As opposed to the Big Bang theory what do you think about this theory?

Question

The theory is at this website...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-wsm-summary-infinite-space.htm
The people have some quirks but I think the theory makes sense. The reason I'm asking about it is because I am not really that knowledged on the details of evidence for either theory and want to know your honest opinion on both the Big Bang theory and this WMS theory.

Answer 1

That theory, in spite of what they say or who they quote, is about as bogus as any theory can be. Although the author may be serious, he's also seriously misguided.

If he's correct, then all the other scientists in the world are wrong.

I'm very adept at science (especially physics and maths) and I can't even begin to count the erroneous assumptions he's making.

The available observational evidence gives more support to the 'big bang' theory than any other competing theories to date.

Until more compelling evidence supports an alternative, I have to side with the 'big bang' as more credible than WSM Cosmology.

He raises some interesting issues, but nothing that I can take seriously in a scientific context due to his lack of experimental evidence in support of his theory and the fact that it contradicts some known facts and logic.

I noticed he doesn't make much use of math either. Probably because, the math wouldn't work out in favour of his theory or he simply doesn't know how to express it in mathematical terms. If he's smart enough to solve the mysteries that elude modern science, then he should be smart enough to express himself in terms a real scientist can study and evaluate independently.

Many of the people he quotes would strenuously disagree with him in a heartbeat. Don't be fooled by his crafty use of famous name-dropping and pompous scientific terms.

That site reeks of the stench of pseudoscience from one end to the other.

I don't see any sound science behind his statements.

If true, his theory belongs in a peer reviewed science journal. His web site is not the proper forum for the release of such an earth-shaking discovery.

Answer 2

As metaphysics, rather than physics, the Wave Structure of Matter theory is not so much opposed to the Big Bang theory as it is somewhere out there and off to the side. Like out in left field.

The Big Bang theory, incomplete though it might be, explains otherwise puzzling observations such as the expansion of the universe and the microwave background radiation. In fact, it predicted the background radiation. WSM is just pseudo-science and circular reasoning

Answer 3

Funny.

Let's do something the website creators didn't really bother to do. Let's think about this.

Why would any scientist-- with a discovery as groundbreaking as to question every standard scientific convention out right now, instead of bothering to publish a paper (and back it up with facts) that will cause a huge stir among the scientific community and be picked up by the news agencies-- instead decide to make a website to spread such "scientific breakthroughs" with people who can't appreciate it at all?

Because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Anyone can take quotes out of context, quote philosophers who thought the world was flat, and then take confusion about the unknowns of space, combine it and call it a logical explanation for everything.
These people are called liars.

My eyes began to glaze over the instant I saw the word metaphysics.

To chalk everything in astronomy up to "they don't like to change", and then to bring in crap like redshifts being a lie?

Next time you see the word metaphysics, just hit alt-f4 and know you've made the world a better place.

Answer 4

They made up their mind first (the One Thing--space infinite and eternal) and then fit everything to that. That's not science. It's fine to make up a theory, but you follow it up with predictions that flow by way of logic, and then prove or disprove the predictions. None of that is happening on this website. It's not science.

It doesn't work to use "common sense" arguments when discussing the nature of the universe because the most important parts are counter-intuitive. "As only one thing, Space, exists, there can be no creation of Space as creation requires two things (Space, and that which is not Space but created Space) thus Space is Eternal." Sorry, clever syllogisms don't work at the quantum level where things like "entanglement" can be observed experimentally.

Answer 5

Meh, for a second there, I thought it would be something interesting. If you want a better "slternate theory of everything," please visit http://www.thunderbolts.info and http://www.plasmacosmology.net both are backed by actual physicists who study the characteristics of plasma in the lab, and also by electrical engineers who see the exact same structures in the lab that are displayed all over the universe...

And several of the physicists HAVE published rather interesting papers. But these sites are intended for the layman reader, in order to better inform them of alternate theories of why things happen.

The big bang paints a pretty picture, but there are better explanatory theories that actually make useful predictions that have been verified across a wide range of stellar objects (rilles on the moons and other planets in the solar system, giant Birkeland currents from the sun to Earth and to the poles of other planets in the solar system, volcanoes on IO that "move across the surface" and "blind probes" [they're more likely giant electrical discharge arcs similar to sprites and blue jets in Earth's upper atmosphere arcing toward space], "spider web" formations of charred ELECTRICAL scarring around Mars' poles [Nasa seems to think it's some geological or water draininge process, but that doesn't CHAR the soil], etc etc.)

Anyway, have fun with that...

Also, the original poster's link kind of reminds me of another site of interest, though slightly harder to understand:

www.anpheon.org which also proposes a wave nature for the universe. I'm slightly more skeptical of anpheon.org than of thunderbolts.info which I heartily support and contribute article suggestions to from Nasa's pictures archive. I mean the evidence is EVERYWHERE as to the electrical nature of the universe. We just need to LOOK with untainted eyes and revise a few cherished beliefs (black holes and pulsars have the same structure, as do several other stellar objects: a giant ring or disk around a "pinch" and massive jets of charged particles being actively ejected from both ends around the poles; likely we've mistakenly identified the same phenomena/process for a whole slough of other astronomical objects that really all have the same source, big ol' electric currents in space).

Cheers,
~Michael

Answer 6

No math.
Lots of pretty pictures.

Doesn't do a lot for me. It's mostly a lot of pseudo science babel mixed with several belief systems. I don't accept the big-bang theory either, but that's not going to make me jump on just any feel-good theory that comes along.

Answer 7

difficult aspect. check out into the search engines. just that can assist!