Here you can comment on, or see comments made on, “The Placid Universe Model”.
Alternative titles:
Why the Universe is NOT Expanding
or
The real origin of CMBR, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
or
The Placid Universe Model.
This article, about the structure and history of the Universe, is a new and detailed investigation which shows the defects in the Expanding Universe Model (and even in the Steady State Model!).
Go to the article itself at:
The Placid Universe Model.
commentmaster 
Comments
Thanks for the excellent ‘read’ re: the PU. Being an “out-of-the-box” protagonist myself and constantly arguing with SM groupies, I’d appreciate your reviewing/commenting on “my pet” hypothesis.
Link:
https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/.
It too proposes a continuous-source generation of CMBR. albeit from a subquantum energy –> mass mechanism. Thanks again . . . . .I look forward to your input. Please apply your BS detector as needed!
Bill Mansker, Ph.D.
LikeLike
I appreciate your original thinking . . . . if you have time . . . .please look at my “hypothesis’ and comment freely and honestly. Thanks and kindest regards, William (Bill) Mansker, Ph.D. wlminex@msn.com
Link: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
LikeLike
I have come to many of these same questions, issues, with our current EU model over the past 12 years. About three weeks ago, while trying to justify the lack of a mathematical center in the EU model, or should I say, while trying to avoid the egocentricity of it, I realized that it has to be perception rather than excused by some breakdown in our understanding of space-time that begins only when contemplating this fact.
In a reply to the question, “where is the center” here is an all too common (or similar) answer,
“The best, non-mathematical description that any cosmologist can create for describing the Big Bang is that it occurred in every cubic centimeter of space in the universe with no unique starting point. In fact, it was an event which our mathematics indicate, actually brought space and time into existence. It did not occur IN space at a particular location, because it created space ( and time itself) as it went along. There may have existed some state ‘prior’ to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.”
So, we use math and velocity, run it backwards to define the age of the universe, but don’t apply math to any logical conclusions about our model, because math cannot be trusted. This is very odd, and telling.
That being said; two weeks ago, I had decided that the Hubble constant is being applied wrong, period. There is something that happens to either the way we see (observe) the light over cosmic distances, or that light speed is not 100% constant. Crazy talk, but by allowing myself to contemplate that perception in the observation was somehow related, I was finally able to ask Google properly enough to come to your page. Eureka!
Other confirmation from your reading on questions, were my issues with peering deeper and deeper into our past and not finding the compacted, earlier universe that is predicted we would find out there. What we find is a universe all too similar to the nearer galaxies etc. In fact they have the EU model running backwards from their chronology, after they apply the redshift to velocity?????. I was happy to find the same logic discussed.
Though I have not considered some of your other predictions or conclusions about background radiation, black holes and such, I had been looking for some type of recycling center somewhere in the model I have been contemplating over the last decade. I thought that it would make sense to find a cycle for space-time, the same way we have a cycle for rain, earth and elements. I wanted either a curved Space-time that wrapped into itself, for the purpose of creation and destruction or a conveyor of some sort in a flat universe model. Being that I was looking for a recycling center, and you may have it in the black holes, I was happy to find this discussed in your writings here.
I have two experiments that may be done, and would love to discuss them. I could not find them in your writings or references, but would do well I think. With both, we may already have the data somewhere, so maybe you can help me find it, or figure out how the observations might be made.
Nice read, and thank you for your work.
Scott A. Myers
North Canton, Ohio
David Noel responds: Thanks, Scott, for these thoughtful comments. Just now the final disproof of the Big Bang Theory has been released — it’s at “R.I.P. Expanding Universe (b. 1930, d. 2012)” — http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/RIPExpanding/index.htm .
LikeLike
Not disagreeing overall, but one galaxy at least is supposed to be approaching ours, so not all objects outside our galaxy should show red shift.
David Noel Comments: This is a useful point. The article did say that blue shifts could be found for stars within our galaxy, but neglected the case of nearby galaxies approaching. A later edition of the article will incorporate this correction — thank you for pointing it out.
LikeLike
Thank you for this PU explanation.
I have never been able to digest the BBT [EU].
I am 75 and thought that I would never get a complete explanation such as this, before I expired. It made my day.
I am also, extremely happy to see that you are not a CAGW alarmist.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many “intelligent” people cannot see the flaws of of the EU and CAGW theories. [I guess it’s funding, and the herd instinct].
LikeLike
David Noel has really proved the fallacy of the Big Bang, and the non-validity of the supposed age, 13.7 billion years, of the Universe.
Additionally, D.N. is right that the Hydrogen atom emits microwaves (in the microwave spectrum), of course at a variety of temperatures.
