Experiments 3

8/7/2019 Experiments 3

1/6

B-ismi ALLAH 'i Rahman-i Rahim...Hakan OKDeneyler3Mutlak Dzenden Isnarak ve Yrngelerde Hareket Ederek Tekaml Eden Evren ve nsan Hipotezinin Makalesi.

17.01.2011, Pazartesi 12:22Makale : Deneyler3Yazan: Hakan OK

Deneyler (3)

Yaptm (teorik) deneylerde,elde ettiim Tetrahedron(Protogen) eklindeki asimetriyiaklamam pek mmkngrnmyor. Tetrahedron'uniine gizlenmi olan buOctahedron'u (8 yzly),tekerlei tekrar icat edercesine,kefedebildim. Bu arada bakayaramazlklar da yaptm ve

yle bir grup bilim adamnada rastladm, bakn nelersylyorlar (ngilizce):

Alnt:

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists5-27-4

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by bigbang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisionsthan on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner,

mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens ofother scientists from around the world.An Open Letter to the Scientific CommunityCosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28issue, 2004, p. 20)The big bang today relies on a growing number ofhypotheticalentities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, darkmatter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the

observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the bigbang theory.In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to newhypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gapbetween theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE

SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYINGTHEORY.But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does notpredict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that isobserved, because there would be no way for parts of the universethat are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come tothe same temperature and thus emit the same amount ofmicrowave radiation.Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have

observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bangtheory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter inthe universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than thatimplied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation ofthe origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, thetheory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old,which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars inour galaxy.What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitativepredictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of itsability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasingarray of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centredcosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.Yet the big bang is not the only framework available forunderstanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology andthe steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universewithout beginning or end. These and other alternative approachescan also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the

Son Deiiklik: 09.03.11 - 13:09:33 | Sayfa 1/6 - Deneyler3


2/6


abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scalestructure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshiftof far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have evenpredicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed,something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theoriesdo not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcelysurprising, as their development has been severely hampered by acomplete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternativescannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An openexchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture ofdoubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated,and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have somethingnegative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who

doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter,judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they supportthe big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and heliumabundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, areignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset thatis alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources incosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes fromonly a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that

control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As aresult, the dominance of the big bang within the field has becomeself-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.Giving support only to projects within the big bang frameworkundermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- theconstant testing of theory against observation. Such a restrictionmakes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redressthis, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to setaside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into

alternative theories and observational contradictions of the bigbang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates suchfunds could be composed of astronomers and physicists fromoutside the field of cosmology.Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and

its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine ourmost accurate model of the history of the universe.Signed:(Institutions for identification only)Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /Earthtech.orgwww.earthtech.orghttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute ofTechnology (USA)James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg StateUniversity(Russia)Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)



3/6


Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, OsservatorioAstronomico di Padova (Italy)Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)Jacques Moret-Bailly, Universit Dijon (retired) (France)Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,

France)Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maring (Brazil)Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)(Kaynak: http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm )

(24.01.2011, Pazartesi 12:33) zetle; Bir tarafm yrtarcasna veknarak dile getirmeye altmve pozitif bilimindogmatikliine iaret edenyazlarmn bir eit zeti olan bu

yukardaki alnt, sanrm hereyi gayet ak ve net bir ekildezetliyor. Bundan tesi vebakas (benim yazdklarm)teferruattan ibaret. Bu, sonrakiyazlarmda bilimindogmatikliine atftabulunmayacam anlamnagelmiyor. Her frsatta bunu

yapmak art oldu artk. Bylece artk Big Bang in de hipotezolduuna dair, elle tutulur kantlarmz oldu. (12:37)

