Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[CraigD]

We have determined these figures [the 13-13.5 billion year age of the universe] to begin with on the premise our that dating systems are correct, carbon dating, half lives or however.

This is not accurate.

 

The age of the universe most commonly quoted (eg in the wikipedia article “Age of the universe”), 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years, is not calculated or verified by any form of radiometric dating – “carbon dating, half lives, or however”. These techniques can only be used to calculate the age of an object given a starting amount of a radioactive element at the time of its formation, which subsequently absorbed negligible or reliably calculable amounts of the radioactive element. For example:

• Radiocarbon dating can be used to determine the approximate date that plant or animal tissue stopped absorbing carbon-14 from the atmosphere, typically limited to about 60,000 years ago with an accuracy of about ± 1%.
  
• Uranium-lead dating can be used to date certain minerals, such as zircon, which incorporates substantial amounts of uranium but very little lead into its crystals, up to several billion years with an accuracy of ± 0.1%.
  
• Techniques detecting decay products of short half-life isotopes have been used to date meteorites and other solar system objects
  

The critical datum here is that it’s in principle and in fact impossible to date an individual atom using any radiometric technique. These techniques don’t date individual atoms, but objects containing specific collections of atoms. So dating the Earth, or the Sun, or the universe, requires theoretical models. Radiometric dating and other techniques can be used to confirm or contradict detailed predictions of these models, but are useless without the key assumptions the models provide. In the case of the age of the universe, the Big Bang model provides an interpretation of the observed spectrum of space not associated with visible bodies, known as the cosmic microwave background. So the condition

Even if we could determine the ages of atoms that made our solar system

always and will always evaluate false.

Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition.

Though its true that many more academic and professional scientists accept the Big Bang model than did fifty years ago, which one might call attrition. However, I believe this is due not to a conspiracy of harassment or peer pressure, but because of the theoretical and experimental success of this model.

 

Prior to the 20th century, what might reasonably be called steady state models were practically the only scientific cosmologies, due in large part to the lack of observation suggesting that the universe consisted of more than our Milky Way galaxy. The eventual failure of these old, and several steady state theories that appeared after the emergence of what would be come to, in the late 1940s, be, derisively at first, called the “big bang” model. Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most prominent opponents of the Big Bang model. The linked wikipedia article on him has an interesting synopsis of his long but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to find an alternative theory.

 

The danger in thinking that you know [that the Big Bang model is corrent?] stops all forms of research.

I don’t think there is much risk of this. There appears to me to be no shortage of serious alternative and variation theories, some of the more prominent ones summarized in this posts preceding links.

[Pluto]

Hello Freestar

 

I read this link many times

 

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

WMAP Mission Results

 

WMAP measures the composition of the universe. The top chart shows a pie chart of the relative constituents today. A similar chart (bottom) shows the composition at 380,000 years old (13.7 billion years ago) when the light WMAP observes emanated. The composition varies as the universe expands: the dark matter and atoms become less dense as the universe expands, like an ordinary gas, but the photon and neutrino particles also lose energy as the universe expands, so their energy density decreases faster than the matter. They formed a larger fraction of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It appears that the dark energy density does not decrease at all, so it now dominates the universe even though it was a tiny contributor 13.7 billion years ago.

 

Tell me what you think of this info.

 

WARP has assumed the BBT to be true than proceeded to make the inormation fit.

 

Note the part of the expansion.

 

As per the BBT the expansion is not actual distance but a time space expansion.

 

A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe.

 

If you know anything about cosmology this info is not scientific. It is information directed to support a theory for what ever reason.

 

At this moment their are billions of dollars spent on the theory and related projects. If the theory was pulled from under them, they stand to lose billions of dollars.

 

==============================================

 

Cosmology & Gravity Group | Research | Theoretical Cosmology

University of cape town

Theoretical cosmology

The standard model

Inhomogeneous cosmologies

 

The standard model of cosmology assumes a homogeneous and isotropic universe, and as a description of the bulk properties of the universe, it has served us well. But the real universe is distinctly non-homogeneous on all scales except possibly the largest, so it is important to study the behaviour of inhomogeneities. Inhomogeneous cosmology uses exact solutions of the Einstein field equations to explore the full non-linear evolution of inhomogeneous structures.

 

==============================================

 

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

BB top 30 problems

 

Do you think these people write these papers to support their thinking or theory.

