It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings.Yes, indeed.
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings
I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.That's bizarre. Where did you get that idea from?
The point is no matter how sure we are of the current paradigm it is at best a wild guess, nothing more and nothing less The eminent scientists above are humble enough to admit this.Not "a wild guess' but an informed estimate with upper and lower limits (not usually stated in the Press but an essential constituent of any Scientific publication).
I can't vote in that poll because a) for me it's not a question of belief, and b) because it doesn't include the one answer I know is correct.
I know that I don't know whether the BB is correct or not, so I can't 'believe' any of the options given - that would just be wishful thinking.
The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.
However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all [;)]
What about the DNA rip off where they stole Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photographs claiming it to be their own?
Little commercial interest in cosmological matters? Your joking right? Why on earth would NASA and many other Countries invest so much money and time in space exploration if there is no commercial interest in it?Space exploration is not the same thing as Cosmology.
The universe does not have a finite age.Is a totally unprovable and undisprovable statement so it really has little place in Science because, by definition, there can be no evidence.
Background radiation can be accounted for with the decay of stars and indeed our own sun sending out particles. No need for any big bang whatsoever.Did it ever occur to you that you could learn some basics so you could really make up your mind in an informed way? You could also learn about how important calculations are. Do you know what the actual solar flux is? Does this account for the present planet masses? Show me some figures.
It means Do Not Feed The Trolls for those who can't be arsed to look it up. "Whatever"So you managed to learn something.
Well, how do you suppose science moves forward? Does it move forward by everyone accepting everything that has been written by someone else? Or does it take someone moving in the opposite direction to discover something unexpected and novel?But, unless that 'someone' actually understands what it's all about (including existing stuff he is building on) then, for 'novel', read 'unsupportable'. I have read enough of your ideas to realise that you basic knowledge of much of established Science is very shaky. This is why you are so reluctant to quote actual figures in your declamations. The wonderful thing about Science is that there are so many cross links which support one another. 'Basic' Science is not wrong. Learn that first.
As for setting up a mathematical equation on the whole Universe to show it has already been there and never originated and will never endThat would be too much to ask. No, I would be much more happy for some demonstration of knowledge of the most elementary bits of mechanics and Newton's Laws which would then be a basis for giving some credence to your more adventurous notions. If they don't satisfy Newtons Laws, to a first approximation, then they have to be nutty, remember.
today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
No! You make sure someone else has thought of it first and published it before you digest and regurgitate it without thinking for yourself.
Quotetoday’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
Today's Science has not 'proved the old stuff to be wrong'. It has extended it and modified it because it has been based on it.
Hence, tomorrows Science can be expected to do the same.
I am, of course, only referring to developments since the Enlightenment.
Today's daft ideas won't prove anything to have been wrong because they have no foundation. Do you not realise that an idea that is based on someone's fancy is about as likely to be proved right as I am to float up to the ceiling.
Yes, there are many ways of looking at things but, I'm afraid that most of them are just not valid - particularly the ones which are not based on evidence.
Do you really think you are in any position to challenge the competence of an eminent Cosmologist to propose Black Holes? That's a pretty arrogant statement from someone who is reluctant ever to get into any substantial theory. Do you actually understand the basis of the black hole concept? Do you think it is just based on fancy?
What is the basis for all this waffle about your alternative Cosmology? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you do any measurements or have you used existing data to come to this conclusion? Put it another way; what is your authority or basis for rejecting the accepted model?
If you refuse to engage in proper Science, how can you take exception to the 'Troll' epithet?
vehemently defended subjectsDo you actually know about any of this vehemently defended stuff.
Great Beyond - New Planet DiscoveredFascinating but apropos of what?
Jupiter
Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler, a pair of astronomers from the United States, have discovered a planet that closely resembles Jupiter. Though astronomers have found other planets out there, none so far have so closely resembled the planets of our own solar system. This new planet, which is being called Jupiter's cousin, orbits the star 55 Cancri and takes 13 years to go around the star once. It takes Jupiter just over 11 years to circle our sun.
Not familiar with static universe. The Universe is anything but static, it is in a constant evolutionary state and that everything in the Universe is constantly changing except for the Universe meaning the canvas on which all the planets stars, meteors, comets, atoms and sub atomic particles are being recycled over eternity is Static But not the components that are in it. And we have privilege to gaze upon it in nothing more than an equivalent nanosecond that encompasses the evolution of our own planet.
