Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Big Bang, Erroneous?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#18 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 15 June 2007 - 03:07 PM

WHY THE BIG BANG IS ERRONEOUS


The first sentence in the original post is why this kind of thread ends up in "Alternative theories" forums.

1 - the argument does not try to explain BB theory, but instead it tries to use a host of loosely connected "evidence" to discredit it

2 - it concludes that since the BB is wrong, steady state is the answer.

This is both poor science and poor logic.

Jackson, I think you should stop your outcries against the staff. Anyone who's hung around this site over the past 7 years should know that the moderators are chosen for their desire and ability to volunteer and help out, not because of their political views (or lack of), religious opinion (or lack of), scientific background (or lack of), sex (or lack of) :spam: ...

#19 Jay-qu

Jay-qu

    Ancora Imparo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6340 posts

Posted 16 June 2007 - 02:23 AM

as i said in my little rant, the staff does line itself when confronted by anyone with viewpoints are contrary to what seems to be the forums view.


All I have to say is that 'this forums view' is that of current scientific understanding. End of story. The staff all have their own personal views that may differ from this and we will happily discuss any alternate theories with you guys :)

#20 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 01:56 PM

relativistically speaking there was no bang. All that was, was in the begginning. Whether it was energy, or some sort of complex plasma. All that existed was in the similar state.

As such it is relativistically impossible to view any such bang.

Rather it would be as though a loss of energy, a burning out flame.

The only perspective possible would be of that to begin by embracing the perspective of light, then the next step, untill finally assuming the perspective of some kind of particle-wave.

So in a sense the big bang theory is infact an inverse perspective. A folly of human expectation. Relativly speaking;

The big bang is and should be considered as a falling energy state.

#21 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 05:19 AM

Jackson, you suggested that there was a uniformity of mind set within Hypogrpahy staff. I sugest this is not so. I am a mere minor moderator, yet I certainly have grave suspicions about the reality of the Big Bang. These misgivings arise from philosophical considerations, not scientific, therefore I rarely mention these reservations at all.

Nevertheless they exist and I welcome any evidence that might substantiate alternative views such as those of Arp. However, what is important is evidence, not my (or anyone elses) opinion of what I would like to see as evidence.

NewScience made much of the anomalous redshifts, claiming these quite invalidated Big Bang theory. This recent research offers a simple explanation for these anomalous shifts and demonstrates, again, that taking absolute positions in science lies somewhere along an axis that runs from unwise to downright foolish.



Zhang, T. X. Electric Redshift and Quasars The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 636, Issue 2, pp. L61-L64. 01/2006
Abstract
A new redshift mechanism-the electric redshift-is proposed, in accord with the five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies Einsteinian general relativity and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory. It is shown that a dense, massive, and charged object can significantly shift a light ray that is emitted from the object's surface toward the red as compared with the gravitational redshift. A compact, electrically charged object with density and mass comparable to those of a neutron star can impart a redshift as great as quasars have. Therefore, if quasars are dense, massive, and electrically charged objects, their large redshifts do not imply that all quasars are extremely distant; thus, the luminosity of quasars and their association with low-redshift galaxies can be understood. This interpretation does not conflict with big bang cosmology, because the electric redshifts are negligible for normal stars, galaxies, and large-scale matter, which are not dense and electrically charged.

Source: Content Page


I overlooked this site for a while but now would like to post a rebuttal of the above 'A new Redshift' based on the Maxwell-Einstein premise.

It 'also' refutes the 'expansion of space' as the main cause of the Cosmological Redshift since it is much greater than the Hubble Expansion. Also, these variations vary relative to each other that the Hubble Expansion would not project.

Secondly, it is based on the Maxwell equations that deal with 'continuous waves' and not the Planck Quantum pulsations that we observe as 'Black Body Radiations.

