Universe: The Cosmology Quest
Most of us are intrigued by questions to do with the origin and evolution of the universe. Where do we come from? Where are we going?
These are fundamental questions. But no one knows the answers. In the last few years there have been many claims that we are finally getting a true answer.
It is that the universe and all of the matter and energy out of which we are created was created in a great explosion about 15 billion years ago. This was the big bang. Most scientists will agree with this but there are a few of us, expert in the field, who understand that we still really don't know. This is the story of the few.
Most astronomical theory is arrived at in personal meetings between members of an influential elite. This film gives an opportunity to hear and see, first hand, the arguments which contradict the currently accepted paradigms.
Listen and reflect as researchers discuss discoveries which do not reach the news media, and public at large. See the evidence for a completely different universe. Discover together with many prominent workers in the field, what this universe looks like, and how it works.
It is amazing that this film got made considering the animosity towards alternative ideas in the field. It would appear that Meyers has become the Michael Moore of the science documentary!
This feature length presentation is a unique mixture of human interest and science documentary film. As the first comprehensive documentary to deal with major new approaches in non-bing bang cosmologies, it reveals several deep-rooted theoretical and observational controversies.
This is a fact, well hidden from university students and the general public, which is told with clarity and conviction: and potentially leading to the down-fall of the presiding Big Bang theory.
The story is told by 16 world renown astronomers and cosmologist such as the legendary Sir Fred Hoyle, controversial cosmologists Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp, philosopher and telescope designer John Dobson, astronomers Jack Sulentic, Jean-Claude Pecker, and Margaret Burbidge.
Illustrated with 3D animations and a lush symphonic soundtrack -this film is a scientific and historical "must" for anyone interested in astronomy and cosmology today.
I have seen this on you tube. But I would like to buy on dvd so I can watch all parts .
as an illustration that this problem perststs to this day, a very recent interview with Oxford physicist prof Subir Sarkar, on how he is obstructed from accessing the data that led to the awarding of the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Dark Energy Nobel prizes, after he found statistical inconsistencies and made observations which led him to re-examine the data used for those "discoveries".. He can only get the data of the "corrected" stats, the stats that confirm the current paradigm. In short: the Big Bang-Halton Arp story and cover up continues till this day.
Might be an idea when moderating comments to avoid double posting them. There was no indication it was awaiting moderation the first time, so I posted again. Maybe you could delete one or other of the above (and not post this one?). Cheers.
The idea that these are "companion galaxies" linked by bridges of matter but with different red shifts is as likely as that my cat actually had an owl sitting on its head in the photo I took. Things line up from a 3D view of a big universe by chance. Several of these people say this is improbable, but there are so many objects that could appear to be companions in this 2D compression that you are bound to find A LOT of them if you look. There will of course also be apparent "bridges" between these objects, which are merely part of one of them. The default text in this comment box said "be cool", so I am doing so, but the featured scientists appear to me not as censored, reasonable alternative voices, but as petty complainers who don't understand the relevant probabilities and simple cognitive biases involved, and whose ridiculous conjectures didn't stand up to scrutiny by their peers. It is somewhat difficult to be "cool" watching this charade and how it feeds the dangerous and prevalent mistrust of the scientific process, in which, in reality, new and alternative ideas tend to be championed and given a good space of time to argue their case. The comments here reflect that sorry state of general perception: everybody is blinkered except us. The fringes of science are littered with also-rans, endlessly publishing their tired complaints of being sidelined, making decent sums or relative fortunes from their book sales and lecture tours, and basking in the glow of ignorant panegyric introductions. Rupert Sheldrake is treated like a genius, Tom Campbell taken for the Buddha and David Icke's the son of god. You been had. It's pareidolia, Bible Codes, faces on Mars, just with stars.