We are trying to observe the hypothesised events before and during the hypothesised Big Bang event.
Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one.
Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself. The mass collapses under the great pressure of its own gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved,resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
This,in turn, results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself. Concluding in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again. This process repeats itself infinitely.
Enter the being and absorb the universe. Beyond lies the beginning.
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant. See my evolutionary cosmology topic in the new theories section for a bit more explanation. I do not believe there is any significant prospect of ever communicating with or observing one of these other universes so we will have to do without confirmation of their existence.
I also consider it very likely that our universe itself creates new universes as part of its normal existence. These new universes are probably what we call black holes.
To my answer would be a tick in three of your boxes big bang yes, constant universe(multiverse) yes. other yes.
The concept of"scientific" creationism is a load of total rubbish. The creation myths in ancient writings contain a great deal of wisdom about life and human nature and are valuable for that reason only. To regard them as a basis for scientific actuality is totally batty.
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings. This reduces their value and causes many modern people to ignore them and the true wisdom that they contain. Please note I include the myth of Jesus Christ in that category and am a practicing Christian myself.
My maths isn't good enough to do a calculation, has anybody attempted one.
Among the several thousand quasars known today (cf.
Hewitt & Burbidge 1993; Veron-Cetty & Veron 1993;
Hewett, Foltz, & Cha ee 1995) there are a number of cases
where a quasar is found in close angular proximity to a
galaxy (Monk et al. 1986; Arp 1987; Stocke et al. 1987;
Burbidge et al. 1990; Borgeest et al. 1991; Bowen et al.
1991; Womble 1993; Burbidge 1995), but where the redshifts
of the galaxy and the quasar are notably di erent
from each other. This led Arp and others to conclude that
this points to a Doppler interpretation of the observed redshifts
of the quasars (Arp et al. 1990 and references therein).
In this hypothesis quasars are ejected from galaxies (cf.
Valtonen & Basu 1991) and, hence, do not lie at those
cosmological distances which are inferred from their measured
redshifts. This point of view has been criticized by
various authors (““ The Redshift Controversy ÏÏ ; Weedman
1976). Serious arguments against the hypothesis of Arp et
al. are the agreement of the cosmological interpretation
with the observational data from gravitationally lensed
quasars (e.g., Dar 1991), the detection of the host galaxies
of some quasars (e.g., Bahcall 1995; Bahcall, Kirhakos, &
Schneider 1995; Disney et al. 1995; Hutchings & Morris
1995), the nondetection of tidal perturbations in the morphology
of quasar-galaxy associations (e.g., Sharp 1985,
1986), or other reasons (e.g., Newman & Terzian 1995).
Although the arguments for the cosmological interpretation
of the quasar redshifts are highly convincing, here I
discuss another observational test which could allow us to
check whether the apparent close angular proximity of
some quasars to galaxies is due to a spatial closeness of
these objects to each other.
]Had a second thought, star shift is observed during a solar eclipse has any one obseved a frequency shift at the same time.Gravity tends to give light a red shift. I don't know if anyone has reworked the numbers since we changed our thinking about the strength of ambient gravity to be close to an order of magnitude stronger.
Don't think you sent that Vern?You lost me here.
Creationism doesn't contradict the big bang. It explains what was there before the big bang.What was it that was there? The diety?
Yebbut how could you convince someone who just didn't choose to believe in the BBT? After all, "it just doesn't make sense" does it?The key words are "believe in" as in believe in god. The Big Bang must be taken on faith. To me it seems that when we must dispose of the physical laws in order to perpetuate a belief, there might be something lacking in the belief.
LOL
He himself was not sure if his theory was correct.You have observed an interesting thing that is true of most theories. The thinkers who bring them forth are unsure of them. Students later put great faith in them.
what do you believe?
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.And I would add that there is an overwhelming desire of true believers to have it be true. This adds a bias that clouds the outcome of much investigation into the question. IMHO [:)]
The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
Hi there everyone....Yes; that way we can go to church; sing and be happy; without ever revealing deep down what we might think. I think that deep thoughts are best left with the thinker [:)]
You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..
Irishgirl
From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish...
The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.
Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.
Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.
Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...
And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.
That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable.
He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.
To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder. [:)]
Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.
The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.
For example:QuoteMy opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.
The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.
So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.
We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.
Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?
The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height?
If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.
6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.
Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.
