0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If something is not 100% correct then it must be deemed to be 100% wrong.
What is the probability that the ''big bang'' is correct?
The big bang is incorrect. We are in the outflow associated with a universal black hole.
What you think is a big bang is the outflow associated with a universal black hole.
Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy.
This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies
I don't know why thousands of 'brilliant' physicists can't understand our universe is a larger version of what we see throughout our universe.
I can't figure out what's going on in their minds. The only thing I can conclude is an 'education' in physics is more of a brainwashing and the big bang is the religious dogma associated with brainwashed members of a religious cult.
This has nothing to do with the current subject but its a common misconception that matter can be converted into energy.
“Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies,” the astronomers explained.
I happen to agree that matter does not convert into energy. The matter evaporates into dark matter.
Since you yet once again ignore all my questions and acted like a politician I won't respond to anything you post from now on, regardless of how wrong you are. This is not arrogance on my part, by far. It's just that I refuse to waste my time talking to someone who is so rude that he won't even acknowledge that I even asked you a question proved you wrong. So keep on making erroneous assertions. I could have helped you learn a great deal of physics like I have here for so many people over the years. But you chose otherwise. So be it.
Given what I just said: Why should anybody except what you just said as valid? And by valid I mean a theory that is on solid grounds, can explain all the data collected over the last century, is logically sound and there is a good reason to accept that theory over the Big Bang Theory?
uugh, actually I have come across quite a bit of observations that show that there is no "expansion" of the universe, and therefore no big bang. And so the theory is on very shaky ground.No one has ever measured, or observed the expansion of space. The only yard stick we have out there approaching any thing near a measuring stick are the Voyager space probes. So, I'd say its probably best to wait and see what they measure before being so definite about an expanding universe.The redshift is an observable measurable effect. The expansion of the universe is a conclusion, its not an observable.
The only yard stick we have out there approaching any thing near a measuring stick are the Voyager space probes.
Apparently you've never actually bothered to learn the history of Hubble's Law or you failed to understand it. To put it briefly Hubble used a known and verified means of measuring distances to cosmological objects (the standard candle method) and noticed that there was a correlation between the distances he calculated using that method and the velocities (redshifts) observed. He did not use redshift to measure distance. Today's astronomers will sometimes use redshift to estimate distance if they cannot find a standard candle but only because no one has ever found a substantial deviation from Hubble's Law. Things that are farther away are simply moving faster than things that are closer.
Quote from: arcmetal The only yard stick we have out there approaching any thing near a measuring stick are the Voyager space probes. The Voyager craft are barely outside our Solar system. The Solar system is gravitationally bound, and so the expansion of the universe has no visible effect.The Voyager craft are not outside our galaxy. The galaxy is gravitationally bound, and so the expansion of the universe has no visible effect.The smallest scale you could hope to see an effect is in the distance between galaxy clusters.
Do you not see what you are saying here?
Since Hubble's time we've found a special type of supernova (type 1a) that has a very unique light curve (basically brightness as a function of time but also spectral lines) that allows them to be used as a standard candle. These supernova can be slightly easier to use than Cepheid variables because you don't have to measure them for long periods but they are still only used as secondary sources. There are other independent ways to measure these distances as well that I haven't gone over and they all agree to within our ability to measure the quantities in question. Redshift is only ever used as a distance measure if there is no other way to measure the distance and only because we have a lot of data relating redshift to measured distance.
Ok, I realize that it may be difficult to understand fundamental concepts, so one way to explain it is with a simple example. I will try to lay it out as simply as I can possibly put it. In this example we'll use a megaparsec, which is about 3.26 million light years.In this example you can replace what is within these quotes "standard candle distance",with whatever fancy candle distance measure you wish, it has no effect on the outcome.Here is the hypothetical measurement example (which may not be to scale):------------------------------------(1 megaparsec = 3.26 million light years)Let's measure some distances to two galaxies: galaxy A, and galaxy B."standard candle distance" to galaxy A: 1,000 megaparsecs"standard candle distance" to galaxy B: 500 megaparsecss... ok let's measure their redshifts, as observed through an instrument:redshift for galaxy A: 2 mmredshift for galaxy B: 1 mmAnd so, here we see a correlation between the redshift of the light coming from the distant galaxy correlates with the "standard candle distance" of the two galaxies.Well great, since we can see a correlation then that means we can use the redshift for other galaxies for which we have a harder time measuring their "standard candle distance".------------------------------------Above is a simple example of a usage of the "standard candle distance", the redshift, and their applications. So where, pray tell, is there a measurement of "speed" in that calculus??"Speed" is a measure taken between two points: a difference in distance divided by a difference in time of those two points.There is no measurement of "speed" within the measurements of "standard candle distance", nor within the usage or observations of the "redshift".Therefore, no measurement of "speed", therefore no measurement of anything moving. No measurements of galaxy A moving from galaxy B, nor is there a measurement of the galaxies moving from us. Thus, the "expanding" universe is a conclusion, not a measurement.