The idea that these are "companion galaxies" linked by bridges of matter but with different red shifts is as likely as that my cat actually had an owl sitting on its head in the photo I took. Things line up from a 3D view of a big universe by chance. Several of these people say this is improbable, but there are so many objects that could appear to be companions in this 2D compression that you are bound to find A LOT of them if you look. There will of course also be apparent "bridges" between these objects, which are merely part of one of them. The default text in this comment box said "be cool", so I am doing so, but the featured scientists appear to me not as censored, reasonable alternative voices, but as petty complainers who don't understand the relevant probabilities and simple cognitive biases involved, and whose ridiculous conjectures didn't stand up to scrutiny by their peers. It is somewhat difficult to be "cool" watching this charade and how it feeds the dangerous and prevalent mistrust of the scientific process, in which, in reality, new and alternative ideas tend to be championed and given a good space of time to argue their case. The comments here reflect that sorry state of general perception: everybody is blinkered except us. The fringes of science are littered with also-rans, endlessly publishing their tired complaints of being sidelined, making decent sums or relative fortunes from their book sales and lecture tours, and basking in the glow of ignorant panegyric introductions. Rupert Sheldrake is treated like a genius, Tom Campbell taken for the Buddha and David Icke's the son of god. You been had. It's Bible Codes all over again, but in the stars. Thanks for reading.
I just saw an episode describing the beloved origin of life on Earth. What was said seems totally logical to me, but what wasn't mentioned was at what point was male and female separated, and why didn't they evolve into something else. My quest is they complimented one another, and together were stronger. But what's the theory about how they developed to start with?
This documentary points out many fallacies in how established science is maintained at the cost of innovation. I would assume that each modern society that has ever existed felt that their paradigm was the truth and they understood the universe pretty well. It is in our being, or should I say egos, that gives us a collective knowing.
There is much more to this story than slight resistance to conflicting evidences. When we look deeper, we find theories based on assumptions like the Big Bang. On top of this, there are many ad hoc "fixes" to make the standard model work. While most think dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars and many other mainstays in established cosmology have a plethora of empirical evidences to support them. The truth is that the evidences only exist in the theoretical world and truly understood by a few, if any.
On an almost daily basis, new data is coming down the pike which conflicts with the current paradigm. More and more cosmologists are coming to the realization that the standard model is not holding up to scrutiny. It is about time we all stopped supporting science by press release and use the scientific method ourselves. How much conflicting data do we require before it's time to scrap a theory?
Explains how ideas and research have been thwarted by the power structure of conventional science. Big Bang theory is now seriously in doubt by the expansion of suppressed science. The cosmos is bigger than religion and science. The cosmos is to science, as the single universe is to religion. Uplifting and hopeful.
Well I give Carlos right in some points, even if the English is not that good!
I'm a foreigner myself living in Europe. And that he is a bit of centered in his believe that everyone is wrong and he is right.
Where I have to support Carlos though is that human beings in their "infinite wisdom" always think they are down right on everything. However! There once was a time where the majority of people were certain that the world was flat!? There was a time when the majority thought that the earth was the center of the universe!? And most likely some people think that they have the answer on how the entire universe looks like...how can we? We don't even know how big it is!!! These are all Theories made out of that what we already know! And is there anybody here that "knows" all about the universe!? Most of us don't even know what is exactly happening in their backyard...and you must admit, that most humans believing that bullshit back in the days, did not have the slightest Idea themselves what was true or not! They just followed the majority and could not think for them selves...and actually hung up quite some people just they beleaved something different!
So anyone should respect an open mind that is capable of thinking for himself, then to just beleave anything that is being told to him or her by anyone that even may be a Scientist...then tomorrow all of the sudden all that has been taken for granted today, can just aswell be turned upside down the day after because of one single fact found, that today none of us can even hardly understand!
I'm sorry for my english cause i'm portuguese and i have some difficult to express and right in onother language, but.
1- Nobody can say that the tentative to use dark energy and dark matter that wasn't and problably never will be saw, is a ignorant way to prove that the big bang theory really works.