 

These are people who apply science.

 

==============================================

 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

cosmologystatement.org

 

 

==============================================

 

The wave of information against the BBT is too great. It's only a matter of time.

[Logic = Confusion]

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. For those who think they have the answer or think their answer is nearly correct let me pose these questions to you: Where did the super dense universe that became ours after the big bang come from? Where did our static universe come from? Or even, where did God come from? The only answer I could find is that if the universe, if existence, had a starting point, there had to be a point before it...in other words, something came from nothing. That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

 

Hope that wasn't too confusing. :confused:

[CraigD]

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

BB top 30 problems

 

Do you think these people write these papers to support their thinking or theory.

 

These are people who apply science.

Nearly all of the papers at metaresearch.org, the website hosting this article, appear to be written by Tom Van Flandern. Van Flandern is best known for his arguments that various features on the surface of mars resembling human faces, etc, are artificial monuments similar to ancient Egyptian monuments on Earth, such as this metaresearch.org article.

 

People who do not credit this argument, and are disturbed by Van Flandern’s refusal to reverse his position on “faces on Mars” when presented with more detailed photographic data clearly showing them to be perceptual illusions, should be warned that he is also the author of these arguments allegedly disproving the Big Bang model.

[freeztar]

Hello Freestar

 

I read this link many times

 

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

WMAP Mission Results

 

Tell me what you think of this info.

 

Hmmm...I do see a problem with those pie charts.

Since neutrinos and photons are left out of the "today" pie graph, it's much like comparing apples to oranges. Conversely the DE is left out of the "13.7bya" chart.

 

Why do you think that is?

[Moontanman]

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. For those who think they have the answer or think their answer is nearly correct let me pose these questions to you: Where did the super dense universe that became ours after the big bang come from? Where did our static universe come from? Or even, where did God come from? The only answer I could find is that if the universe, if existence, had a starting point, there had to be a point before it...in other words, something came from nothing. That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

 

Hope that wasn't too confusing. :confused:

 

Hmm.... I understand what you saying about something from nothing. It's difficult to believe that a quantum fluctuation could be responsible for the universe but difficulty in believing has never disproved anything. I think that Brane theory nicely explians where the energy and matter in the universe came from but it is even more difficult to prove than BBT. At this point all we have is theories but some of these theories are starting to knock at the door of the beginning. Just because all we have is theories is no reason to throw up your hands and give up.:hihi:

[Essay]

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. ....That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

MTM, you beat me to it, but I'd still like to add:

 

Very nicely conveyed, l=c.

This would be worth quoting over on the Phil. of Sci. forum (or thereabouts).

Welcome? to cosmology, et al.

Help us break some preconceptions!

 

Pluto....

"At this moment their are billions of dollars spent on the theory and related projects. If the theory was pulled from under them, they stand to lose billions of dollars." -Pluto

 

All of this (loss of theory and funding) might come to pass given whatever, etc.;

but that still wouldn't change the insight gained from asking the questions, analyzing the data, and running the experiments that have been so far.

...or words to that effect. :hihi:

IMHO :confused:

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Its good to discuss things based on science.

 

Science: Astronomers' double whammy rocks cosmology

05 February 1994

From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

JEFF HECHT , BOSTON

 

The detection of a cluster of galaxies that existed only a billion years after the big bang could upset current ideas about how the Universe evolved, because no one can explain how it could have formed so early.

 

=====================================================

 

 

Temperature of Space

 

Feb 15, 2005

Temperature of Space

 

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot on—if you allow a big enough spot. One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.

 

 

==================================================

 

ooops got to go

 

Church time,,,,,,,,,Greek easter

[Mike C]

To All

 

My version of the universe (SSU) is 'legal' because it complies with all the Laws of Physics.

 

So there was no 'bang'.

 

On the other hand, the BBT does not conform to any of the LoP's, so it is illegal.

Does that make sense? Yes. ha ha.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Hello All

 

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

 

So far, I have been called a troll.

 

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

 

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

 

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

 

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?

 

 

Instead of accusing the scientific community of fraud, look at the data yourself.

 

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has all of their data on millions of galaxies and quasars online:

 

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

 

They have Spectroscopic Data Or, if you don't trust that - they have the actual spectra. They have brightness info you could compare with redshift and everything else you need to disprove standard cosmology right there in an easy to use and unaltered database. Either the millions of observations will support the predictions of BBT like everyone says they do, or you are right and you will find something to bring to the table.

