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 176157 times)

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #350 on: 07/08/2011 13:29:35 »
The black hole; A gravitationally driven super concentration of materia beyond materia. Due to dynamic and gravitational effects in the surrounding galaxy the organization of this event becomes an essentially two dimensional event. Materia and energy hitting the event horizon has a probabilistic chance to slip out of the event plane and to escape as quasar radiation or later along the rotational axis of the black pit.

Considering what we do know about the fascinating transitions between radiation and materia, including dark such, it appears scientifically unfounded to claim that once energy has taken the form of visible white light there is nothing in the universe that can affect or influence this form of energy. Not even its propagation speed or apparent wavelength. We know from the sciences of optics and radio technology that a multitude of events can alter this form of energy.
Therefore, to postulate some inalterable and axiomatic qualities to the nature of visible, multi-chromatic white light and to use this, and red shift, as the basis for a dramatic hypothesis like The Big Bang, or other forms of pseudo scientific creationism, is insincere and more theater than science.

     


   

               
 
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 15:38:33 by Bengt »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #351 on: 07/08/2011 15:46:01 »
The black hole; A gravitationally driven super concentration of materia beyond materia. Due to dynamic and gravitational effects in the surrounding galaxy the organization of this event becomes an essentially two dimensional event. Materia and energy hitting the event horizon has a probabilistic chance to slip out of the event plane and to escape as quasar radiation or later along the rotational axis of the black pit.

Considering what we do know about the fascinating transitions between radiation and materia, including dark such, it appears scientifically unfounded to claim that once energy has taken the form of visible white light there is nothing in the universe that can affect or influence this form of energy. Not even its propagation speed or apparent wavelength. We know from the sciences of optics and radio technology that a multitude of events can alter this form of energy.
Therefore, to postulate some inalterable and axiomatic qualities to the nature of visible, multi-chromatic white light and to use this, and red shift, as the basis for a dramatic hypothesis like The Big Bang, or other forms of pseudo scientific creationism, is insincere and more theater than science.
You seem to be operating in some ignorance of the actual science. No cosmologists say that nothing can influence light. They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.


   

               
 
 

Post by Bengt click to view.

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #352 on: 07/08/2011 17:35:35 »
Shrunk
They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.
Out of the many many things that influence light we chose that which supports our present hypothesis. This way science tests and searches its way forward.
What amuses me is that people doing the science admit that we do not yet know, while second hand followers take home a snapshot of science and swear that they know.   
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #353 on: 07/08/2011 19:37:29 »
Like you are swearing that you know anything about cosmology?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #354 on: 07/08/2011 20:07:26 »
I do not know enough. I do not think we know enough. I am interested in exploring and discussing alternatives to hypotheses and theories that seem to fly in the face of good science.
I am asking: With many possible explanations for red shift, should we not explore some of them before we put all our money on a dramatic but poorly supported big bang hypothesis.

After all, the question was: "Is the big bang correct?" My answer is: "I do not think so, let us discuss."


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #355 on: 08/08/2011 11:12:59 »
Bengt - of all the "many possible explanations for red shift" could you briefly outline one which can be tested and provides a workable model that explains observed fact. 
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #356 on: 08/08/2011 19:14:38 »
I am asking: With many possible explanations for red shift, should we not explore some of them before we put all our money on a dramatic but poorly supported big bang hypothesis.
So what about all the research in cosmology and astrophysics since 1929?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #357 on: 08/08/2011 20:08:31 »
Testable or not, two likely candidates are gradual synchronization through energy transfer between the various frequencies in multi chromatic white light and plain loss of energy do to cross traffic. In case of million year old multi chromatic white light a combination of the two is likely. Gradual synchronization due to energy transfer is what causes rogue waves on the ocean. Waves of slightly different frequencies can pass through each other with near zero loss or transfer of energy. However, the higher energy wave does give up a tiny bit of energy to the less energetic wave. The result is gradual synchronization forming a large composite wave. Of interest here is not the size of the wave but the fact that the higher energy wave slowly lends some energy to the lower energy wave.
In case of multi chromatic white light with an average frequency of 600 THz, traveling for a million years, one wavelength of violet light with a frequency of 800 THz will roll through one wavelength of red light with a frequency of 400 THz approximately 400X10^12X60X60X24X365X1000,000 = 1261440X10^22 times. With any transfer of energy from the high energy components in a photon to the low energy components, the violet components will weaken and the reddish components will strengthen. A shift of energy from a white mix to a more reddish mix is to be expected.