2- I saw dozens of docs, i read dozens of books and studies alot of fisics and quantum fisics and it's quite impossible that everything was created from a single particle that nobody now's what particle it is and nobody can prove mathematecly that even one infite dense particle can create something so huge as the observed universe, cause we can not see the boundries.
3- the time-line for the big bang theory is ridiculus, thats why mathematicians used dark energy and matter to prove the time the mathematic big bang theory predicts.
4- the arogance that the people in our time has to think that they are astute and hiper-inteligence to just say that this is the final theory is as stupid as the theories created and disproved before this one.
5- i think that the only theory reasonble enough will be created not by man but by a computer (after inserting all the data we can) but only in a very long future when the computing capability of computers reach a point when it passes million or more the one that the human brain can, and it's not just this theory, but also the theory of everything,
6- after reading most of the comments here i just beg you all, keep always an open mind and dont ever thing you are right or have all the ansers, cause what distinguishes us atheists, cientist, and free thinkers is the thought that everything is possible (even the thought of a creation) cause there is one thing that nobody can say, that something is impossible.....and dont forget that if we are very close to create a machine that can think, learn and be reasoneble, we can also be a part of an experiment of a much, much ancient and inteligent species, and dont ever forget that we see things from the parspective of our size, and we can be much smaller that we think in the universe.........
7- finally I would like to say that I love you all just for the fact that everything i see and read from people like all of you gives me so much pleasure that I thank my life for being so lucky to share ideas and thoughts with all of you......we are just so lucky that we was born in developed countries or that we had the oportunity to comunicate......We are all rich in our minds, more than rich people with poor mind.....
Thank you all..........and sorry for my english
With the incredible advancements in technology, it is unscientific to just go with what you've got. Always challenge theories. Hubble made his observations in the 1920s, WAY outdated.
One century ago man thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe.
There is a new documentary coming out that exposes a larger problem in physics and cosmology. It will be on the festival circuit in 2012 including Canne, Berlin, SilverDocs. Einstein Wrong - The Miracle year follows a family as they delve into the dissident area of physics. What they discover will rock science to its core.
Discusses the serious problems in astronomy today that senior astronomers are refusing to accept new ideas that will render their own work obsolete, because they are afraid that they will loose their jobs. Pride is also a factor that they do not want to be wrong having dedicated their life to believing in a certain idea. These senior astronomers are having a detrimental impact on astronomy and the understanding of the universe by suppressing new ideas and new observations that prove their old ideas incorrect.
20111207 - Important documentary that proves that the Red Shift is NOT a measure to show that galaxies are moving away from each other and Earth. This is very important because it means that the universe is not experiencing expansion in the way as described by Hubble. This means that it is very unlikely that our universe originated in the Big Bang Theory.
The now outdated Big Bang Theory stated that all matter in our universe originated in a large singular explosion and has expanded to its present form. The Big Bang Theory has suggested through Red Shift observations of very distant galaxies that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate.
Why this is wrong. The universe cannot expand faster than the speed of light and the Red Shift Theory is saying this will eventually happen.
Why do galaxies that are further away show a red shift? One only has to look at the sky at sunset to understand this phenomenon. The more atmosphere and dust that light has to go through the more the higher frequencies of light are absorbed or reflected away. Only the longer wavelengths of red light make it through.
The same is true for galaxies that are farther away. Therefore the farther a galaxy is away from Earth the more its light will be red shifted. Or the more dust and gas a galaxy's light has to go through the more red shifted the light is. Because the shorter wavelengths of blue light are being absorbed.
Therefore the universe is NOT expanding due to the Big Bang Theory.
Where does the matter of the universe come from then? Quantum mechanics states that energy can spontaneously become matter. In this case a basic hydrogen atom could be created from a negative charged electron and a positively charged proton. Hydrogen atoms gather due to electrostatic forces and later on gravity.
