I have posted a question on Quora. It queries, “Why does everyone blindly accept the Big Bang theory without a single scrap of visual evidence?”
Most responses are respectful. But a handful of slack jawed idiots find it amusing to prod me; as if, like themselves, I am only interested in shining the spotlight on myself.
To these self-centered scatterbrains and to any skeptics of my proposal, I want to make it crystal clear that I would never attempt to take on the entire scientific community of Earth, if I was not completely certain that my theory represents the true nature of galaxy evolution; and the truth about Global Warming.
Like thousands of scientists over the past one hundred years, the inescapable contradictions between the Big Bang theory and the information that our instruments reveal compels me to seek an alternative solution. The further we gaze into the void of space, the less likely it is that the two trillion galaxies we observe began as a singularity. There has to be a logical solution.
So what exactly does my theory prove?
The main point I try to make is that my theory is based solely on visual observations; whereas the Big Bang and Dark Matter theories are implied. What they call evidence, I consider bullcorn trying to cover up more bullcorn.
To elaborate on this concept, I present galactic mergers and the expansion of the Universe as typical examples of bullcorn covering more bullcorn.
Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion travels in a straight line, unless acted upon by an external force. Now, there are several dozen galactic mergers visible from Earth. So, either dozens of galaxies were acted upon by external forces during their expansion from a Big Bang, or they simply originated from different points in space.
To witness the redshift of galaxies – or more precisely the lack of redshift – examine the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. This image represents the furthest observed objects in our Universe. Notice the tiny dots in the background. If the Universe were actually expanding, all those dots would be pure red.
All spiral galaxies clearly show matter spiraling inward. Every single one. If an individual can look beyond a Big Bang origin, and try to visualize the centers being eternal – just sitting there feeding on the material that gravity provides – it is simple to understand all the discrepancies that a time-static Big Bang poses.
The proof is in the pudding, as the old adage goes. Once a sentient creature can picture this process, it explains why there was no Big Bang; and why they cannot detect Dark Matter. All the stars in all the spiral galaxies are not orbiting their centers, they spend their existence spiraling INTO their centers.
It can also explain quasars and the Fermi Bubbles. They are both one in the same physical process. The centers of galaxies feed on the inbound material, and eject elementary particles back into space; a perpetual cycle of creation and destruction. Since they eject matter, by definition they cannot be black holes.
This ejection of elementary particles explains the abundance of heavy elements in the Galaxy much better than supernovae explosions. The quantity of supernovae needed to seed the Galaxy with heavy elements far exceeds what we observe.
I wouldn’t call this proof, but it makes sense, both visually and theoretically. Galileo Galilee stated, “All truths are easy to understand, once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
So, to you, Richard Reynolds, and the rest of you cynical critics, I point out that I am trying to save humanity from a grave miscalculation. I don’t want our creative species to perish thinking they were the cause of their demise.
At least I am working for a positive goal. What do you do, besides criticize others? I’m guessing, not much.
Galactic Furnace Theory 