As far as white light simply getting tired, and reddish, this has been strongly contested. However, a beam of light traveling through the universe for a million years sees a lot of cross traffic. Just as a gradual energy equalization within the photon is likely it is also possible that a beam of light that has encountered a few googols of intersections with other EM radiation will have exchanged some energy along the way. When a beam of EM radiation looses energy the high frequency, high energy components fade the fastest. Compare radar, micro waves and radio frequencies. The result is a disproportionate loss of high frequency energy boosting the appearance the lower, red, frequencies.

We could also talk about the possibility of areas of dark energy clouds or fog, providing additional opportunities for a beam of light to alter its constitution along the way.

How do we experimentally test these possibilities? I do it on the computer. I welcome anybody with a virtual million year optical table to take on the challenge.

I am asking you this question: Can to name anything that is going to be exactly as it is today, a million years from now?
......  No, I didn't think so.
So why should an old beam of light be the only exception?



    
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #358 on: 09/08/2011 02:56:17 »
How do we experimentally test these possibilities? I do it on the computer. I welcome anybody with a virtual million year optical table to take on the challenge.
Well, you look at distant events of known duration and check to see whether the redshift is consistent with the time dilation of the event. If there is some excess redshift, one knows that the redshift is due to something other than cosmological redshift.

This was done in Goldhaber et al. 2001. (THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 558:359-368, 2001 September 1) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/558/1/359
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #359 on: 09/08/2011 12:10:29 »
There is precious little evidence for gamma gamma interaction - we have seen a few instances of it, but they are in the most extreme and un-natural circumstances.  What mechanism are you proposing for gamma/gamma reactions?

A photon travelling across the void sees very little cross traffic - it's not called the void for nothing.

A molecule of hydrogen in the interstellar void will most probably be the same in a million years - as would most molecules in the void. 
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #360 on: 09/08/2011 16:52:15 »
There is precious little evidence for gamma gamma interaction - we have seen a few instances of it, but they are in the most extreme and un-natural circumstances.  What mechanism are you proposing for gamma/gamma reactions?

A photon traveling across the void sees very little cross traffic - it's not called the void for nothing.

A molecule of hydrogen in the interstellar void will most probably be the same in a million years - as would most molecules in the void. 

1. As my numerical illustration suggests we are talking about a fractional interaction or interference after 1.2x10^28 close encounters. I know of no experiments that have been able to replicate this exposure to prove or disprove a theoretically anticipated energy transfer from high to low.

2. Place an observer at point A in the void. Observer A sees stars in all directions. Rays of light from visible stars converge at point A. Now place an observer at a different point B. Observer B also sees stars in all directions. Rays of light also converge at point B.
A ray of light traveling from A to B is constantly traveling through the cross traffic observed at point A, and at point B, and in-between.
You say: Yes but the EM energy density is so low that it can not have any effect on the ray of light that I am interested in.
I say: Wrong. Your chosen ray of light is no bigger or better than the Xx10^XXXX crossing rays that it encounters along the way.

It's called a void because its content is close to zero. However, we all come from this negligible condition; close to zero.

3. Maybe, maybe not. With a little luck maybe your hydrogen molecule has gotten sucked into a bigger event, like a black hole. Or maybe it traveled in a different direction, found some friends and formed a helium atom.

It's a good question: What is the life expectancy of a hydrogen molecule in the void?
 
   
   
 

Offline katesisco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #361 on: 20/08/2011 17:50:34 »
Well........David Bohm sure thought so.  And he further stated that we are not privileged to know anything other than our current transformation. i do think O Manuel is on the right path; the Russians have just launched a radio telescope to look for our bitsy neutron star that has lashed Sol's system many times with magnetic waves, in other words, DL, as described by the Electric Universe.   
 