When sufficient hydrogen atoms have gathered together into a hydrogen cloud then their mass can then be triggered into fusion by a plasma wave or other source to create a star. The process of star formation may lead to the creation of a solar system. The process of many stars being created may lead to the formation of galaxies.
A star's life cycle will then create the rest of the elements required for planet formation and life as we know it.
Energy released by a star is then be recycled into creating more matter using the theory of quantum mechanics again. Quantum mechanics states that energy can spontaneously become matter. In this case a basic hydrogen atom could be created from a negative charged electron and a positively charged proton. Hydrogen atoms gather due to electrostatic forces and later on gravity.
Therefore the universe is always recreating itself. Over billions of years more and more basic matter is created enabling the creation of more hydrogen, hydrogen clouds, stars, solar systems, and galaxies. Star formation ejects lots of plasma energy into the universe (based on current observations). During the life of a star plasma energy is continuously being ejected out into the universe. The result is an electro magnetic plasma based universe.
A universe that is neither expanding nor contracting due a massive central explosion, but rather one that is growing steadily through the creation of new matter. Matter that is then shaped by the electro magnetic plasma fields of the universe.
These conclusions are drawn based on everyday observations (red shift), the Quantum Mechanics Theory, Quantum Mechanics Theory observations, and universe observations and the observations of electro magnetic plasma.
to people acting as detractors here such as godeshus
just because you don't have a secondary argument does not automatically make you wrong, saying we don't know what it is would be a perfectly acceptable statement under the scientific method
saying that , i do believe that though incomplete the standard model is probably the correct answer, but you shouldn't disparage or throw out something as "fringe science" just because you don't agree, that's just not how science is supposed to work.
i like the fact that these scientists continue to pursue an unpopular theory BECAUSE they're observations show something that doesn't work within the standard model
What a great set of videos!! incredible to see that even in modern science we get bogged down in dogma. As for the quasars linked to a galaxy, I would propose that they might be Blackholes that are being ejected from the centers, and this hyper velocity would explain the redshift anomaly
Well.. doc is total BS.. don't bother. @godeshus has a TKO.
Ahhh, like any other good quality fringe science, this documentary got so caught up in pointing out problems with the Standard Model that it forgot to go about proving its own theories. The creators would make Excellent politicians, pointing out problems with the adversary while never actually managing to provide anything useful.
poo rolls downhill it seems.
the way these ladies and gentlemen treat ufologists or free energy "kooks" is the same way they're being treated.
we've created a society that doesn't deal in innovation. it's all just been made into self-perpetualizing status quo.
What has to be learned from this doc is not that the current view we have of our universe's origins is wrong, or that some scientific renegades are instead the ones who hold the truth. No, the real lesson here is that all theories need to have competition. It's this competition that forces old concepts to be seen in a new light. It's what makes em either obsolete OR reinforces their position.
Bottomline is: an unchallenged hypothesis isn't very different from religious dogma. To have absolute faith in an explanation is counter-productive and unscientific, in my humble opinion.
Here, have my two cents :)
Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe
There is cosmological evidence for God and the Universe existed before Big Bang please.
Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.
Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound (this was the first Big Bang). It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.
These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.
I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.
Infinite expanse of gravitational force field is the region of dark energy.
what zol, hanselda, ff1 & ptolemy said
if your theory isnt the one that best accounts for the observed facts in the cosmos, you have a lousy theory.
you can love it to death, but that doesnt make it any better.
the less-loved, incomplete, but consensus theory may have gaps, but that doesnt make it non-useful, to the extent it is descriptive and predictive.
if the big-bang is wrong, these folks should be providing an alternative explanation which accounts for the red-shift routinely seen when looking at most any observable galaxy.
any anomalies are, of course, fertile ground for research and greater insight.
its illustrative that hoyle never altered his steady-state view, even in the face of an avalanche of supporting observation to the contrary. being a controversialist seems to have been an animating motive for him, as it may others.