LikeLike
Excellent article, but with one basic flaw. The Gravitational redshift is insufficient to cause the observed redshift. For example, it has been measured for Sirius B, a dwarf star, at 84 km/sec. This is insufficiant to be the cause of the observed redshift.
Zwicky almost had it right. The real cause is the Shapiro effect, This effect reduces the velocity of light passing through a gravitational field and is a long-range effect, based on 1/ln(R) instead of the usual 1/R attractive force..
To learn more, see my website http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com
Jerrold Thacker
jthacker@msn.com
LikeLike
Your superb, cosmology theory shares some noteworthy, common ground with:
infinite, non-expanding universe
http://ineu-theory.com
Geoffrey Wynne-Jones
Generally, both theories describe “static universe” cosmologies with minor variations from one another. This is a standard term that has been established in alternative cosmology since the 2010 book of the same name by Hilton Ratcliffe.
LikeLike
That your cosmology theory is trying to invalidate the Big Bang is Commendable. The Big Bang Theory is the new Religious dogma of our time.
The twin Pillars that it stands on are;
1. Red Shift
2. CMB
1 Red Shift :Halton Arp has clearly demonstrated to anybody with an open mind that Quasars are not distant objects but are being ejected from active Galaxies.
That their initial very high Red shifts decay with time and since they are associated with Galaxies of much lower Red shifts, that their Red shifts must be “intrinsic” and not related to recession. The actual mechanism for this ‘intrinsic’ Red shift . however, is in my opinion still not satisfactory explained.
2. CMB :Is still a difficult one to refute as it does conveniently fit with a Big Bang theory. However, For a more satisfactory explanation for the observed microwave background Radiation I refer to Eddington’s demonstration of a 3.2 K black body equilibrium interstellar dust temperature.
The CMB is based on pointing a Radio Antenna in all directions of the sky from Earth or Earth Orbit and hearing a background “noise”
Saying that the only explanation is the “glow” left over from the Big Bang etc is just too convenient and too dogmatic.
LikeLike
The situation with CMBR and Placid Universe has now more or less resolved itself with the latest developments. See
P0: The Four Pillars of GAU – The Solar System and the Greater Averaged Universe (at http://www.aoi.com.au/Pillars/) for the latest picture.
LikeLike
the gravity vs. anti-gravity recycling mechanism
Click to access garm.pdf
Derek Nalls
This theory postdates both the Placid Universe Model by David Noel and the Infinite, Non-Expanding Universe Model by Geoffrey Wynne-Jones. Nonetheless, it is an original creation (with overlapping characteristics) that was researched, written and internet-published before I discovered that it dovetailed consistently with two, other previously, internet-published works. I hope you accept it (as intended) as an informative confirmation that you are on the right track.
LikeLike
Both William Mansker’s and Derek Nails’ comments, which arrived at almost the same time, have a lot of thought and value behind them. Nevertheless, the situation with CMBR and Placid Universe has now more or less resolved itself with the latest developments. See
P0: The Four Pillars of GAU – The Solar System and the Greater Averaged Universe (at http://www.aoi.com.au/Pillars/) for the latest picture.
LikeLike
https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
My hypothesis (EEMU) considers CMBR to be residual energy from conversion/translation of subquantum (subplanckian, undetectible) energy to mass. Sunbquantum energy field is estimated to be 10E_120 ergs/cc. Energy equivalent mass in the physical (detectible) universe is 10E+60, or so. ergs/cc. Plenty of left-over energy to manifest as CMBR . . . .even a Cosmological Constant? . . . . . Dark Energy? . . . . etc. BTW: The subquantum-to-mass mechanism is reversible in Black Holes. Pls visit webpage for more descriptive concepts/Thanks!
Bill Mansker, Ph.D.
Albuquerque, NM
LikeLike
Both William Mansker’s and Derek Nails’ comments, which arrived at almost the same time, have a lot of thought and value behind them. Nevertheless, the situation with CMBR and Placid Universe has now more or less resolved itself with the latest developments. See
P0: The Four Pillars of GAU – The Solar System and the Greater Averaged Universe (at http://www.aoi.com.au/Pillars/) for the latest picture.
LikeLike
For 50 years I have been touting the Shapiro effect as the cause of the redshift of celestial objects. But I got it wrong. As a result of some information I included in my recently published book The Path Less Traveled I have completely changed directions and finally know what causes the redshift, and it is not an expanding universe. Instead it is caused by the deflection of star and galaxy images by neutron stars, which creates optical illusions with high redshifts we take as quasars and distant galaxies.
I have completely reworked my website and you can read about this and other surprises at http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com.