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #362 on: 05/04/2012 18:24:50 »
This forum post is a good one and a subject that has a lot of different opinions, there’s some good reading in here, the 15 pages of posts backs that up I’m sure. I almost feel guilty cutting into the debate on redshift but it’s getting a little off topic. So here’s my 2 cents from what’s been said on the original post.

The “Big Bang”
Without getting bogged down in the details, people’s opinions are divided because most evidence of an expanding universe and current observations support a Big Bang theory. The problem is how can all that matter be in one place at one point in time, it’s counter intuitive because much smaller quantities of matter like suns or planets would collapse or explode in a tiny fraction of that volume.
This problem is pretty much all down to gravity so with the Big Bang we’ve added things like the quantum field theory to patch over the contradiction. This means given the Big Bang there was no gravity in the universe till a large part of its structure was formed, this is described as the first couple of seconds of the Big Bang and time and the speed of light also go out the window.
So as far as I can see it there is a great deal of logic in the Big Bang theory so it might be true, that said I can also see why people would disagree because we have to bend a lot of other rules in physics to get it started.
In my opinion I believe galaxies formed in Big Bangs but the universe did not. I believe what happened is closer to how bubbles form in liquid, galaxies popped up in little “Big Bangs” in the liquid of one big expanding universe of gravity and matter. It’s only an opinion at the moment but in my mind it makes for a better model than the current one but time will tell, It’s a large part of BartleysTOE came to be, link below.
newbielink:http://www.scribd.com/rb_bartley/d/87888548-BartleysTOE-1st-Edition [nonactive]

A “Continuous Universe”
This is really hard to quantify, has it always been, will it always be, if you stay in one place long enough will the universe go full circle. This is pretty much on the edge of philosophy but it does make for an interesting set of ideas.
I’m on the fence for this one, I don’t see why it couldn’t be possible in a continually moving forward sense of the concept but not in an expanding forward and shrinking backwards universe. One thing is obvious though this idea will be near impossible to prove one way or the other!

“Creationism”
As science is completely unable to answer how life can choose I can see why the concept of creationism can be popular but it’s a long shot at best in my opinion. I do believe we should learn from religions in science, 7000 years of knowledge can’t be all bad, but obviously it shouldn’t be assumed as correct just like anything.
The problem with Creationism is the extremist opinions some people have, for instance. I can understand it being taught in schools along with main stream science but when it is taught as the only truth and everything else is a lie it becomes a burden on the world.

The “Other”
Will you take the Red or the Blue pill, is this all in your mind, am I really real or is all this a figment of my imagination. Everybody likes a bit of the other, take it as you will ;-)
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #363 on: 09/04/2012 13:47:43 »
RB
This forum post is a good one and a subject that has a lot of different opinions,
RB, opinions in this regard are quite irrelevant. The important point is that the current best explanation for the character of the universe as we observe it is Big Bang theory. None of the alternatives even come close. In that regard there is zero evidence supporting your contention that galaxies were created by mini-BBs and abundant evidence that they were not.

There is noting wrong with having opinions, but - as noted - on a science forum they are about as relevant as six day old hamburgers.
 

Offline R B Bartley

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #364 on: 11/04/2012 12:33:59 »
Ophiolite

When your right your right, what can I say ;-).

The Big Bang is and will remain to be the best explanation for the foreseable future but I guess its still far from perfect or it wouldn't raise so many questions without answers. Theres an awful lot ridding on the Higgs Boson to plug the gaps and I believe we'll find out one way or another on that front in the next 6/12 months.
 

Offline RE.Craig

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #365 on: 12/02/2013 00:59:57 »
what do you believe?
I believe BB is BS!!!
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #366 on: 03/03/2013 14:21:13 »
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2013 14:26:53 by Pincho »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #367 on: 08/03/2013 13:06:15 »
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Do you have any maths to go with that?
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #368 on: 08/03/2013 14:19:30 »
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Do you have any maths to go with that?