The credits give the release date as 2003. I have Eric Learner's book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" Vintage 1991. It is an eye opener. To see this doc was great relief. Everything is so focused on the Big Bang,what is so disappointing is the scientists are so locked into conservative thinking, how can they be good scientist. The purpose of science is to measure the objective world and universe. They need to thing outside the box. Thanks for posting this.
Bottom line, the origin of the universe is outside of our parameter of understanding and no matter how much we evolve as a species will never be able to truly understand the forces of nature. Its like trying to explain an ipod to a blade of grass.
Even the brightest mind can not imagine the universe.
I don't know what to think. This documentary was really quite informative but it leaves a bad after taste.
The first half was probably the most informative, especially how they talk about the scientific community being just as bad as the rest of the world. To disregard new material just because it doesn't fit in the current picture is not science.
I agree with the message that more questions should be asked and free research should be allowed but we also have to consider that time and resources are limited and the committee that chooses who to give those time and resource to have a responsibility to give them to people whose research appears the most productive so I don't blame them for laying off a researcher who's researching a very risky subject that may produce no results. Of course i don't know all the details but I won't just accept what was told in the documentary as the whole truth and am trying to stay as objective as possible.
This documentary also seems to state the the majority of the scientific community is dismissing the new evidence just to paint a picture that fits with the currently held theory. I think that is misinformation because we have to remember that we know very little of the universe and scientist may not be ignoring it, but waiting until more data comes in that will provide them with the tools necessary to make all the connections if there are any.
I also don't like how this documentary pulls out the plasma universe theory out of nothing after have many great scientist talk about the seemingly wrong direction the scientific world is going as well as the unethical treatment of scientist according to their choice of research. It seems like it is a ploy to make all of the interviewed scientist seem as if they all do believe and argue for the plasma universe theory when the reality is that only two or three people in the documentary seemed to have supported it. Even then I'm not quite sure if they themselves said they think the plasma universe theory tops the big bang theory. It appeared to me that they were simple explaining the fault of the big bang theory and how the plasma universe theory works.
My personal opinion is that according to Occam's razor, the plasma universe theory seems much more complicated than the big bang theory. Sure with the big bang theory we have the questions "what was before the universe?" and "how can everything come from nothing?" etc. but with the big bang theory we have explain many things to a certain extent quite accurately. But I am still quite ill-informed so it may be a bias on my part.
Whatever the case may be I still like this documentary very much. It provided many great things for me to ponder...as if being a college student wasn't enough already.
This doc refers to the big bang as an explosion.
I think that how many point of views are there in any field of knowledge should not be treated with the human behavior of making beliefs with something as is happening in this case and in the similar issue of the representation of The Theory of Evolution and difference in point of views is not a big deal but the behavior towards it is what is the cause of Crucifixion of Galileo and our different sects of Islam.
This was different to most of the other 'big bang' documentaries i have seen, and this one seems to make the most sense imo...when looking at the 'big picure' What if our universe or 'existance' is constantly recycling itself?
Once galaxies become old and overtime many large stars have produced a lot of large/ heavy elements.... the black holes in the centre of galaxies suck them up, break all elements back down into hydrogen then release large clouds of quasars that eventually form the new galaxies... it shows these being released from the centre of galaxies where the largest black hole lies so it could work?...So it would never have been the case of a sudden explosion creating matter but just recycling and transfering of matter that always existed...This could be an eternal on going process?
Who knows its just one of philosophical explanations =)
waldo you need to get out more mate. that whole alien thing must have really f##ked you up. what do the greys think sbout the red shift?? surely they would know?? but then i am just an ignorant “nay sayer“. this was seriously one of most disappointing boring docs ever.. and you bore me even more
@ Cool E Beans
What's your standpoint on Plasma Cosmology?
@Zveki Achems answer not withstanding, your observations are noteworthy.
