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 176150 times)

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #325 on: 28/07/2011 12:39:28 »

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.

Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account?  I haven't found anything to verify that it has.  If gravitational red-shift at source has not been deducted from the overall red-shift then this would seem to indicate that the universe is younger and smaller than generally believed.

Presumably, to estimate red-shift at source one must estimate the mass of the object but that means knowing the objects distance and for that we use red-shift.  See the problem?

When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us.  Is this taken into account.  When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted.  Is this taken into account?
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #326 on: 29/07/2011 03:24:12 »
Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account?  I haven't found anything to verify that it has.
Why don't you estimate how much this redshift is likely to be?
Quote
When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us.  Is this taken into account.  When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted.  Is this taken into account?
Why don't you estimate how much this blueshift is likely to be?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #327 on: 29/07/2011 05:56:18 »
That's no answer.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #328 on: 29/07/2011 11:52:28 »
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them.  They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved.  With that your questions might have a bit more bite.  You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem. 
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #329 on: 29/07/2011 13:16:51 »
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them.  They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved.  With that your questions might have a bit more bite.  You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem. 

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #330 on: 29/07/2011 13:25:48 »

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.


Presumably, to estimate red-shift at source one must estimate the mass of the object but that means knowing the objects distance and for that we use red-shift.  See the problem?

For object, read quasar.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2011 13:27:51 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #331 on: 29/07/2011 14:05:34 »
I feel justified in adding this post as this is the new theories section.  Is the big bang correct.

Most distant quasar found.  It stretches black hole theory as it is just too big.  Please excuse pun.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/description/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions

Why are some early quasars just too big to be explained by our understanding of black holes?
Why are quasars only observed in the early universe?
Where did all the quasars go?
The further back in time we look the larger they are, why?
Why are they emitting so much power?
The standard model can explain none of these questions.

What if, a quasar is a white hole, a time reversed left over black hole from the previous antimatter cycle of the universe?  Suddenly, it all makes sense.  Quasars are not feeding upon galaxies but are the engines of creation building new galaxies.  As a quasar builds a galaxy the repulsive force of gravity between matter and antimatter eventually ejects the quasar from its home in the centre of the galaxy.  The quasar continues to feed the galaxy with material that flows across a bridge from the quasar to the galaxy.  Eventually, the quasar converts all of its antimatter into matter and ceases to exist.  A quasar has a very large red-shift as light from it is extremely red shifted at source due to extreme time dilation as the quasar is time reversed in relation to its galaxy and the universe in general.  Time dilation and reversal between universe cycles also explains inflation.  A white hole spewing out jets of relativistic material forms a barbed spiral galaxy.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2011 14:21:19 by MikeS »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #332 on: 29/07/2011 14:12:09 »
The largest uncertainty is probably that we ignore the fact that the higher frequencies within multi-chromatic white light loose energy faster than the lower frequencies. This tends to bias all multi-chromatic white light toward the red after a few million years of travel through a busy universe.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #333 on: 29/07/2011 16:43:44 »
Mike - do the sums!

Bengt - got a citation for that?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #334 on: 29/07/2011 22:10:43 »
I do not cite other people's work. I present my own.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #335 on: 30/07/2011 06:56:42 »

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.

It has already been established that there is a red-shift problem here, a discrepancy of 'orders of magnitude'

Mike - do the sums!


There is absolutely no point in me doing the maths as there is nothing for me to prove.  The problem is known to exist.

 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #336 on: 30/07/2011 07:11:16 »
The largest uncertainty is probably that we ignore the fact that the higher frequencies within multi-chromatic white light loose energy faster than the lower frequencies. This tends to bias all multi-chromatic white light toward the red after a few million years of travel through a busy universe.

According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #337 on: 30/07/2011 08:24:25 »
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
It all depends on what it encounters along the way. There is a vast difference between how cosmology looks at the photon; as an indisputably fixed reference, and what optics and radio/radar technology know about the intricacy of electromagnetic radiation.
The claim that a photon is unalterable during a million year zigzag journey through a forest of gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a wishful assumption and oversimplification at best.
« Last Edit: 30/07/2011 08:34:07 by Bengt »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #338 on: 30/07/2011 09:18:48 »
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
It all depends on what it encounters along the way. There is a vast difference between how cosmology looks at the photon; as an indisputably fixed reference, and what optics and radio/radar technology know about the intricacy of electromagnetic radiation.
The claim that a photon is unalterable during a million year zigzag journey through a forest of gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a wishful assumption and oversimplification at best.

Do you know of any papers written on the subject, can you give references to them?

I know you said this is your own work but you must back it up with something.
« Last Edit: 30/07/2011 09:20:30 by MikeS »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #339 on: 30/07/2011 09:43:12 »
Computer simulations.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #340 on: 31/07/2011 07:53:37 »
Computer simulations.

If it were me, I would suspect a glitch in the computer software first or the way it is being used.

If you are confident that you are right and have evidence to back it up, why not publish it here in new theories?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #341 on: 31/07/2011 08:11:22 »
Thank you.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #342 on: 31/07/2011 19:08:03 »
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.

For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.
« Last Edit: 31/07/2011 19:11:10 by PhysBang »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #343 on: 01/08/2011 09:17:10 »
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.

For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.

It was actually correct.

For example see
http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138
Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

The evidence suggests the quasar is in front of the galaxy.

"There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular
galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light
from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is observed to
connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar
source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319".
“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to
the center of an active galaxy,” “If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers
would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them
like bullets or cannon balls,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, professor of physics and
astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and
Space Sciences

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very
Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215v1.pdf

How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2011 10:00:49 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 05/08/2011 09:59:09 by MikeS »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #345 on: 05/08/2011 08:17:56 »
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #346 on: 05/08/2011 10:04:23 »
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.

When referring to quasars (which I was) the only estimate for distance seems to be red-shift.

As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2011 10:12:25 by MikeS »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #347 on: 05/08/2011 15:03:50 »
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.

One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.

Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #348 on: 06/08/2011 07:49:54 »
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.

One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.

Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.

Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.

I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.

This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #349 on: 06/08/2011 14:31:34 »
Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.
You have given a few references to articles where the authors make inferences about where the quasars are. There is good reason to doubt the veracity of these inferences: the entirety of what we know about quasars, redshifts, and distance.
Quote
I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.
Well, yeah. But many of the quasars that people supposed to be ejected from galaxies turned out to be gravitationally lensed images. This is one of the reasons that the idea that quasars have their own intrinsic redshift is viewed as a false.
Quote
This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
People may have lost their careers because they did poor science. Do you have any examples of people who lost their careers because of this?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #349 on: 06/08/2011 14:31:34 »

 

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