You just reverse the maths...
F = G.m1.m2 / r^2

change m1 m2 into holes, and reverse the electron mass

    
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

change to

    
electron mass = -9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms (minus sign)

Reverse all of the forces of the formulas to make the physics push instead of pull.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #369 on: 08/03/2013 23:51:44 »
This fails to address the following aspects of your claim:
1. The character of an atom's big bang.
2. Why, if atoms are experiencing a BB we can detect no difference in their behaviour over time.
3. The absence of any evidence that galaxies are expanding.
4. Clear evidence that they are not.
5. etc.

The politest thing one can say about your proposal is to say nothing.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #370 on: 09/03/2013 00:47:29 »
This fails to address the following aspects of your claim:
1. The character of an atom's big bang.
2. Why, if atoms are experiencing a BB we can detect no difference in their behaviour over time.
3. The absence of any evidence that galaxies are expanding.
4. Clear evidence that they are not.
5. etc.

The politest thing one can say about your proposal is to say nothing.

I don't feel the need to reply. A reply has to be worth making.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 00:50:12 by Pincho »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #371 on: 09/03/2013 03:26:26 »
In a science forum one is obligated to reply to reasonable points made, or questions raised. The absence of a substantive response can be taken as an implicit admission that your assertion was unfounded and wrong.

I do, however, praise you for recognising that any attempt to defend the indefensible would be a reply that would not be worth making.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #372 on: 09/03/2013 09:32:38 »
In a science forum one is obligated to reply to reasonable points made, or questions raised. The absence of a substantive response can be taken as an implicit admission that your assertion was unfounded and wrong.

I do, however, praise you for recognising that any attempt to defend the indefensible would be a reply that would not be worth making.

Yeah, well make a reasonable response then. Your questions don't relate to reversing the physics. All you have done is change in your mind what a reversed Big Bang would create. You didn't actually change any of the physics to comply with how bump physics would be completely different to the standard model. And a simple mistake like that makes it beyond you to actually follow the answer. It would be like me saying that God doesn't exist to a Christian... pointless.

For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system. That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking. I even gave you an example with electron holes, and you skipped over it. Einstein wondered what Action At A Distance was, and never even considered making the action local, and move gravity away from the mass, into holes as a flow.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 09:50:39 by Pincho »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #373 on: 09/03/2013 11:41:58 »
For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system.
It is not my job to do that. It is your hypothesis, it is your job to explain it.  That is how science works, that is how this forum works.

That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.
I am delighted to be placed in the same category as Einstein. Since this mistake is not obvious to me, was not obvious to Einstein and is apparently not obvious to the many tens of thousands of physicists who have studied the matter, don't you think you should explain, illustrate and justify this mistake with more than vague hand waving ,word salad, obfuscation and a total absence of maths?
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #374 on: 09/03/2013 12:43:10 »
For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system.
It is not my job to do that. It is your hypothesis, it is your job to explain it.  That is how science works, that is how this forum works.

That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.
I am delighted to be placed in the same category as Einstein. Since this mistake is not obvious to me, was not obvious to Einstein and is apparently not obvious to the many tens of thousands of physicists who have studied the matter, don't you think you should explain, illustrate and justify this mistake with more than vague hand waving ,word salad, obfuscation and a total absence of maths?

I don't think it does need explaining to be honest. The mistake is obvious, and needs fixing. I don't care if 7 billion people didn't spot it, and the whole of existence. It is an illusion of pull forces that can fool everyone. But once I pointed it out, it needed fixing. There are no pull forces, you cannot pull anything with mass. Just try to pull anything in your room, your fingers are always behind the object that you are moving. If you want to be compared to Einstein, and can't see what your hand is doing then fine.. you are Einstein. You can pull a door open, you are magic.

Let's make it simple for you. Pull your mouse towards your chair, then push your mouse towards your chair. Did your fingers move anywhere?

No... the physics are all backwards. You don't need Quantum Physics, you don't need Dark Matter. You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 12:57:39 by Pincho »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: is the big bang correct?
« Reply #374 on: 09/03/2013 12:43:10 »

 

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