1. Einsteins equations relate to the acceleration of an object and not to its overall speed. You couldn't carry enough fuel to accelerate to or past the speed of light since as you speed up your mass increases requiring more thrust which requires more fuel which requires more thrust, etc. The solution, of course, is not to use thrust or push, but to use pull ie: a falling man requires no thrust to fall.
Simply create a gravitational field in front of your vessel and fall towards it. As you 'fall', you will be projecting that field ahead of you at an ever increasing speed without thrust or extra energy expension. Just remember to reverse the field direction at the halfway point of your journey or you will overshoot your destination.
2. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force or object. There is no friction in space so that any object moving at an original speed of 'X' would continue at that speed forever. Though gravity is a far reaching force, it is an extreamly weak force and the speed that expanding objects are moving away from each other would escape from the influence of other gravitational fields rather quickly, in my opinion, slowing each of them only slightly. Under those conditions, the most we should see in our universe is individual solar systems each moving away from each other and yet that is not what we observe.
While I don't subscribe to the existance of black holes by the classic definition, I do contend that hyper-gravitational fields could be created artificially. For a black hole to exist as defined, some light could escape past the fringes of a black hole causing those particles to be travelling at far less than the 186,000 mps attributed to 'all' observed light in the galaxy. And since all light is created by suns which have the greatest natural gravitational fields in each solar system, all light should be going slower than the maximum speed if gravity affected light particles at all. It doesn't.
this documentary has been posted several times on different sites under different names. it talks about what is now called plasma cosmology, you can look it up on wikipedia. the stuff contained in this film is, for the most part, bunk.
i wish carl sagan was alive.
I have no idea how you managed to find this about creationism? I'm an atheist and I didn't see anything religious about this doc. If anything it's anti-creationism. Maybe you should have watched more than 1 second.
Whats with the REVERB and the fake English Accent ?
This is not a science documentary - it is a piece of crap creationist flick, which becomes apparent after about one second. Avoid! Religious loonies really annoy me... :(
@Zveki: There was no particles, no mass, only "plasma" at the big bang. A soup.
Particles, matter started to form billions of years after when everything cooled somewhat.
Galaxies are colliding due to gravitational forces.
I have 2 questions that I never knew who to ask until I found out about this site. I really hope someone might give as much as a hint of an answer.
1. The big bang implies an explosion/expansion of the universe at an incredible rate. To my knowledge far greater than the speed of light. How is such an expansion possible for particles/materia considering Einsteins speed limit for anything with mass.
2. If the universe is expanding, why are galaxies sometimes colliding? An expansion would imply everything moving away from everything else.
Thanks for any replies and Vlatko thank you for keeping the site alive.
This movie reminds me of something? Hmmm, what could it be? I wonder if the big bangers are funded by the same foundations and govt. think tanks that sent out Al Gore out into the world as a voice crying in the wilderness for global warming god gaia?
@Ptolemy_Banana "There’s nothing wrong with plugging in an arbitrary # when the need calls." I well agree to some point.But considering Dark Matter and Dark Energy are 95% of this "Arbitrary" number, I'll sit on the fence here a little longer. To Me that's like seeing the last 5% of a ball game and saying you have a positive proof of how it all went before. I also hope Free Thought is not shunned in any scientific field. The Big Bang has the Spotlight now and for the reasons you have given. But I'm sure most will agree we HAVE to keep and open mind to what we my discover tomorrow. Thanks for the post Vlatko.
The best thing about the Big Bang Theory is that it has gone through the most vigorous of scrutiny. It's gone through decades of peer review. Countless discoveries have fit right into the model as they were discovered. It has predicted things that were later discovered, and this has happened frequently. It has predicted particles that were later discovered. It has predicted and helpped us find black holes.
Now we're talking about the Universe here, which is pretty big, so of course there are going to be holes in the theory. Especially when thinking of other spacial dimensions, multi-verses, string theory, and other really interesting ideas that are coming into the spotlight. But these things all fit within the Big Bang theory.
