Starship Asterisk*

Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939

FieryIce wrote:The Latin Vulgate, Great Bible (1539), Douay Bible (1609-1610), Moscow Patriarchate (1956), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Version (1611), Revised Standard Version (1957) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989) all contain those questions posed to Ezra.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939

Honestly, for intelligent posters or putting yourselves forward as intelligent, I can’t fathom how you cannot see what is in front of your nose in black & white or of the simplest search for data.

mybluecowboy wrote:BMAONE23,
Here are two links that may help you...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

Craterchains,

Who said anything about who I worship or don't, how is it that no one except the two of you understand what you are talking about and niether of you want to give any actual information, just a lot of nonsence. Your continued reference to anyone's lack of intellegence w/o your willingness to explain, only appears that you are defending your self when you are not being attacked. If you expect any one to believe your point of view, insulting them is not going to make it happen, niether is your complete lack of willingness to provide anything more than some random verses from a book that gets very little in the way of credibility. I am not looking at any of this from a religious standpoint, but you have yet to give any info other than one verse and some put downs.

Fireyice,

Ezra and Esdras are not the same, try not to compare to things that are not the same. You both expect everyone to just see this technology thing and the only scripture you can give to back up what you are suggesting is something very vague and with out a lot of serious weight in acceptability.

Several new papers with experimental proofs supporting the energy loss of photons due to the traces of hydrogen in space have been published more recently. For example, a paper entitled: The Cosmological Constant and the Red Shift of Quasars (27), explains the consequences of a redshift due the traces of hydrogen in outer space. Furthermore, another paper entitled: Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Object" (28) shows that the difference of redshift between the components of binary stars systems can only be explained by the difference of temperature responsible for the change of coherence of blackbody radiation as explained above. Furthermore, that same paper shows that the K effect and other astronomical observations require that photons are redshifted when moving through traces of hydrogen gas. Also, the solar atmosphere shows a redshift which varies as a function of the radial distance as seen from he Earth. That is explained in the paper(29): "Redshift of Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere". That redshift remained unexplainable until it was realized that the hydrogen in the solar atmosphere has exactly the correct concentration to explain its redshift (as explained above). Finally, various other descriptions of that phenomena have been presented (30).

A New Non-Doppler Redshift.

There are now 109 QSO’s for which the redshift value Z has been determined independently both in emission as well as in absorption. In all 109 cases, the emission redshift is different from the absorption shift (for one and the same object).
This is clearly contrary to the Doppler hypothesis.
Many more observations lead to results, which are incompatible with the interpretation that redshifts are due to relative velocity.
This book shows that taking into account the change in momentum of the electrons of gas molecules scattering light in space leads to bremsstrahlung and a slightly inelastic forward scattering.
This is the first Non-Doppler redshift theory, which when combined with the usual Doppler phenomenon, would explain consistently all spectral shifts observed in astronomy.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.


(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform


(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.


(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

It is widely believed among scientists that the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. Although the primeval soup is thought to have originated at zero volume, quantum physics considerations require that it could not be described before its diameter in centimeter reached about 10-33 (that is, 1-billion-trillion-trillionth cm). This means that the universe, then expanding at near the speed of light, was about 10-43 second old.
After that instant, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe kept expanding and became many billions of billions of times (on the order of 1020 times) larger and older, until it reached the size of an electron that has a radius of approximately 10-13 cm, when the universe was 10-23 second old. During the following 15 billion years, according to the theory, the universe expanded to a radius of 15 billion light-years to the size it is claimed today. (A light-year, the distance traversed by light in a vacuum in one year, is 9.5 ´ 1012 kilometers.)

The author (center) with the organizers of the Feb. 1989 Plasma Universe conference in La Jolla, Calif., Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (right) and Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory (left).

These are the dimensions and time scale required by the Big bang model, a model that has certainly not been accepted by all scientists because it leads to insurmountable difficulties. Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937).

In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989).

he Redshift.
A large number of redshift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue". Many other papers indicate that non-velocity produced redshifts have been observed.
A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations

Light Element Production.
It is not necessary to invoke a Big Bang in order to explain the observed abundances of light elements. A plasma model of galaxy formation accomplishes the task very well (Rees 1978; Lerner 1989). The plasma model shows that the elements are produced during galaxy formation in their observed abundances by early massive and intermediate stars. The nuclear reactions and cosmic rays generated in and by these stars lead to production of the elements. As a recent reviewer of plasma theory wrote, the plasma model: "accounts accurately for the observed overabundance of oxygen in the lowest metallicity stars, and deuterium, and does not over-produce the remaining rare light elements - lithium, beryllium, and boron" (Lerner 1989).