Redshifts don't just happen they have to have a cause. From experiments on Earth we know of two causes of redshift. Those are gravity and velocity (aka Doppler shift). The redshift we observe from galaxies is not correlated with the mass of the galaxies or the objects emitting the light and therefore cannot be a gravitational redshift. Therefore Hubble concluded at the time that the redshift must be caused by velocity (aka a Doppler shift). It is relatively trivial to work out the velocity of the emitting object relative to you using the Doppler shift after all this is how the police catch you speeding. Therefore Hubble defined a speed based on the observed redshift because that was the only possible source of redshift he could think of at the time.
I think you assume too much.
Since you mention Hubble, I think I'll agree with him on this point. Later in life he realized that this whole "expansion" bit was incorrect, and that some other mechanism is at play with the cause of the redshift.
Modern measurements of greater precision and accuracy have pretty much removed all doubt that the universe is expanding.
...but leaves physics floundering as to the mechanics of the Big Bang itself, how everything in the universe could originate from a compacted point, and what the mechanism is that drives the ongoing and accelerating expansion.Apart from these minor niggles, it's a really sound theory! (chuckle)
Because heaven forbid we use actual evidence to discover empirical truths about the Universe regardless of the difficulty when it is so much easier to ignore the observational evidence and just make everything up instead.
There used to be observational evidence for the empirical truth of the geocentric model as well, but I guess someone 'made up' another model and the universe 'just changed' accordingly aye?All sorts of well respected physicists have 'made up' theories based on logic and interpretation of observational evidence. Many of these smaller 'made up' theories form the basis for the larger 'made up' theories of our 2 best working hypothesis GR and Quantum.They have spent a great deal of money indeed via the LHC to test the 'made up' super symmetry theory, and the 'made up' multiverse theory....If you are having a dig at me and my 'made up' theory in particular, I can assure you that my theory is also 'made up' based on logic and interpretation of observational evidence.However, my theory is distinguishably different from any other 'made up' theory, inclusive of GR, because my theory of inverted time dilation doesn't require, as 'all' other theories do, any unobserved (and therefore 'made up') entities in order to make its mechanics work!
'tis OK, don't fess yer'self!I prefer my explanations from the likes of Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, Hawking, Smolin, Penrose, Susskind, the list goes on and on...I daresay you would have a job on your hands bettering them, don't you think?
Listen whelp, (she growled)...Firstly, any one of those authors of popular science mentioned clearly states that their books are presented with both the layman and the physicists requirements in mind. All maths are explained and experiments, theories cited in the index.
Secondly, if you think that I'm the one claiming that all the work based on the theories of these great named geniuses of the past is wrong, then you either have not read, or have not understood my theory.
I did not come here to comment on your ability to understand or not understand anything, just to state fact.
I can guarantee you that any one of the people mentioned (given that some of them were still alive) would agree with my assessment in my first post here (that you objected to) of current theory, although I could not guarantee (chuckle) that they would agree with my proposed alternative.They would certainly be more qualified to comment than you though...
Quote from: stacyjonesThe big bang is incorrect. We are in the outflow associated with a universal black hole.Please don't take the way that I phrase my question as an insult.Given what I just said: Why should anybody except what you just said as valid? And by valid I mean a theory that is on solid grounds, can explain all the data collected over the last century, is logically sound and there is a good reason to accept that theory over the Big Bang Theory?Pete
Apparently you've never actually bothered to learn the history of Hubble's Law or you failed to understand it. To put it briefly Hubble used a known and verified means of measuring distances to cosmological objects (the standard candle method) and noticed that there was a correlation between the distances he calculated using that method and the velocities (redshifts) observed.
QuoteI did not come here to comment on your ability to understand or not understand anything, just to state fact.I've yet to see you do any such thing
If you could go out into deep space and place the 'standard candle' at cosmological distances is person, I think you would have a better idea of what you are talking about, instead of making derogatory "comments" like "you've never actually bothered to learn the history of Hubble's Law.... etc" You have less imagination than a log of wood!
To say so, all of the people I have mentioned have all proposed that General Relativity and the Big Bang theory in its present form may not be right, along with most of the 'intelligent' physics community.If you wish to argue against them, do so, but the probability that the Big Bang theory in its present form is the correct theory 'is' indeed questionable.Thanks for a really 'pleasant' discussion, I've had sooo much fun, (not). Why do they bother?
I'm out of here!
Being ignorant of something is not in anyway derogatory as long as that ignorance is accidental. There is no excuse for being willfully ignorant especially when someone takes the time to do the research for you. Choosing to remain ignorant in the face of empirical evidence is something completely different than simply not knowing something. It is even worse if you're attempting to discuss a subject and you clearly haven't actually bothered to properly learn about the current state of knowledge pertaining to that subject.
Anybody who knows anything about math can tell you that question is meaningless.These are the results of refusing to learn math and physics the right way. I.e. people ask insane questions. In cases like this there really are dumb questions.
uugh, actually I have come across quite a bit of observations ...
..that show that there is no "expansion" of the universe, and therefore no big bang.
No one has ever measured, or observed the expansion of space.
The expansion of the universe is a conclusion,..