These people scorn Dark Matter and Dark Energy, yet don't refute it at all. They say they don't know. Well that's not an answer to a scientist. There's nothing wrong with plugging in an arbitrary # when the need calls. Science has been doing this for centuries and those holes tend to get filled when the appropriate discovery is made. Science can make very accurate predictions, and as far as theories go the Big Bang has made its fare share of predictions, given us guides on where to do our research, and hasn't disappointed very often.
This is the reason that the Big Bang has the spotlight. It isn't out of some conspiracy amongst scientists and investors. It's because out of all the theories we have for our Universe, it's the most solid, most rigorously tested. It's been peer reviewed and scrutinized.
One thing in this docu that really bothered me was when one of those interviewed (cannot remember his name) said 'If you remove the idea of redshift then these galaxies are all rotating around each other'. Well you CAN'T remove redshift. It is a phenomena that is very very real. It's like saying 'If you remove gravity, then my theory on the universe works'. Well yeah, maybe, but there's gravity in the Universe so you have to deal with it. They also scorned computer simulations by saying 'you can plug in any data you want to make it work' and then at the end of the docu they made their own computer simulation with their own data. Basically they are scorning Big Bang Theorists for our methods, and then using those same methods to try and prove a point, which I'm not sure there was one.
What I DID like about this docu, however, was that it promoted a high degree of free thought. It promoted objectivity and not being afraid to ask questions and come up with new ideas.
PS @those who are weary I don't think that this is a tool of creationists and intelligent designers. One of the people said he didn't believe in the Big Bang theory because he's atheist and the theory itself is too akin to creationism, with only the timeline different. Also, they talked about asking questions. Creationists don't ask questions. They assume the bible is right beyond reason.
I have seen many creationists make room for God within the Standard Model, which can easily be argued with the fine tuning arguments. Many fine tuning arguments (e.g. cosmological constant) are parasitic upon the standard model, and would thus collapse with the fall of this paradigm. In other words, it is much more difficult to argue for creation if the universe itself is eternal, and therefore without a beginning.
thanks for this one.
Actually that thought also crossed my mind, could be a creationists ploy, a prelude to trick us into their Genesis comic book scenario, god was mentioned a few times. Found from past experience they are very tricky! And they mentioned the "Void" a few times, that comes straight out of the bibles, as in the beginning there was a great "Void" a nothingness.
If this doc captured your interest, try Nassim Haramein on google. Interesting stuff, although i'm not sure how seriously to take it yet.
Some viewers may be missing part of the conclusion.
Part eight shifts to almost end of part9 and 9 minutes of the conclusion is not being seen.
I had to reset part 9 each time part 8 ended.
@ D.E. Goodman
Thanks for the correction, you are absolutely right.
Thank you for the compliment. I subscribe to the idea that there is no absolute truth, in most situations. We all experience the world through our own reality tunnel that filters our perceptions according to our own belief system. That said there is never a legitmate defense for certain repulsive actions. I fail at this objectivity at times, as I catch myself passionately defending some idea or belief. But, as a rule I try to move myself to a perspective that allows me to see the opinions of others from their point of veiw, which completely does away the silly duality so often instilled in us by religiouse ideology. See, there I go again making an assertion and defending it. The duality of good and evil is a valid concept from certain perspectives. I must admit that I have yet to experience these perspectives, but I must believe they are valid in some way. My fellow man has believed passionately in this concept for far to long to simply dismiss it out right.
Its hard to do this, but I am trying as I believe it will make me a better person able to live a more full and rewarding life. To give credit were credit is due, this way of thinking is a result of debates I have had and documentaries I have seen on this site, along with personal introspection. Thank you Vlatko, you are truly making a difference in this world.
You are right! I meant "Thunderbolts of the gods"
I have no excuse, must of had a "Maladaptive brain activity change"! (LOL)