Jerrold Thacker jthacker@msn.com
LikeLike
David, I found your site very interesting. It appears that our general views of the cosmological situation are very similar (website below). I would like to think that there are more of us out there but finding even one person is heartening. We apostates must hang together. Best,
LikeLike
On the Rising Sealevel Myth (didn’t see a ‘comment here’ link). All very well, but your thesis has nothing to say on whether the falling sea level has been uniform, or rising and falling, through time. You make no comment on whether the sealevel is rising or not now. My own rule of thumb relates to the Thames Barrier: when first erected it needed to be closed two or three times per year: these days it is closed twenty times or more per year. I don’t think the North Sea is infused with markedly different storms, high tides, etc, from back then. If your thesis is correct for the present day, this must mean the land is rising, at least around the Thames estuary.
And where is all that currently melting Greenland ice going? The Icelandic Sagas show that Greenland was habitable before a millenium ago – agriculturally. Then around 1000 CE the place was abandoned, having become uninhabitable. And I expect you know or can point to a lot of other signs of changing climates at different locations – eg. you mention in another essay the notion that to account for the extent of the last ice age the northern ice may have been the european side of the north pole.
Apparently following the retreat of the ice cover after the last ice age the land is rising in the north of Scotland and compensatorily falling in Southern England – some low lying coastal houses are getting flooded at high tides now.
And in other places land is likely to rise or fall according to your own thesis, as smaller units move against larger. And, I would guess, sea levels may only approximately maintain themselves by H2O increases against earth expansion.
So, I don’t buy the falling sealevel NOW proposition. Sorry !
Good wishes anyway, Clement
David Noel comments: Most of the points Clement makes are fair enough. But the major elephant in the room on all sea-level arguments, is that relative land/sea levels in different parts of the world don’t go in concert — in some parts sea-levels are rising, in others, falling. This is because different parts of the Crust are differently affected by expansion of the Earth.
The long-term effect is principally of lower sea-levels. As expansion leads to greater Earth-surface area, new water from the re-worked Crust is insufficient to fill the deficit. The deepest water depths are found in the Pacific Ocean — 200 million years ago the Pacific did not even exist. Over the last 180 million years, expansion has preferentially been manifested in the Pacific area as this great gap has opened up.
Of course there are also localities where the land/sea balance has gone the other way, particularly where part of a coastal area has slumped into off-shore depths. A good example is the Egyptian coast, near Alexandria, where the whole coastal strip which housed the city of Heraklion has slumped into the Mediterranean, leaving Heraklion some 6 metres below sea-level.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply. Liked the elephant in the room: Heraklion a good example, as with horthern Scotland apparently evincing the opposite. So the nub is that continuing earth expansion not paralleled by sufficient creation of more water results in averaged falling sea levels despite the polar and glacier ice melts currently in process.
Correction to my first paragraph in previous comment: I made an illogical deduction. Should have written ‘the land around the Thames estuary must be falling at a faster rate than the sea level’.
LikeLike
Many years ago I read the book “The Big Bang Never Happened” which pointed out many similar fallacies in the Big Bang theory, especially that the red shift could represent something other than galaxies moving away from us. Also, it mentioned that we were finding galaxies even further than 28 bly. The observable universe is supposedly currently 92bly across with the total universe expected to be much larger. Recently, I have been reading forums and quora questions answers by professors, and the answers are mind numbing. There is no deniability of the Big Bang theory much like there is deniability of God. In other words, there is never any fact or evidence that cannot be explained away by an ardent believer.
The explanation for the universe being larger than time would allow is that space itself expanded and even faster than the speed of light. The analogy is if you wrote on a ballon and then blew it up. Whatever you wrote would stretch. So galaxies are not actually moving the way the earth is moving around the sun. Rather, the galaxies are standing still and space is moving, or being stretched. This is the explanation for inflation as well and why it could happen suddenly and then stop. Matter wasn’t moving like an explosion. Space was moving, and it all just stretched suddenly.
Because of this deniability, it won’t matter how far we keep finding fully formed galaxies. Space is just stretching “more” further away from us. Why it stretches faster in every direction away from us is never logically explained. This still puts us at the center of the universe.
One other thought I had, space is not empty. The further light travels, the more billions of miles of electrons, hydrogen and other particles it has to travel though. It has to “push” through this, no matter how thin it is. This could cause a loss of energy. The further the light has to travel, the more energy is lost during the journey and the light shifts red. This would be a much more logical reason for a bigger red shift than more from more distant galaxies. This would also explain why the universe is in fact infinite, but we don’t see star bright light in every direction. There is light coming from every point in the sky, but it shifts to a spectrum we cannot see before it reaches us when it comes from too far away. Einstein was certainly wrong about that logic. Amazing that he is revered as an infallible genius.
I enjoyed your article.
LikeLike