The Static Universe, Hilton Ratcliffe

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.amazon.com/Static-Universe-Exploding-Cosmic-Expansion/dp/0986492620/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281221845&sr=8-1

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Fol%2B9f1gL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Product Description
"The Static Universe" is an anthem for the growing number of skywatchers who are heartily sick and tired of being led up the garden path. Is the Universe expanding? Maverick astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, author of the highly controversial book "The Virtue of Heresy", argues that it is not, and if he's right, an entire body of science is brought to its knees. The impact of the ensuing catastrophe will be devastating, and the cost to those who doggedly defend the prevailing paradigm is inestimable. It certainly runs to billions of dollars. In a world where self-interest rules, the author of this shocking expos is literally putting himself on the line. Big Brother does not want you to read this! (edited by author)

About the Author
Hilton Ratcliffe is a South African-born physicist, mathematician, and astronomer. He is a member of both the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He is prominently opposed to the stranglehold that Big Bang Theory has on astronomical research and funding, and to this end became a founding member of the Alternative Cosmol-ogy Group (an association of some 700 leading scientists from all corners of the globe), which conducted its inaugural international conference in Portugal in 2005.

He is an active member of the organisational, scientific, and proceedings committees for the second ACG conference, which was held in the USA in September 2008. Hilton has been fre-quently interviewed in the press, radio, and television, and has authored a number of papers for scientific journals, books, and conferences. He writes a monthly astrophysical column for Ndaba, the Durban Centre newsletter of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa, and is editor of the ACG newsletter.

He serves as consulting astrophysicist on the steering committee of the Durban Space Science Centre and Planetarium, a project of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (Durban Centre). Hilton Ratcliffe is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, to-gether with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun, nearly 70 years after it was first predicted.

In his capacity as a Fellow of the (British) Institute of Physics, he involves himself in addressing the decline in student interest in physical sciences at both high school and university level, and particularly likes to encourage the reading of books. Hilton Ratcliffe may be reached by email at [e-mail].

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. ...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I'm guessing you are under 16. That's my final answer, stalking is

ill advised btw.


http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm

It would appear that the weakness of BBT is found right there: The foundational assumptions are flawed, and that necessarily infects any development off that base. Van Flandern presented a second paper at CCC2, Two Pillars of the Big Bang Fall, fulfilling the prediction of his first. Over the past decades, numerous serious problems with Big bang Theory have emerged, at the rate of about 5 per year, and the list now stands at around 60. In the last three years, observational evidence has accumulated challenging two of the most fundamental stanchions of BBT: That cosmological redshift indicates universal expansion; and that the microwave background (CMBR) originates primordially, beyond all visible structure. The widely-acclaimed assertion that supernova light curves confirm the notion of expansion fails on close analysis. A basic and well known selection effect was overlooked: When SN data are corrected for Malmquist bias, all evidence for time dilation disappears, with the obvious implication that the Universe (or space itself) cannot be expanding.

Analysis of WMAP data has produced two unexpected results: Correlation of the octupole moments with the ecliptic plane and solar motion through the interstellar medium; and the refutation by observation of expected heating of the MB by X-rays from the Sunyaev-Zeldovitch effect in galaxy clusters, which indicates cooling (random fluctuations rather than X-ray heating) in about half the galaxies studied. In his usual forthright manner, Van Flandern concludes with the stern declaration that, “By any reasonable standard, the theory is now falsified.”

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I'm guessing you didn't realize Hilton Ratcliffe was a global warming denier.

Oh, HD. Is there any goofy shit you won't purposefully believe in just to claim martyr status?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. A global warming denier.... how apropo. He denies global warming

or does he deny that there is much we can do about it... there you go twisting things to suit your agenda.

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm



The Heavies! The CCC2 panel chairmen fielding questions at the closing session. From left, Eric Lerner, Chuck Gallo, Chris Fulton, Hilton Ratcliffe, Tim Eastman

The last three years have been characterised by rapidly growing dissatisfaction amongst formerly dedicated Standard Model cosmologists. It is an onerous position to be in, for one’s career has been built upon certain premises, and when they lose their gloss, the way forward is pitted and fraught with obstacles. Only the most resolute and principled of scientists dare turn their backs on the golden goose, and those that do, deserve our admiration and applause.

