is
NOT COMPLETE. And any equation that is not complete, can not make predictions about
anything, it is just an estimation. And an estimation is automatically INVALID when it is near the singularities. Even if black holes would exist, it is still invalid. That is why Hawkins talks about Hawkin radiation, and other scientists about string-theory. Because the basis is invalid.
And even the estimation still it is wrong, because of the bending...
The bending is gravitational, and DO match the einstein's equations!
No, according to measurements they ONLY match the very flexible equations, near the corona.
So essentially they are WRONG.
See my discussion about relativity in this subforum. You probably missed it, like so much already.
But first read the many links that SOLAR added, to similar discussions, otherwise he might get mad!
... the GR, which ISN'T complete).
The BB theory only states that the universe was hotter, denser and smaller in the past, ....
That is what I meant.
And from there we build our theories of development of stars.
If these stars developed differently, we can assume that the BB theory did not have the properties
that we assumed it had.
But BB theory is generally thought to be correct. Unless someone comes up with a better model that explains all observations, we are stuck with the BB theory.
It is like saying we are stuck with the flat earth theory, because earth is not round, but earth is "curved".
2) The big bang starts with a singularity
Nope. Where does it say that?
"From nothing, the big bang came into being and suddenly there was light!"
That is my interpretation of the big bang. A singularity.
Sure galaxies are old.
Sadly you did not calculate it.
It is pretty easy.
Further, I find that you are not really common with the maths behind the GR theory.
It would be a nice discussion to have.
I suggest you learn a bit more about the Electric Universe.
It is clear that you have not seen the videos about the CBR,
Redshift, General relativity, etc..
While I think you are smart, if you want to discuss these things,
it would be better to start with the things that matter.
This thread is about Dark Matter.
Dark Matter is an invisible substance that can not be found anywhere, but
that is needed to explain the structures of the galaxies.
That is a theory, for which there is no support.
But there is the EU theory, that explains the structures of galaxies with
known physical laws!
So we don't need dark matter.
So this thread is finished!
From the EU theory, we can also see that the GR likely wrong and based
on wrong assumptions. If we test the GR in accurate circumstances, we
can see that the GR fails. And we can see that the places where GR is
thought to be active, simple electromagnetic phenomena are also good explanations.
So the GR seems wrong.
(which is no surprise, regarding the mathematical structure)
We already saw that we did not need dark matter.
Then how does this relate to the big bang?
Dark matter is needed to build structures in a short enough time, because gravity alone is not
enough to get the job done. So the big bang which defines an expansion rate, and the gravity,
can not produce the galaxies as observed. And that means the big bang is wrong somehow!
Surely the big bang is sooo flexible that we can just change it to a version that might work again.
Just like that we can hold on to a flat earth, by bending a flat earth in space and time towards a sphere.
But at a certain time you have to let go..