Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

is the big bang correct?

  • 380 Replies
  • 178195 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #300 on: 12/07/2011 14:43:00 »
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.   
That is simply not true, though many people who would like to sell their own books and those who feel that contemporary physics and cosmology harm their religious convictions often spread such a statement whether or not they believe it. There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model--and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these. Alternative explanations for redshift and other cosmological phenomena are regularly discussed in the scientific literature and are dismissed on their merits.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 15:38:23 by PhysBang »

*

Offline Bengt

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

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #302 on: 12/07/2011 19:54:02 »
Bengt, I agree on that we can't know what happen from source to sink. But light does not bend to EM. If it did we should be able to do that in the LHC, and as far as I know we haven't, It has no charge. It do have 'energy' though, and that is a mass equivalence. And as the assumption is that light has to be without a 'clock' which is eminently reasonable to me 'distance' doesn't matter, well, exempting expansion. A gravitational field may 'bend' a photon but it will not take away its intrinsic energy. All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance' (geodesic) not expending energy. If they did expend energy in their 'path' I doubt we would be able to call them 'time less' either?
==

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

Hello Göran,

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

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

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #304 on: 12/07/2011 22:18:56 »
That's not a answer Bengt :)
It's a statement.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #306 on: 13/07/2011 01:44:35 »
I said that EM do not 'bend' light. Gravity may be seen to do it, depending on your definitions, but there are no experimental proof of a EM field bending light, that I know of. I would expect that to be of real interest if anyone had succeed.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #308 on: 13/07/2011 09:15:03 »
You're right :)

It was a comment, but reading you I got the feeling that you expected it to be able to do so?  But rereading you, you could as easily mean 'interactions', or other interference of the radiation if looked at as waves.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #309 on: 14/07/2011 01:32:14 »
Quote
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength.
Sure there are. But there are none that can be applied to all the phenomena of cosmology. Attempts have been made and failed.
Quote
There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption.
Not really, given that there are a number of ways we can tell how empty empty space is. Additionally, attempts to explain redshift based on such a soup of EM radiation have, again, failed miserably.
Quote
Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough. 
Yes. And progress is made when those doing the work are honest. If someone is telling you that there is some way to account for cosmological redshift without expanding space then they are probably not honest.

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #311 on: 14/07/2011 15:34:57 »
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.
The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.   
Well, that certainly sounds interesting. Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline imatfaal

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

Bengt - the request for citations of studies or experimental evidence is pretty near universal in science; please do not respond to such requests by implying that your questioner's thoughts are worthless and unimaginative.
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #315 on: 14/07/2011 22:09:08 »
It's interesting Bengt, and waves are weird in so many ways. How did you get to it? I guess you must have considered it as waves for this, if I'm right, ahem :) ? So, how would you define it from 'photons' instead.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #317 on: 14/07/2011 23:26:17 »
Okay, if we define a photon as strings :) Which makes a certain sense to me, then they should be able to have a pressure too. But then you have the vacuum? Do you see it as fluctuating, and if it is, is the 'fluctuating' also (temporary) strings?

That is, if we assume the vacuum to have a energy at very short timescales, averaging into a classical nothing over longer, or in some other weird way expressing that nothing that space is to us macroscopically (humanly seen, sort of) Would that be a possible interaction to you?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #318 on: 15/07/2011 00:30:14 »
OK, so all this criticism of the standard cosmological model being "an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us" is based entirely on pure speculation made in complete ignorance of how EM radiation actually works?

Sigh.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #319 on: 15/07/2011 02:10:19 »
Don't give up before time PhysBang, Bengt have a own way of looking at the universe, doesn't mean he doesn't know the standard model, not as I understand it anyway :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bengt

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

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

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #321 on: 15/07/2011 12:37:02 »
The things you write seem to have absolutely nothing to do with anything in cosmology except for a few names that you have appropriated.

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Bengt

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


*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #323 on: 15/07/2011 13:35:23 »
But clearly you didn't know these things, since you write things that are grossly in contradiction to them. I'm not sure if you are trying to save face or something. It's not like being wrong as an anonymous participant on an internet forum should embarrass you.

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #326 on: 29/07/2011 03:24:12 »
Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account?  I haven't found anything to verify that it has.
Why don't you estimate how much this redshift is likely to be?
Quote
When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us.  Is this taken into account.  When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted.  Is this taken into account?
Why don't you estimate how much this blueshift is likely to be?

*

Offline MikeS

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

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #328 on: 29/07/2011 11:52:28 »
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them.  They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved.  With that your questions might have a bit more bite.  You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem. 
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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


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

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline imatfaal

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

Bengt - got a citation for that?
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

Mike - do the sums!


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


*

Offline MikeS

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

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

*

Offline Bengt

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #342 on: 31/07/2011 19:08:03 »
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

It was actually correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #345 on: 05/08/2011 08:17:56 »
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #347 on: 05/08/2011 15:03:50 »
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.

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

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

*

Offline MikeS

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 598
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #349 on: 06/08/2011 14:31:34 »
Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.
You have given a few references to articles where the authors make inferences about where the quasars are. There is good reason to doubt the veracity of these inferences: the entirety of what we know about quasars, redshifts, and distance.
Quote
I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.
Well, yeah. But many of the quasars that people supposed to be ejected from galaxies turned out to be gravitationally lensed images. This is one of the reasons that the idea that quasars have their own intrinsic redshift is viewed as a false.
Quote
This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
People may have lost their careers because they did poor science. Do you have any examples of people who lost their careers because of this?