For some time prior to his involvement with CCC2, University of Alabama astronomer Professor Richard Lieu had been making his discontent felt. In 2006, he co-chaired a conference with Albert Stebbins at Imperial College, London, which sought to address outstanding issues in cosmology. Thereafter he published a paper entitled Lambda-CDM Cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all the evidence? As a leading member of the science fraternity, he took a responsible position: Although the Standard Model of Cosmology had proven itself extremely resilient over several decades, it seemed that there were flaws in the foundations that gave cause for deep concern. He followed that paper with LCDM cosmology: its bright and its dark sides, which he presented personally at CCC2.

He summarised his paper thus: “The success of LCDM cosmology lies with its ability to explain by one mathematically sophisticated model the scale dependence of the CMB anisotropy, structure formation, light element abundance, and the age of the Universe. There are however at least six independent assumptions about space, time, matter, and energy that do not correspond to our everyday experience and cannot be verified in the laboratory within the foreseeable future. Examples are the Hubble expansion and the Planck time. There are also many unexplained phenomena, labelled as ‘small details’, such as the missing 50% of the baryons at low redshift, the anomalies of cluster X-ray spectra, the dwarf galaxy rotation curves and the abundance of satellites around the Local Group spirals.”

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. No, he's just a straight up global warming denier.

In addition to the whole creationist "the Big Bang never happened" stuff, he's your typical Glenn Beck style global warming denier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FZZxzB9-Qg

So if it wasn't the racists before, it's the global warming deniers now.

You sure know how to pick them, HD.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. You dislike many people... is there some cogent reason for your

unbridled disdain for new information?? Pity that.

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/067974049X/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NkV-yUD7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Here's another sensational statement for you: There's no need to become hysterical when attacking or defending this book. I have some problems with Lerner's style and conclusions, but I think he successfully makes the point that the role of plasma physics in the formation of galaxies is deserving of further consideration. And his objections to the Big Bang are neither new nor shocking; with the exception of the age of the "Great Wall," they comprise the same problems that cosmologists have been working indefatigably to explain since the Big Bang theory gained mass acceptance. His heresy is simply in seeking outside the parameters of the Big Bang for a solution. One reviewer, who finds Lerner's conclusions--and perhaps even his search--unjustifiable, says that this book "deserves to be burned." There are several unflattering names for this approach to debate.

Apropos of reviewers, a couple of them recommend that prospective readers seek out the works of Nobel laureates, who "know what they're talking about." The "obscure Lerner" based his book on the work of Hannes Alfven, who won the Nobel prize in 1970 for his work in plasma physics and is considered the father of that discipline. (Alfven took another heretical position when he claimed that electrical currents could pass through space. Both his idea and the proofs he offered were met with howling derision, but oddly enough he turned out to be right!)

Another reviewer complains that Lerner offers no explanation for the uniformity of background microwave radiation. In fact, he offers an explanation based on a diffusion effect caused by the absorption and emission of microwaves by "black bodies." Right or wrong, it's in the book and can thus be subjected to rational inquiry.

Plasma cosmology may someday be proven to be dead wrong. Until then, it's an elegant, exciting theory that deserves open-minded discussion rather than the largely subliterate polemics--pro and con--afforded it in this forum of eBay amateurs. No one should feel so secure in the accuracy of a human conception as to be unwilling to at least read a dissenting viewpoint.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I dislike liars and frauds such as Ratcliffe.

And the people who were provided with a free public education by the tax payers, but squandered it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. Yes but you also dislike articles published at ScienceDaily....

No? One of the most difficult things to do is to admit you are wrong about things. I understand fully.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. I judge articles in Science Daily based on their merit.

It's a tabloid, not a scientific journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Daily

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. That pretty much sums everything up on this end....

YOU JUDGE

I'm lolling all over the place now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Yes, I judge.

You, however, apparently accept every hare-brained idea that comes along.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. I only hope you live long enough to see the sea change that's

coming.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Coming any minute now, is it?

Did your astrologer tell you that?

[Odin2005]

5. Pure unadulterated BS.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Chirp chirp.... iffin you believe that, not a problem here jack.

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/BN%2005%2010.htm


I had been warned. “Don’t expect an easy ride,” they told me in hushed, sombre tones, as if that’s what a revolutionary would expect. My first book unceremoniously upturned everyone’s favourite theories, eroded the livelihoods and career prospects of some important people, and with barefaced cheek exposed the rampant egotism that holds the high ground of physical science. I put on a suit of Kevlar and stood resolute before the tempest of wounded pride.

