The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 175999 times)

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #300 on: 12/07/2011 14:43:00 »
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.   
That is simply not true, though many people who would like to sell their own books and those who feel that contemporary physics and cosmology harm their religious convictions often spread such a statement whether or not they believe it. There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model--and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these. Alternative explanations for redshift and other cosmological phenomena are regularly discussed in the scientific literature and are dismissed on their merits.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 15:38:23 by PhysBang »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #301 on: 12/07/2011 17:56:50 »
Quote
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength. There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption. To further build a hypothesis about the origin of the universe on this unsupported assumption is unscientific. 

Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough. 
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 19:19:30 by Bengt »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #302 on: 12/07/2011 19:54:02 »
Bengt, I agree on that we can't know what happen from source to sink. But light does not bend to EM. If it did we should be able to do that in the LHC, and as far as I know we haven't, It has no charge. It do have 'energy' though, and that is a mass equivalence. And as the assumption is that light has to be without a 'clock' which is eminently reasonable to me 'distance' doesn't matter, well, exempting expansion. A gravitational field may 'bend' a photon but it will not take away its intrinsic energy. All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance' (geodesic) not expending energy. If they did expend energy in their 'path' I doubt we would be able to call them 'time less' either?
==

But I agree on 'expansion' being mighty peculiar in that it can 'steal energy'. That though has to do with a assumption that what we call distances in some way is correlated to the 'energy' that exist. But it is slightly weird in that we assume the 'energy' of SpaceTime to stay in a same equilibrium, as SpaceTime 'grows', at the same time that we assume radiation to lose 'energy' by it. But inflation/expansion is still the theory that best fits the observations we have, as far as I know. It's the assumptions about how it does it that weirds me out, well slightly :)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 20:05:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #303 on: 12/07/2011 21:04:21 »
Light does not bend to EM.
It has no charge.
Distance doesn't matter.
A gravitational field will not take away its intrinsic energy.
All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance'.

Hello Göran,

Your five commandments for light illustrates mankind's attempt to simplify the universe to fit within our present capacity for understanding. It reminds me of a time when bloodletting represented mans insight into medicine.

Once we understand more about light and how it propagates, I predict that Bloodletting and the Big Bang will be honored on the same history page.

The Big Bang; Creationism by Physics    
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 21:12:59 by Bengt »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #304 on: 12/07/2011 22:18:56 »
That's not a answer Bengt :)
It's a statement.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #305 on: 12/07/2011 22:32:06 »
Would you care to restate the question ?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #306 on: 13/07/2011 01:44:35 »
I said that EM do not 'bend' light. Gravity may be seen to do it, depending on your definitions, but there are no experimental proof of a EM field bending light, that I know of. I would expect that to be of real interest if anyone had succeed.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #307 on: 13/07/2011 09:04:39 »
In my humble opinion, that does not appear to be a question.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #308 on: 13/07/2011 09:15:03 »
You're right :)

It was a comment, but reading you I got the feeling that you expected it to be able to do so?  But rereading you, you could as easily mean 'interactions', or other interference of the radiation if looked at as waves.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #309 on: 14/07/2011 01:32:14 »
Quote
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength.
Sure there are. But there are none that can be applied to all the phenomena of cosmology. Attempts have been made and failed.
Quote
There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption.
Not really, given that there are a number of ways we can tell how empty empty space is. Additionally, attempts to explain redshift based on such a soup of EM radiation have, again, failed miserably.
Quote
Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough. 
Yes. And progress is made when those doing the work are honest. If someone is telling you that there is some way to account for cosmological redshift without expanding space then they are probably not honest.

Do you know of any attempt to explain cosmological redshift that fits the facts?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #310 on: 14/07/2011 07:32:34 »
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.
The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.   
« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 07:34:36 by Bengt »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #311 on: 14/07/2011 15:34:57 »
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.
The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.   
Well, that certainly sounds interesting. Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #312 on: 14/07/2011 15:55:23 »
Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.
That's the difference between regurgitating other people's work and doing your own.
 

Post by imatfaal click to view.

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #313 on: 14/07/2011 17:57:20 »
Shrunk
Chaps - please behave nicely and politely! 

Bengt - the request for citations of studies or experimental evidence is pretty near universal in science; please do not respond to such requests by implying that your questioner's thoughts are worthless and unimaginative.
 

Post by Bengt click to view.

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #314 on: 14/07/2011 18:22:36 »
Shrunk
imatfaal - Please do not patronize any of us or put words in my mouth !
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #315 on: 14/07/2011 22:09:08 »
It's interesting Bengt, and waves are weird in so many ways. How did you get to it? I guess you must have considered it as waves for this, if I'm right, ahem :) ? So, how would you define it from 'photons' instead.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #316 on: 14/07/2011 23:18:35 »
Good question. I wish I knew why and how EM energies propagate.
I suspect that all particles as well as quanta such as photons are nested balls of tiny energy strings. Assume that for whatever reason we suddenly have a lot of these little energy strings concentrated in one area. The string pressure would be higher than that of the surrounding so they would want to scatter to equalize the pressure. A shock wave of string pressure would radiate out from the source. The strings wouldn't even have to move, they could just bump each other into propagation like a wave on the ocean. That would make a photon a fast traveling, temporary perturbation in string pressure propagating through space. Is it a particle? Is it a wave? You tell me.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 23:20:25 by Bengt »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #317 on: 14/07/2011 23:26:17 »
Okay, if we define a photon as strings :) Which makes a certain sense to me, then they should be able to have a pressure too. But then you have the vacuum? Do you see it as fluctuating, and if it is, is the 'fluctuating' also (temporary) strings?