But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?
what do you believe?
yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?Aye? [???]
The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.
However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all [;)]
what do you believe?
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.
Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt
but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles.
Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.
I look forward to your reply with interest.
Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.Unless it's the hawking radiation theory where there is NO experimental evidence to back it up and we will have to wait 10 to the power of 70 years for the proof....
Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.It seems to me that the Big Bang theory gives more problems than it solves. It was necessarily a black hole when it began. It consisted of the whole of the universe. This should be enough mass for quite a large black hole. If light can't escape a black hole, all the energy must still be inside the primordial black hole. Therefore the universe must be a black hole. But then we must be inside the event horizon.
Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.Your peculiar sentence structure makes comprehension difficult. If I understand you correctly then you are mistaken. Einstein was accepted by the science community and the world at large after the eclipse of 1919(?) confirmed his predictions. The nuclear possibility only emerged a couple of decades later.
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?
No, absolutely not. It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).
So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.
Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe. They will lead you to three fundamental truths:
1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.
2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.
3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.
Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs Z/A (charge density) vs A:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm (http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm)
Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:
1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf (http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf)
2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf
3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163 (2005).
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf (http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf)
5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf)
6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051)
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.
It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 (http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09)
G'day from the land of ozzzz
There are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.
A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs.
The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.
As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.
Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".Harry, the iron curtain fell almost twenty years ago. It is no more real today than the iron sun. If your cosmology is as up to date as your politics it is no surprise you post the same debunked ideas across the internet.
What debunked ideas?I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
Or you just like being a critic
What debunked ideas?I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
Or you just like being a critic
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICSYou are the one who brought it up.
I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers.Does it ever occur to you that they may have a good reason?
Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me .........Do you understand the difference between ignore and silence?
Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.If their actions have enhanced your career, why are you complaining?
(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!
The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.
(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!
The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.Yes it is quite interesting. Since the author is a believer in the Big Bang Theory I must ask what it is your opinion on the paper? I would have thought you would have been offering us papers that questioned the very concept of the Big Bang, not ones that supported it.
If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.Careful doctor Manuel, that is in danger of getting personal. Describing me as anonymous is certainly accurate, but the coward bit and the implication of hiding are unjustified. Persons can have many reasons for wishing to protect their anonymity. I may express politcal views on this or other forums that would be unpopular with my employers. I might not wish to risk the chance of them learning of these. Is that cowardice? I would call it sensible protection of my family's income.
I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions? You appeared to supply the answers. Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching? Whatever, I’ll play ball.
(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)
What is the most abundant element in the Earth?
Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)
The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17
………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41
From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32
Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more currentthatthan your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)
Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet. Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.
Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron? I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.
What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?
I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.
I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?
What is your point?
Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.
ahhhh... Iron and Oxygen, Earth's two most abundant elements -- Rust -- Hemaglobin!
Hemaglobin... the color of the glow of health and of the blush of embarrassment, the color of both the wondrous renewability of the womb and the shameful sin of war. Hemaglobin, of all the proteins, the most symbolic of life!!
(And why do I feel underfoot around 2 struggling titans? -- or at least 1½ titans?)
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS-----
Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.
If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.
This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale.
Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government.
Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
G'day Oliver
Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS-----
Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.
If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.
This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale.
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something.
Oliver,
. . . . - your meteorite data, for example, is outdated and wrong. I am currently studying . . . before responding.
Rgds
O.
I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.
Is this anything more than an advert?
Does it belong on this thread?
Oliver,
I regret that I will have to pend further discussion for the forseeable future. My thinking in relation to another poster in a separate sub-forum is out of synch with forum moderation. The honourable thing for me to do is to absent myself for a time. I apologise for the impact this will have on what could have been an interesting discussion.
Regards
Ophiolite
what do you believe?
Come to think of it- the microwave background radiation, and then the proof that the universe is expanding. These two are observations and we cannot disprove them.The observations are correct, however the conclusions we reach based upon them are merely assumptions. We assume that the CMBR is the cooled down remnants of the Big Bang. It might simply be the temperature reached by cosmic debris as it is warmed by starlight. We assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect. There are other assumptions we could make that would explain the observations without the need to violate natures laws.
The observations are correct, however the conclusions we reach based upon them are merely assumptions. We assume that the CMBR is the cooled down remnants of the Big Bang.It is more correct to say that the standard cosmological model takes the CMB to be the photons that last interacted with the matter of the universe at a very dense state. This is the same matter that is all around us.