It didn’t happen. My brethren in science welcomed me with open arms and a palpable sense of relief. It was though they had all been waiting, on a dare almost, for someone, anyone, to have the chutzpah to stand on the city hall steps and announce that the bubble had been popped. The illusion was shattered, and a tide of pent up frustration flowed through the breach. A little known astronomer from the Southern end of the mother continent had in his ignorance and lack of socio-political sophistication simply been honest: Science has gone haywire, and we really ought to be doing something about it.

It’s all about attitude, really. There are scientists who think they may be able to derive a set of equations they boldly term “The Theory of Everything”. Then there are those, like me, who admit to themselves and others that what we don’t know will always significantly exceed what we do. So it comes down to this: Do we believe the evidence of our eyes, to the extent that it should form the basis of theories in cosmology, or do we rather depend upon our imaginations, expressed in convoluted mathematical dialects, to express our eternal optimism that some day, some how, we might persuade ordinary folk that this is how they should be seeing it.

[Odin2005]

8. LOL!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Yes I am too!!

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Blasted-Lyndon-Ashmore/dp/1419639226/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CAGDhzQzL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support.
What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.

He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory!

Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good"

There you go again, putting the cart ahead of the horse.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. It's slowly turning out to be the big whimper. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Only in the imagination of creationists and other assorted kooks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Everyone who doesn't believe what you say is so is a

kook, imagine that!!

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/BN%2005%2010.htm

Prediction implies also retrodiction. We dare not only to suggest what might happen in eras not yet realised, but also what we might find in the dim, distant past. Fortunately, we have the means, in principle at least, to verify retrodiction by examining the cosmic fossil record, images that have travelled a long, long time to get to us. The Static Universe retrodicts an unevolved cosmos. Once we can confidently identify things at great remoteness from Earth, and be sure that they are ancient, we will no doubt be astonished to discover that they are not at all young, newborn populants. Near and far, the Universe is just the same old, same old…

Let me tell you what I think we will not find by scientific enquiry: The early universe; gravitational waves; the Higgs boson; Dark Matter; Dark Energy; the Final Frontier; the Theory of Everything; a scale at which the Cosmological Principle applies; Schrödinger’s cat; God; Peace; ET; flying saucers; quantum entanglement; Feynman probability; and so on. There is no time constraint on my prophecy. I am simply eliminating the impossible. Then there is the improbable. It is unlikely, and extremely so, to many orders of magnitude, that the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) will succeed. The odds are so great against picking up an intelligent and intelligible signal from “something out there” that it seems to me that SETI is an utter waste of money, manpower, and creative resources. Don’t get me wrong—I truly admire and support any initiative to explore the unknown, but it needs to be sensibly done with at least some likelihood of success. The odds on SETI detecting an intelligently designed signal from outer space are so unfavourable as to be zero in practical terms.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Everybody who doesn't believe scientific facts is a kook.

Holocaust denial
Global warming denial
HIV/AIDS denialists
Flat earthers
Creationists
Electric universe people
White supremacists/eugenicists

That kind of person.

It's not like it's an unfair or overly complicated criterium.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. You may also like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8899717&mesg_id=8899919

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. You might like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg-jT0TLSU4

he's one of the world's leading alternative astronomers.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

21. That was somewhat interesting, cut short... listening to Days of the

New here, much better vibes.

[RagAss]

25. Wow man....that's some "Son of Sam" shit there.....n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. You may also like:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm

Astronomers' Doubts About the Dark Side: Errors in Big Bang Data Larger Than Thought?

If dark energy does exist, then it ultimately causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate. On their journey from the CMB to the telescopes like WMAP, photons (the basic particles of electromagnetic radiation including light and radio waves) travel through giant superclusters of galaxies. Normally a CMB photon is first blueshifted (its peak shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum) when it enters the supercluster and then redshifted as it leaves, so that the two effects cancel. However, if the supercluster galaxies are accelerating away from each other because of dark energy, the cancellation is not exact, so photons stay slightly blueshifted after their passage. Slightly higher temperatures should appear in the CMB where the photons have passed through superclusters.


However, the new results, based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which surveyed 1 million luminous red galaxies, suggest that no such effect is seen, again threatening the standard model of the Universe.

[Orsino]

24. "Big Brother does not want you to read this! (edited by author)"

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

27. Seriously? We have MIHOP/LIHOP, true voters, and now people here who disbelieve the Big Bang??

:wow:

I wonder when the creationists will be coming.