 

-modest

[Zythryn]

To All

 

My version of the universe (SSU) is 'legal' because it complies with all the Laws of Physics.

 

Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics;)

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

The link:

 

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

 

I know it quite well.

 

I have all the images in my computer.

 

Now show me what evidence that you think supports the BBT.

 

At this present moment, I'm reading through sum 600 odd papers on the formation of jets from compacted matter. This will take me 4 weeks.

[modest]

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

 

I know it quite well.

 

I have all the images in my computer.

 

 

You really don't. Every night the SDSS stores 200 gigabytes of info. The last release of data to the public was six terabytes of 88 million celestial objects.

 

To have hundreds of millions of images on your computer would require hundreds of average sized hard drives. I therefore find it difficult to believe the statement "I have all the images in my computer" or "I know it quite well"

 

I do think it would benefit you to check it out. It is difficult to support a position other than expansion when all those objects follow the predictions of standard cosmology. Their brightness and redshift and size and distribution agree when Halton Arp would say they shouldn't.

 

Now show me what evidence that you think supports the BBT.

 

If you would like to pick some of the galaxies in the survey that have redshift and brightness data I will show you how it agrees with standard cosmology.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

You are just avoiding the point

 

Forget it

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

According to main stream cosmology nothing can escape a black hole.

 

 

I was reading this paper. It shows that black holes can eject matter via jets.

 

 

[astro-ph/0612354] Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes

Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes

 

Authors: Rodrigo S. Nemmen (IF-UFRGS, Brazil), Richard G. Bower (ICC, Durham), Arif Babul (UVic, Canada), Thaisa Storchi-Bergmann (IF-UFRGS)

(Submitted on 13 Dec 2006 (v1), last revised 14 Apr 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: The power of jets from black holes are expected to depend on both the spin of the black hole and the structure of the accretion disk in the region of the last stable orbit. We investigate these dependencies using two different physical models for the jet power: the classical Blandford-Znajek (BZ) model and a hybrid model developed by Meier. In the BZ case, the jets are powered by magnetic fields directly threading the spinning black hole while in the hybrid model, the jet energy is extracted from both the accretion disk as well as the black hole via magnetic fields anchored to the accretion flow inside and outside the hole's ergosphere. The hybrid model takes advantage of the strengths of both the Blandford-Payne and BZ mechanisms, while avoiding the more controversial features of the latter. We develop these models more fully to account for general relativistic effects and to focus on advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAF) for which the jet power is expected to be a significant fraction of the accreted rest mass energy.

We apply the models to elliptical galaxies, in order to see if these models can explain the observed correlation between the Bondi accretion rates and the total jet powers. For typical values of the disk viscosity parameter alpha~0.04-0.3 and mass accretion rates consistent with ADAF model expectations, we find that the observed correlation requires j>0.9; i.e., it implies that the black holes are rapidly spinning. Our results suggest that the central black holes in the cores of clusters of galaxies must be rapidly rotating in order to drive jets powerful enough to heat the intracluster medium and quench cooling flows.

[Mike C]

Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics;)

 

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

 

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

 

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

 

Mike C

 

 

 

.

[CraigD]

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

A version of a steady state universe model in which the universe exists forever in nearly the same form and is also closed, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics requirement that the total entropy of an isolate system must increase. In such a system, available energy sources must eventually be exhausted, a state commonly called the heat death of the universe.

 

For this reason, modern steady state theories, such as Hoyle, Gold, Bondi and others 1948 model, require both a constantly expanding universe, and a process of “continuous creation” of matter, primarily hydrogen. Although this model enjoyed moderate popularity in the 1950s and 60s, it has a dearth of supporting scientific data and few scientifically competent supporters now. However, to this day, the phrase “steady state universe” is usually assumed to refer to this model.

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

 

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

If photons, or any measurable thing, are both escaping and being added to a system, it is not a closed system, so these two claims contradict one another.

 

As noted above, the best accepted steady state theories require that the universe not be a closed system. Some older previous “never-ending universe” theories were based on the assumption that the Sun and other stars (which, until fairly recent historic times, were believed to be a fundamentally different sort of thing than the Sun) would never cease shining.