It might simply be the temperature reached by cosmic debris as it is warmed by starlight.This is something that it cannot be. Even the best available theory that accounts for the background radiation as light with reradiated light, quasi-steady state cosmology, has as part of its explanation massive contraction of space in the past. And even this cannot account for all our observations. There are simply too many particular features of the background radiation for it to be reradiated light. For one thing, there would have to bee too much dust in intergalactic space for us to see more than a few galaxies.
We assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect.The standard cosmological model does not assume that the redshift is due to a doppler effect. The redshift is due to another source.
There are other assumptions we could make that would explain the observations without the need to violate natures laws.Hunh?
The Big Bang Theory requires a violation of the natural laws, at least in its early stages.Hunh?
The First IncongruityThis is a strange problem. I am not sure that we can any means by which to distinuigh different beginnings of the universe from any other. Regardless, the standard model of cosmology doesn't actually include the beginning of the universe, much like evolutionary theory does not include the first life on Earth.
Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?
A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy
as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?
The second IncongruityI have no idea where you are getting these figures. The standard cosmological model does run back to a time where the distances that we currently see out to were constricted to a small region, but it is unknown so far whether or not the entire universe is finite or infinite in spacial extent. The time between that small region and today works out fine.
There was not enough time to start the universe!
The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed
initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size
of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for
photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to
be homogeneous (3).
The Third IncongruityThis is not an incongruity, and it is something that the universe is still doing. Regions far away from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. This is something entirely kosher according to general relativity and does not require inflation, which is an entirely separate physical theory.
The universe had to expand faster than light!
The Fourth IncongruityIf nothing existed at one time, then who knows what the rules of something coming in to being are? Regardless, the standard cosmological model doesn't speak of this.
Something Came from Nothing?
The Fifth IncongruityAgain, not required by standard model.
Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense
Physbang... i think you have picked up many things incorrectly and may require reading through that work again... because for instance, most of the questions are intentionally rhetorical and you are answering them with some kind of personal disgreement? Also, you questioned th figures...The figures existed before we invited inflation, hence, you need to re-read it i think.The First IncongruityThis is a strange problem. I am not sure that we can any means by which to distinuigh different beginnings of the universe from any other. Regardless, the standard model of cosmology doesn't actually include the beginning of the universe, much like evolutionary theory does not include the first life on Earth.
Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?
A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy
as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?QuoteThe second IncongruityI have no idea where you are getting these figures. The standard cosmological model does run back to a time where the distances that we currently see out to were constricted to a small region, but it is unknown so far whether or not the entire universe is finite or infinite in spacial extent. The time between that small region and today works out fine.
There was not enough time to start the universe!
The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed
initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size
of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for
photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to
be homogeneous (3).QuoteThe Third IncongruityThis is not an incongruity, and it is something that the universe is still doing. Regions far away from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. This is something entirely kosher according to general relativity and does not require inflation, which is an entirely separate physical theory.
The universe had to expand faster than light!QuoteThe Fourth IncongruityIf nothing existed at one time, then who knows what the rules of something coming in to being are? Regardless, the standard cosmological model doesn't speak of this.
Something Came from Nothing?QuoteThe Fifth IncongruityAgain, not required by standard model.
Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense
what do you believe?
Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Abell_1835_IR1916) has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.You don't seem to understand the theory here. The galaxy in question appears to be exactly where it should be given the current understanding of the Big Bang theory. It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.
This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.Well, how it happens is this:
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location.Of course.
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.
It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.
QuoteIn absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.
First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.
Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.
Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.Ummm... no. There is nothing remotely similar between the account in Genesis and Lemaitre's model of the universe. At best they share a creation event, though even that is not required in a Lemaitre model.
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another, distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another, distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW.
I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff.
Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.
As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.
Everything seems so..... paradoxical. (You might be interested to take a look at a UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature) (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm)".
.... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.
I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm.
Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too.
The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless.
Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly ???
i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...Quantitative experimental data on
...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL [;)]
...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL [;)]
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL [;)]
Was Father Georges Lemaître Right?
We don't know. Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?
snips..
Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.
Say a diesel engine requires 10 liters of water ......Hello Andrew,
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another, distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.
Hi Nick,.
Where do I find your hypothesis?