These are two entirely different forms of radiation since the hydrogen atom radiates a continuous 'one angstrom' (approximate) continuous wave in its 'ground state' that we do not detect.
Only electron transitions radiate the EM spectrun we can detect.
Neutrons do not radiate any light that I know of?

NS

#22 Brian Dwight

Brian Dwight

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 12:43 PM

I don't believe in the Big Bang theory. That if there's a Big Bang it hasn't happened yet.

#23 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 09:39 AM

I don't believe in the Big Bang...

Only cause you haven't been invited to the party at my house last night.

Seeing is believing, Brian.

#24 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 06:31 AM

Hello All

People talk of alternative theories.

As if the standard theory is correct.

The MRB is not evidence for the BBT. It is an opinion and not a fact.

As a matter of fact there is no evidence to support the BBT. They are just ideas put together to form the model.

Evidence for or against the BBT will not be available for another few more years.

#25 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 08:43 AM

Hello All

People talk of alternative theories.

As if the standard theory is correct.

The MRB is not evidence for the BBT. It is an opinion and not a fact.

As a matter of fact there is no evidence to support the BBT. They are just ideas put together to form the model.

Evidence for or against the BBT will not be available for another few more years.


Yes, you are right.
This is just one piece of evidence (CMBR) to refute the BBT.

It was supposed to be the 'clincher' evidxence that gave credibility to the BBT.

Mike C

#26 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:42 PM

According to this site:

There are three main evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred:

Evidence of the Big Bang

#27 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 07:43 AM

According to this site:

There are three main evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred:

Evidence of the Big Bang


The BBT occurred in the minds of the scientists that accepted the Doppler relative motions as an expansion of the universe.

Then why did they refute Doppler (real science) with the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the observed redshifts?
Doppler has nothing to do with the EoS.
It was originally applied to the expansion/contraction of the sound waves by moving objects that radiated the sound.
Of course, this can be applied to the light waves as well.
But this involves the 'electric fields' that surround the charged particles, not space itself.

When the false interpretation of Doppler was accepted and later refuted, all the following evidence is 'ad hoc'.

The evidence against the BBT is overwhelming in opposition.
To begin with. It shows that the BB is a 'creation out of nothing'.
This gives the bible some credibility?
That site you posted, seems to have some Jewish involvement in it.

That would make the BBT cosmoGONY rathert that physical cosmology.

Mike C

#28 PhysBang

PhysBang

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 11:01 AM

Actually, the general redshift of light throughout the universe was predicted as a feature of possible relativistic models of the universe before it was detected and its origin is not in the Doppler effect but in the time dilation of distant galaxies. A quick review of the beginning chapter of any textbook on cosmology will show the equations that generate the redshift and they are not the equations of the Doppler effect.

Additionally, now that supernova observations allow us to extend our measurements of the redshift-distance relation, we see behaviours that are only explained in the relativistic models, not any other models. The derivative and second derivative (analogous to acceleration and jerk) of the redshift-distance relation has an explanation in the Freidmann equation (modified by the work of Lemaitre) that can be used to measure the important parameters of the theory. These measurements can be compared to other measurements (like the specifics of the CMB, as opposed to its presence, which is about all that an Arp supporter has been able to produce) and the measurements agree.

#29 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 12:35 PM

Actually, the general redshift of light throughout the universe was predicted as a feature of possible relativistic models of the universe before it was detected and its origin is not in the Doppler effect but in the time dilation of distant galaxies. A quick review of the beginning chapter of any textbook on cosmology will show the equations that generate the redshift and they are not the equations of the Doppler effect.

Additionally, now that supernova observations allow us to extend our measurements of the redshift-distance relation, we see behaviours that are only explained in the relativistic models, not any other models. The derivative and second derivative (analogous to acceleration and jerk) of the redshift-distance relation has an explanation in the Freidmann equation (modified by the work of Lemaitre) that can be used to measure the important parameters of the theory. These measurements can be compared to other measurements (like the specifics of the CMB, as opposed to its presence, which is about all that an Arp supporter has been able to produce) and the measurements agree.


Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Mike C

#30 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 01:05 PM

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.


That's not exactly true. The original GR equations predicted a non-static universe. This irritated Einstein, so he came up with the Cosmological Constant in an attempt to make his equations fit his philosophy of a static universe. After Hubble discovered the expansion of space, Einstein gave up on the cosmological constant, calling it the biggest blunder of his life.

Somewhat ironically, the concordance model relies heavily on the cosmological constant.

#31 PhysBang

PhysBang

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 01:58 PM

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Einstein was not the only physicist of the early 20th century. Many other physicists worked on relativity (even published textbooks on it) before the discovery of redshift.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Ummm... the expansion of spacetime over a long period of time. It's very straighforward if you know the equations.

Indeed, what's to explain?

#32 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 10:30 AM

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Einstein was not the only physicist of the early 20th century. Many other physicists worked on relativity (even published textbooks on it) before the discovery of redshift.

Ummm... the expansion of spacetime over a long period of time. It's very straighforward if you know the equations.

Indeed, what's to explain?


The age of the BBT is promoted as being 13.7 billion years.

So divide that figure by 1000 and you get 13.7 'million' years.
That means that a redshift of 'one' would occur every 13.7^6 years.
That does not happen! So, does that make sense?

Lets transform the time element into distance such as a lightyear.
That would mean that a redshift of one should occur every 13.7^6 lightyears.
The Virgo Cluster is determined to be at a distance of about 16.7 mega/parsecs or about 54^6 lys. The measrements of the redshift of this cluster is determinee to be slightly less than ,004 that is the RS of M87, the near central galaxy.
So this cluster has just a fractional RS of one for a distabce of 54^6 lys.

Divide one by .oo4 and you get 250. Mutiply that by 54^6 lys and you get 13.5^9 lys distance for a redshift of one. Wow!
The HDFN has been detected to have RS's of up tp 7.
That means it is probing deep space at a distance of 96^9 lys deep.
Using Euclidean geometry of course.

Mike C

#33 PhysBang

PhysBang

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 02:05 PM

The age of the BBT is promoted as being 13.7 billion years.

So divide that figure by 1000 and you get 13.7 'million' years.
That means that a redshift of 'one' would occur every 13.7^6 years.
That does not happen! So, does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, since nobody who knows any relativistic theory would simply divide the age of the universe by the redshift to get a mean. In actuality, greater amounts of redshift were accrued, as it were, in the early history of the CMB. This is pretty standard Freidmannology.

Lets transform the time element into distance such as a lightyear.
That would mean that a redshift of one should occur every 13.7^6 lightyears.
The Virgo Cluster is determined to be at a distance of about 16.7 mega/parsecs or about 54^6 lys. The measrements of the redshift of this cluster is determinee to be slightly less than ,004 that is the RS of M87, the near central galaxy.
So this cluster has just a fractional RS of one for a distabce of 54^6 lys.

Sure. And what realtionship does this have to the actual mathematics of General Relativity?

#34 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:51 AM

It doesn't make sense, since nobody who knows any relativistic theory would simply divide the age of the universe by the redshift to get a mean. In actuality, greater amounts of redshift were accrued, as it were, in the early history of the CMB. This is pretty standard Freidmannology.

Sure. And what realtionship does this have to the actual mathematics of General Relativity?


Since I give no credibility to the BBT, I would obviously do the same to its supporting data.

I think Freidman may have gotten his idea from the 'slicing' of a 'cone' where it would represent the various orbital possibilities such as the 'open, closed and flat' orbits as applied to the universe..

Einsteins GR was calculated to be applied to a static universe where his .
universe would collapse. So in a SSU, GR is not needed because it would be a flat universe that is not expanding or contracting and without curvature, would not collape.

Also, the BBT says there was no explosion and the expansion is uniform, So there would be no variation in the redshifts except for its 'additive' effect relative to distance.

Mike C



Mike C