(16:01) Bilimin bu yukardakiyapm olduum alntlaraverdii cevap nedir biliyor

musunuz ? Sessizlik ! Evet,sessizlik (elimde deliller var,hemde kendim tecrbe ettim...).Bu sessizliin de ancak ve ancakbir tek (bir ka) nedeni olabilir, o(-nlar) da: Kstahlk, kendinibeenmilik, kibir, yani ince-lazca meali ile Arrogancy.Alntda da belirttii gibi, buzinciri krmak mmkn deil, ta

ki, benim de daha nceleribelirttiim gibi, kafalarna tayamadka. Bu ekilde, dogmatik bilimin herhangi bir sorunzmesini, bizi ileri gtrmesini bekleyemeyiz, beklemiyoruz dazaten, nk milyarlarca paray abidik gubidik deneylereharcayp, ortaya kardklar tek ey (-ler) daha da ok var saym.Dogmatik bilimin tek yapt, zmszlk zmn beslemek,gelitirmek. Ama niye ? te bu sorunun cevab, zurnann zartdedii yer. (16:11) Anlatacam, ama nce bir baka alnt yapmakistiyorum:

While the big bang was making its way into public consciousness,there were other physicists that still didn't go for it. Fred Hoyle,Thomas Gold, and H. Bondi, three other prominent scientists, putforth a theory that has come to be known as the steady statetheory. Like the big bang theory of Lematre, it was based onphilosophical premises, not scientific ones; but unlike the bigbang, it proposed an eternal universe, not one that was created intime. This theory was based on the cosmological principle, whichcontained aspects first put forth by Einstein. Basically the idea was

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htmhttp://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm


4/6


that the universe is homogeneous (smooth) and looks the samefrom any place in the universe (isotropic). If the big bangoccurred, it would look different to observers at different times.The steady state theory proposed a perfect cosmological principle.In other words, the universe looked the same to all observers in all

times and at all places.The cosmological principle is an idea in which the universe, on avery large scale, looks the same to all observers at all times and inany place. Matter is spread evenly throughout, which reflects asmooth, nonclumpy universe. It is a philosophical idea originallyproposed by Albert Einstein.Gold and Bondi suggested a unique solution for their smooth,uniformly dense universe, the spontaneous and continuouscreation of matter. In each area of space, about 100 meterssquare, once a year a new atom comes into existence. Throughout

the vast regions of space this small amount of matter wouldaccumulate over time and maintain a constant density in anexpanding universe. As old stars and galaxies die, new ones areborn and formed by the constant regeneration of matter that isintroduced through this spontaneous process.This theory accounted for the creation of all of the elements in thesame way that Gamow's big bang did, so it served as a goodargument against the popularity of the big bang. But it nevergained the scientific support that the big bang did. It was also verydifficult to prove. While it went a long way in providing a sound

alternative to the big bang, no one had ever observed the creationof these atoms that were supposed to be occurring spontaneouslyout in space. But for over fifteen years the two theories were hotlydebated in scientific circles, although because of Gamow's push topopularize his, it definitely got a lot more publicity.When the experiment was first set up to measure the microwavebackground radiation, the scientists puzzled over the excess noisethat their system was picking up. There shouldn't be that muchradiation. After adjusting the instruments and the antenna, they

still had too much noise. After almost giving up, they found a largeamount of bird droppings (who would have thought it could getthat deep) inside the microwave antenna that was distorting theinformation coming in. Any form of excrement gives off heat as itbreaks down, and that minuscule amount of heat was affecting the

microwave radiation spectrum.The most important piece of evidence in support of the big bangcame in 1965 when two researchers at Bell Labs in New Jersey,Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, verified the existence ofsomething that was predicted by the big bang. This something iscalled cosmic microwave background radiation. It's sort of thediluted afterglow of the titanic explosion of the big bang. As youknow, all radiation can be described by its spectrum. If you plotthat spectrum on a graph it will show you how much power theradiation has at various frequencies. The big bang theory predicts

that the cosmic background radiation should be in thermalequilibrium, that is, the spectrum of an object in thermalequilibrium neither absorbs nor gives up heat to its surroundings.If the source of the radiation being measured is an explosion, likethe big bang, which involves the entire universe, it must be inequilibrium because there are no surroundings to get energy fromor give it to.With this confirmation of the predicted radiation, scientists becameconvinced that the big bang was the answer. Papers poured in bythe hundreds, all developing mathematical theories and reasons in

support of its correctness. If there was any doubt, or if someaspect of the theory ran into problems, instead of questioning it,more theories were developed to plug the holes. Scientistsreceived grants and built their reputations on the big bang theory,so no one was about to question its rightness. Besides, it is thebest theory around, so why go looking for something new whenwhat you have works pretty well. Is it cosmological laziness or justthe fact that too much time, money, and energy have been putinto a theory that has been presented as fact? And the assumption



