|
|
November 27, 2004
Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd
Eit Gaastra, a Dutch chemical engineer who turned to cosmology to find meaning in life and explanations for the origin of this universe, says that the Big Bang is an absurd theory and that we will be laughing about Einstein before too long. Strong words, especially as they don't come from an established scientific authority but from a self-taught dissident.
For those interested in the details of Eit's Infinite Universe cosmology, they are outlined on his homepage.
Gaastra believes that science has gone down the path of religion, into an unmovable dogmatism that stifles research and new ideas. In a recent presentation, given in Leeuwarden in the Netherlands, he paints a simple view of today's cosmology and outlines how today's dearly held scientific dogma suggests scenarios of doom and isolation. We must open our minds to new ideas and follow our intuition, is the message, if we are to realize our creative potential and advance human knowledge.
Here is an English translation of that talk.
- - -
See also:
A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist
The fact that Einstein was a plagiarist is common knowledge in the physics community. What isn't so well-known is that the sources Einstein parroted were also largely unoriginal. In 1919, writing in the Philosophical Magazine Harry Bateman, a British mathematician and physicist who had emigrated to the United States, unsuccessfully sought acknowledgment of his work.
"The appearance of Dr Silberstein's recent article on General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis encourages me to restate my own views on the subject," Bateman wrote.
"I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of general relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers."
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday November 27 2004
updated on Friday December 10 2010
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/27/beyond_einsteins_relativity_cosmology_dissident_says_big_bang_absurd.htm
Related Articles
Gene Mallove: Science Censorship is 'Invisible Evil'
When in February this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists came out with a warning that "the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad", a long festering wound was touched, but unfortunately no cleansing process seems to be underway as yet. Examples for the distortion of science for purposes of either... [read more]
April 30, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Peer Review - Politics of Science?
According to a recent article on BushGreenwatch.org, the White House is looking for ways to more closely control what scientists are allowed to say in studies that are to be used by the US government in forming policy in the areas of health and the environment. The peer review system, whereby a scientific article is scrutinized by a scientist's colleagues - actually often by an anonymous selection of "guardians of... [read more]
January 29, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
A Universe of Scale - Stars edge closer
Can communication be transmitted over distance without the need for electromagnetic radiation "travelling" to carry the message? Hartmut Mueller of the Institute for Space-Energy-Research in Wolfratsthausen, Germany, says it can. Mueller has developed a theory of global scaling, which states that matter and energy organize in accordance with principles of scale. The "nodes" or preferred points of concentration, may be distant in linear space, but adjacent in "logarithimic space",... [read more]
September 21, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Space Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'
Einstein’s Greatest Blunder is the title of a paper by Roger A. Rydin, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering Emeritus at the University of Virginia, who says that Einstein's general theory, for all its mathematical elegance, should never have been applied to cosmological questions. In the Introduction, Rydin says: The 1915 exposition of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR), plus the 1929 empirical statement of Hubble's Law, were the basis of... [read more]
May 13, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Time, Reality and an Experience of Death
The Austrian Nobel physicist Schroedinger pointed out in his essay "Geist und Materie" (Mind and Matter), that the physicist, in an effort to "objectivate" observation, excludes himself as well as the whole world of the mind, from the "objective" scientific reality that is said to exist independently of human interaction. Schroedinger saw a great paradox in this separation of the world into subjective reality - the mind and the spirit... [read more]
April 03, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Dutchman predicts scientific revolution
One would not think, reading what we are served in current media, that there could be much wrong with Science itself. Yet, there are problems which actually impede real progress in the development of technologies necessary for getting into space. Current physics is not a small weight around the necks of leading developers of the cutting edge technologies we need. There are dissident scientists who have recognized the limitations of... [read more]
September 18, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Readers' Comments
An e-mail response by Caroline Thompson, which I believe may be interesting also for other readers...