Cosmic Background Radiation.
The existence of the 3 K microwave radiation is no longer valid evidence for the Big Bang. There is no need to assume, as Big Bang believers do, that this background radiation came from a highly Doppler-redshifted blackbody(3)at about 3,000. K - that is, from the exploding ball of matter - when its density became low enough for energy and matter to decouple. The background radiation is simply Planck's blackbody radiation emitted by our unlimited universe that is also at a temperature of about 3 K (Marmet 1988).
The inhomogeneity of matter in the universe today means that there should be some inhomogeneity in the cosmic background radiation if it originated in a Big Bang. But no fundamental inhomogeneity in the background has been clearly found, despite tests that are sensitive down to small scales. Matter is concentrated in galaxies, in clusters and super clusters of galaxies, and in what has been called the Great Attractor (a tentatively identified but huge concentration of mass centered 150 million light-years away). These important inhomogeneities in the composition of the universe as we see it today must have first appeared in the early universe (if it exists). In fact, a comparable inhomogeneity must have existed in the matter that emitted the 3 K radiation. That inhomogeneity must appear as a distortion in the Hubble flow(4) (Dressler 1989) and must lead to observable irregularities in the 3 K background. Inhomogeneities in the 3 K radiation have been looked for but nothing is compatible with the mass observed in the Great Attractor. A. E. Lange recently reported that there is no observable inhomogeneity even with a resolution of 10 seconds of arc and a sensitivity in temperature as high as DT=± 0.00001 K (Lange 1989).
Nor can Einstein's general theory of relativity be applied in a consistent manner to the Big Bang model. According to the model, when the universe was the size of an electron and was 10-23 second old, it was clearly a black hole - a concentration of mass so great that its self-gravitation would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded. Therefore, one would have to assume that gravity started to exist only gradually after the creation of the universe, but that amounts to changing the laws of physics arbitrarily to save the Big Bang model. In contrast, a stable universe as suggested here agrees with Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological constant(5) he proposed in 1917.
Recent astronomical discoveries pose an additional and very serious problem for the Big Bang theory. Larger and larger structures are being found to exist at greater and greater redshifts, indicating their existence in the increasingly distant past. (Whether one assumes the Big Bang or the theory presented here, the redshift is normally an indicator of distances, and because it takes time for light to travel, the image of a highly redshifted object is seen on Earth today as it was when the light began to travel.)
In 1988, Simon Lilly of the university of Hawaii reported the discovery of a mature galaxy at the enormous redshift of 3.4; that is, the amount of the redshift for any spectral line from the galaxy is 340 per cent of the line's proper wavelength (Lilly 1988). This puts the galaxy so far in time that the Big Bang scheme does not allow sufficient time for its formation! In a news report on Lilly's work, Sky & Telescope reports: "The appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big Bang poses a serious threat . . ." (Aug. 1988, p. 124).
In 1989 came the discovery of the "Great Wall" of galaxies, a sheet of Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the structure being limited only by the scale of the survey (Geller and Huchra 1989). It is located between 200 and 300 million light-years from Earth. In an interview with the Boston Globe (Nov. 17 1989), Margaret Geller of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics offered some frank comments on the implications of her discovery:

The size of the structure indicates that in present theories of the formation of the universe "something is really wrong that makes a big difference,"
Geller said in an interview:
No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed", She said.

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5]. Until a satisfactory model of the universe is found, the cosmological model must be reconsidered every time new observations or new considerations are brought in. It is not possible to achieve a rational choice between alternatives models when only one alternative (the big bang) is considered. We will examine here how some observations involving plasma physics in space are compatible with a recent red shift theory. We will see then how the new-tired light mechanism [6] is in agreement with many reliable observations.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

Harry I can only assume your trying to annoy everyone, you just posted the same list of ten "problems" with the BB that I destroyed a month ago

Destroyed what mate, what qualifications have you got over and above some of the famous cosmologists.

harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic

I read your link on entropy.

I totaly disagree.

There is enough information against the Big Bang not to have it as the standard theory.

Using the Big Bang causes more problems in formulating many issues in cosmology.

But! that my opinion.

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2 molecules is much larger. Because atomic and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).
The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe.

was formerly a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, and from 1967 to 1982, he was director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Quebec. A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Marmet also served as a member of the executive committee for the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada from 1979 to 1984.