5/6


that Einstein introduced, that eventually a theory can be proventotally correct, is still a very strong influence, albeit somewhatunconsciously.However, as more time has gone by, and with more experimentsand stronger telescopes to verify big bang cosmology, the very

thing that the experiments hoped to show, has ended up causingmore problems for it. These are significant questions that the bigbang has trouble answering. In the next section we'll take a lookat exactly what the problems are and see how science thinks theuniverse is going to end. You'll also get a chance to learn aboutsome new theories that may offer an alternative to the big bang.Anlayan anlamtr. (16:19)(16:31) Anlalan o ki, bilimin bu ekilde davranmasnn bir sebebive amac var. Bu sebep ve ama imdi fazlasyla ve ok Komplo(teorisi) gibi gelebilir, ama tm iaretler bunu gsteriyor. ncelikle

amac, az ncede belirttiimiz gibi, zmszlk zmnempoze etmek ve buna bir ekilde boyun edirmek. Sebebi ise, tektek her bir insan, toplamnda tm insanl karanlkta brakmak.Nasl bir karanlk bu ? nsann, aslnda neler yapabileceine dair vene iin yaratldnn, grevinin, potansiyelinin farkna varmasnengelleyici, uyutucu, uyuturucu bir karanlk. Bu karanlktabrakma nasl uygulanr ve nasl uygulanyor ? nsan teknolojidedikleri icatlara mahkum ederek, bu teknoloji doktrinlerinin(medya, internet) empoze ettii her eyi peinen doru, sorgusuzsualsiz kabul ettirerek.

(25.01.2011, Sal- 11:45) nsann salt 5 duyusuna hitap edenmateryalist dncelerin, idollerde yansmasdr. dolizmin (dolcu-luk'un) de ne demek olduunu sanrm hepimiz biliyoruz:ngilizceden gelen bu szck, Peygamber zamannda olduu gibi,gnmzde de var olan bir gruhu, yaatlan, srarla yaatlmayaallan, tarih boyunca hep var olmu bir tr felsefeyi/dinitanmlyor; Bu, mriklik ve Allah'a irk/e/ortak komaktanbaka bir ey deildir. Elbette, sorsanz kimi hemen, kimi yarmazla ve ekinerek, bir evrenin ve genelinde bir kainatn yoktan

var olma sebebinin bir tek (tekbir) Allah'a, bir Yaratcya iaretettiini itiraf edeceklerdir (ok bariz inkar ile itigal edenler,nihilistler, ateistler hari). Buna da Tekillik derler. Gel gelelim,pozitif bilim mesela, sebebin, iradenin ve kaynan Allah olduunuitiraf etseler de, bir kez yarattktan sonra, ii otomatie baladn

ve kendisi iin yapacak bir ey kalmam olan bir evrendenbahsederler. Tabiat (Nature), kurallar ve kanunlar, gerisinikendiliinden halleder (evrimleme) diyorlar. Evrim Teorisi de buekilde anlalan ve kabul gren dandik bir hipotezdir. Bencekfrden (gerein stn rtmekten), dalga gemekten baka birey deildir. bu hipotezi salamlatrmak (inandrc klmak) iinde, mutasyondan, (ngrlemez ancak olagelen) tesadflerdenbahsediliyor. Bir rnek daha vermek gerekirse; Zamannda AlbertEinstein, Tanr zar atmaz/Barbut oynamaz, ii tesadflerebrakmaz babnda bir sz sylemi, ancak gnmz teorik