Dear Eit
Sepp Hasslberger [sepp@lastrega.com] suggested I might be interested in your ideas, and indeed I am. You say (in http://www.eitgaastra.nl/printleeuwardenengels.html ) that you have been very interested in physics since 2001, and I gather that you have concentrated on what is wrong with Einstein's theories of relativity and the Big Bang. But his invention of the photon may go down in history as an even worse blunder! All true scientists were against the idea at first, and it only caught on, I think, because the media had promoted Einstein to god-like status after the supposed confirmation of his General Relativity theory by the 1919 eclipse data.
I too think that there are exciting things yet to be discovered, but they are mainly in the area currently dominated by quantum theory. I have been studying this (mainly optics) since 1993, and consider most of the claims of confirmation to be worthless. In quantum optics, there is nothing that cannot be modelled much more satisfactorily using a purely wave model of light and ordinary classical methods.
Perhaps if you have a spare moment you could look at my web site? I think you might be interested in what I have to say in the section http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm. You might also like to read about my own TOE:
"The Phi-Wave Aether: a Wave Theory of Everything",
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Essays/GED.PWA.pdf
Yours sincerely
Caroline
Caroline H Thompson
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
Posted by: Sepp on November 27, 2004 08:26 PM
Another comment/question received from Charles Weber which I share because of the related theory link...
Dear Sepp Hasslberger;
Thank you for your message. I take note that you believe that the cosmic background is cooler when observed in a cluster. Do you have any original references to this phenomenon?
You do not mention the possibility that quasars are due to a gravitational lensing of its light by a huge mass WITHIN the quasar. Perhaps you have not seen my proposal along those lines at;Â Â
www.geocities.com/isoptera.geo/index.html (link no longer active) now at http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html.
Sincerely, Charles Weber
Posted by: Sepp on November 27, 2004 08:38 PM
To understand things in the large (Cosmology) you must firstly understand things in the small. That is not the case in today's official physical theories. Much is described in a proper way but not understood. Of that reason I haveconcentrated myself on the task of understanding fundamental processes of matter on very low level, such as the qutantum atom, the electromagnetism, the gravitation,upcome and existence of elementary particles, the basic nature of light. Starting in this way I think COsmologial problems get their solutions in a natural way.
/Ove
Posted by: Ove Tedenstig on November 27, 2004 09:43 PM
Dear Sepp;
I write this to inform you that www.geocities.com/isoptera.geo/index.html has been changed to
http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html (Cause of the Characteristics of Quasars).
www.geocities.com/isoptera.geo/redaw.html is now http://charles_w.tripod.com/red.html (The Cosmological Red Shift as an effect of Gravity on Photon Frequency).
The Geocities site will not be available after October.
Sincerely, Charles Weber
Posted by: Charles Weber on August 16, 2009 07:14 AM
Much of what you have posted is intresting,however I can, if you are intrested,help to fill in your gaps.There is actually two types of gravity.The dimensions of space actually vibrate.The size of the universe is directly determined by the fact we have gravity.This all comes from a very special computer program which I developed.It has worked much of the structure of space itself.I can tell you much more if you are intrested.
Don Tetterington
Don@Tetterington.com
Posted by: Don Tetterington on October 26, 2009 01:42 PM
Don, thank you for your comment here. Please also check out my since established site that deals with physics and energy issues more specifically than this one. You find that at
http://blog.hasslberger.com
And yes, I am interested in knowing more about your ideas on gravity. Perhaps you could suggest an article to publish there, to let more people know about your views and discoveries.
Posted by: Sepp on October 26, 2009 02:23 PM
Revered Scholar,
I would like to show sympathy
with you on the dissident view from relativity and big bang. I will appreciate your time if you visit the website http://www.freesoulland.com/:A UNIFIED THEORY: THE BACKGROUND MATTER OF THE UNIVERSE, and give comment. Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours.
Posted by: SAICON KIM on May 14, 2014 08:44 PM
I visited the site you indicated, Saicon Kim. The publication is a bit too long to get into in the time I have available, but I can say that I do not support the speculation of "dark matter".
In my view, dark matter is an invention to explain that we do not know how gravity actually works. It is a purely theoretical construct that no one has shown to actually exist.
Sincerely
Posted by: Sepp on May 15, 2014 04:12 PM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.
1450
|
|