Bengt
However, it is interesting that in proper Qabbalism (not that deranged nonsense proselytised by such as Madonna) Ein Soph Aur equates rather nicely to quantum foam. It is the "Great Nothingness" from which everything ultimately emerges.
The big bang theory is just what it is, a theory.In scientific terms, a theory is a hypothesis which has been extensively tested and holds true. So saying something is "only a theory" is a non-argument on a science forum.
After all, with a bang that big which supposedly created the universe, nothing could have lived.I'm not sure I understand this point - are you saying that a universe that started with a big bang must always be sterile? I'm not sure I follow your logic there...
And calculating the earth's age as billions of years old is really kind of far fetched (sorry Math is not my strong suite).
With the big bang theory I'm sure evolution would follow and then mutation.
Albeit mutation is true, but evolution and mutation are two different things.And no-one says they are the same.
Now back to the big bang. There is no big bang, if there was, we would be on our way to a singular linear path to the outer of whatever is beyond space.The universe is expanding, in all directions, true.
No explosion could produce something that would make a planet or moon, to revolve another body.
If someone could simulate, lets say a an explosion, no matter how big or small and make a pebble revolve around a rock, and stay that way for even an hour. I would be a firm believer of the big bang.
For as far as I know, explosions or bangs throws thing away from the center of the explosion, instead of making them revolve around other things.It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion. We can see that at some point, 13.7 billion years before now, the universe was incredibly hot and dense. It has since expanded - but not in the same way that a bomb would expand. I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.
It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion.It is certainly correct to say that the Big Bang theory is not about any explosions whatsoever.
I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.It was pretty much intended to be confusing, given that the name originates with a detractor of the theory, Fred Hoyle, in the service of a straw man argument against the theory.
the voting system has been corrupted..
the voting system has been corrupted..
Could you please expand on that Dr J?
But regarding the expanding part of the big bang theory, why is it that instead of continually expanding outwards, some parts of the universe are actually collapsing inward, or imploding in other words.The expansion of the universe is something controlled by gravity. Some regions of the universe, in the distant past, were slightly more dense than other regions. Some of these regions were just dense enough that the mass in that region exerted enough pull that that region collapsed in on itself. This is the origin of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
or, say I have this other example. What if the universe is like a balloon. Constantly expanding, you may imagine the rubber is the edge yet it is invisible since we are tiny particle of air in the balloon. but it could be observable due to the fact that some particles bounce back inside that balloon when they hit the rubber (boundary). You can calculate the focal or center point by calculating the distance from one point of the balloon to the other.Sure, one could do this, but there are no phenomena that we have discovered that support such a model for our own universe.
But here's another theory here, the particles of air that make the balloon expand is not actually from the focal or center point but from somewhere, lets say from the hole in the balloon where someone is blowing. It is also detectable.Exactly: such a theory should have certain predictions. We do not see any of the things that we would expect to see given such a theory. There is nothing that we see that we could use as the basis of determining a focal point or as a source of new matter, energy, or space.
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.
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.
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'.
Sure there are. But there are none that can be applied to all the phenomena of cosmology. Attempts have been made and failed.QuoteThere 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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.Why don't you estimate how much this redshift is likely to be?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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, seeIt 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.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, seeIt 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.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
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.
Computer simulations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
what do you believe?I believe BB is BS!!!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.No, since you think there is a problem, you need to do this. And if you wish to replace amused chuckles behind your back by credibility, you need to show the fix here.
You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.No, since you think there is a problem, you need to do this. And if you wish to replace amused chuckles behind your back by credibility, you need to show the fix here.
I am changing the rules of science. I am changing the rules of the proof.
So from now on, I am changing the rules of the proof. Proof of the Universe as a fractal is to recreate the fractal in a computer. The person that uses the least rules, and the least logic gates has the new leading model. Any output by the model does not count as part of the logic so long as the computer never uses the output as further input. This means that you can put numbers on the screen as results as often as you want, and if this lengthens the program it does not count as more logic gates. All scientist are allowed to judge the new model to say that it is truly smaller than the previous model. All scientists are allowed to judge that the output matches the actual Universe that we live in. I think that a scoring system is probably best...
Best match for actual Universe score
Smallest number of logic gates score
This is the new proof. The proof is allowed to be rewritten by the majority. But the majority must not have an alternative motive to change the proof back to mathematics. Mathematics is not proof.
I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity.Really! No maths. Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.
I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity.Really! No maths. Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.
Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.