fizikilerinden Stephen W. Hawking, Tanr her frsatta zar atyor,hatta zarlar bazen bizim gremeyeceimiz taraflara atyor !demekten ekinmiyor. Tm bu sylediklerimizin pozitif (ve objektif)bilim tarafndan nasl oluyor da itiraz grmeden kabul edilebildiini,ve hatta abuk subuk ne kadar uyduruk hipotez varsa (mesela bigbang teorisi) bunlarn temeline dayanarak bilim retildii, benimiin alas bir olay (pisliin okluu seni artmasn). (12:25)(28.01.2011, Cuma 13:52) zin verirseniz, bu arada manaasndan (semantik) Kfr ile Svg/Svme terimleriarasndaki fark aklayalm: Kfr, Kur'an- Kerim 'de gerein

stn rtme, gizleme, saptrma, dezenformasyon (enformasyonunbilgilendirmenin tersi babnda) gibi anlamlara iaret etmektedir.Svmek/Svg ise, bir insann olmayacak eyleri yapacanaveya yaptna dair (fiil, amel), gerei yanstmayan veya ftrata,etie, ahlaka aykr olaylar tarif etmesi, dile getirmesidir. Svmekde aslnda bir eit kfr kabul edilebilir olsa da (doruyuyanstmaz), st balk kfrdr, svmek ise Kfrn sadece bir tr.Bu manada, eer ki biz burada pozitif (dogmatik) bilim kfr ediyordiyorsak, bu, Bilim bize ana-avrat dz gidiyor... vs. olarak yanl



6/6


anlalmasn, Bilim gereklerin stn rtyor, saptryor, yanlynlendiriyor...vs. olarak doru anlalsn. (14:07)(14:11) Pozitif Bilim ile o kadar ok uratk ettik ki, duyan/grende, bizim bilim/fen dman olduumuzu sanacak. Bu doru deil(aslnda ne dndnz/dndkleri pek de umurumda

deil...). Biz sadece yukarda akladmz ekildeki kfre, yaniyanl bilgilendirilmeye, saptrlmaya, salak yerine konulmaya,smrlmeye kar kyoruz. Derdimiz bundan ibaret. Basiteanlatmak gerekirse, okuldaki din dersinde hoca yaratltanbahsediyor da, bir sonraki ders biyoloji hocas, kendisinin dahianlamad, evrimi kabul ettirmeye alyorsa (hangisi doru, birtartmak gerekirdi, eer biri dierini ikna edebilecekse...!), ozaman rencilerin byle bir paradoksla, taze beyinleri ksa devreyapmadan, nasl baa kabileceklerini de anlatverseler ya(Psikolojik danmanlar var aslnda...). Ondan sonra o

rencilerden sizi (her ikisini de) ciddiye almalarn naslbeklersiniz? Byle tezatlarla nereye varlmak isteniyor acaba ?Yoksa ama, her eyi sorgusuz, sualsiz ezberleyen insanlar ortayakarmak m (ki yle olduunu zaten biliyoruz ya, bizimkisi deretorik bir soru aslna...) ? (14:14)(14:25) Tketim toplumu, robotlar, dolap beygirleri, asgari cretlikleler, memurlar, hatta alt- orta- ve st-dzey yneticiler, idoller(putlar) peinde koan, Allah'tan baka her eye kulluk eden,boyun een bir toplum ite byle ortaya kar; Bunlara da,makamlara oturan (aslnda bizden daha akll olmayan) baz

ahsiyetler, halkmz, tebaamz diyebilirler. Alo, uyann, sabaholdu ! (14:31)Uyan ! Gklerde ve yerde ne varsa, hepsi O'nundur (Allah 'n).(14:41)(07.02.2011, Pazartesi 15:01)imdi farkettim, u ana kadar yazdklarmn Deneylerle herhangibir ilgisi grnmyor. Zaten bende pratik deneyler yapmyorumburada (kartondan ekil izip yaptrmann dnda...), tm hayalgcne dayal teoriler. Yazmaya da pek havamda deilim u aralar.

(15:05)(17.02.2011, Perembe 11:54) Son makalemi yaynlayal ylebyle tam 1 ay olmu. Deneyler konusunda da henz kayda deerbir eyler ortaya koyamadma gre, i bu makaleyi de artkyaynlamann vakti geldiine kanaat oluturdum. Evet bitmedi ama

bitecei de yok zaten. Bu gidile daha ok yazarm gibime geliyor.(11:56)Bu makale bitti.


Documents

Experiments 3