That is, if we assume the vacuum to have a energy at very short timescales, averaging into a classical nothing over longer, or in some other weird way expressing that nothing that space is to us macroscopically (humanly seen, sort of) Would that be a possible interaction to you?
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #318 on: 15/07/2011 00:30:14 »
OK, so all this criticism of the standard cosmological model being "an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us" is based entirely on pure speculation made in complete ignorance of how EM radiation actually works?

Sigh.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #319 on: 15/07/2011 02:10:19 »
Don't give up before time PhysBang, Bengt have a own way of looking at the universe, doesn't mean he doesn't know the standard model, not as I understand it anyway :)
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #320 on: 15/07/2011 09:19:57 »
For the benefit of PhysBang: There is nothing wrong with the Standard Model. It describes a macro world, where the smallest constituent is the photon which is presumed to have a resting mass of <1x10^-18eV. Feel free to find my website which details Gravity and Strong Force within the context of the Standard Model. It honors the Standard Model but it is free of space-time fabrics and other fiction. 
I am interested in the sub-photon world, the smallest building blocks that make up our universe.
Let us assume that there is a primary energy string, the smallest of all subatomic constituents. I expect it to be very small. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a perturbation of thousands of them to show up as a photon. After all, can you make a wave on the ocean with a wavelength equivalent to the size of a single H2O molecule? probably not!
But before we nest any energy strings together and reconstruct the universe let us follow the spread of energy throughout the universe.
There are probably distant areas of the universe where there is still absolutely nothing, no energy strings, a true vacuum.
Then there are parts of the universe permeated by different densities of energy strings. For the benefit of the Standard Model let us call these clouds of energy strings for Dark Energy. I am suggesting that free floating, unorganized energy strings or dark energy occupy parts of the universe. This should therefore no longer be regarded as a vacuum. It is a potent, subatomic breeding ground for an expanding material world.
With time and by chance some energy strings will entangle themselves and nest together into energetic balls, still unrecognizable as photons or subatomic particles as we know them. For the benefit of the Standard Model let us call these little energy embryos Dark Matter.
Our part of the universe is consequently floating in a soup of energy strings, or dark energy and nested energy embryos, or dark matter.

So what is my objection to the Big Bang. Wouldn't a Big Bang be a convenient way to seed the universe with energy strings, suddenly and out of nothing? Absolutely!
That's exactly my objection: Convenience before hard work and understanding. That is not science. That is human laziness, theatrics and deception.
We do not need a new Creationism, this time created by Physics, to hide the fact that we do not yet understand what is really going on.
We already have near immortal fiction embedded in physics. Part of relativity is one and the so called space-time fabric and Einsteinian circular deception about gravity is another.

Faith is fine. So is science. But that two shall never meet!
« Last Edit: 15/07/2011 09:24:59 by Bengt »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #321 on: 15/07/2011 12:37:02 »
The things you write seem to have absolutely nothing to do with anything in cosmology except for a few names that you have appropriated.

The standard cosmological model, that many people call the Big Bang model, does not actually include a creation event. This is something that the model has been saddled with by those who want to refute it and, while fallacious, it is apparently very effective.

The standard cosmological model does require a finite age to the universe as we understand it, but it is possible that we do not understand the physics associated with what would otherwise be the beginning of the universe.

The standard cosmological model explains redshift as an effect related to gravity; specifically, to the way that the geometry of spacetime influences the properties of light. Through general relativity, we can measure the gravitational effects of matter and energy on redshift over cosmological time. We can see that the relationship between redshift and distance changes over billions of years. It changes in ways that are readily explainable in general relativity and that gives us measurements of the matter and energy in the universe that we can compare with other types of measurements.

Alternative theories of redshift just don't do this. Tired light theories, theories that say that light just loses energy over time, do not have a mechanism to change the redshift in the way that we observe. Even if one were to add in some mechanism, tired llight theories have another big problem: they do not have a means to demonstrate time dilation consistent with redshift. Cosmological redshift results from time dilation effects that arise from general relativity. We can measure time dilation in a few distant objects of a known redshift and we can see that the time dilation matches the redshift. Tired light cannot do that. Dust that selectively filters light cannot do that.

Scientists have spent a lot of time considering these things. These are not issues of the origin of the contents of the universe, these are issues of what the universe is and has been doing.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #322 on: 15/07/2011 13:21:26 »
I was hoping you would either join the conversation or tell me something I didn't already know.

 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #323 on: 15/07/2011 13:35:23 »
But clearly you didn't know these things, since you write things that are grossly in contradiction to them. I'm not sure if you are trying to save face or something. It's not like being wrong as an anonymous participant on an internet forum should embarrass you.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #324 on: 15/07/2011 14:25:07 »
Have a nice day !
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #324 on: 15/07/2011 14:25:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums