Big Bang Blasted

[modest]

WHY THE BIG BANG IS FALLACIOUS

 

What you have done here is very clever. I give you a lot of credit for making a compelling case. It is very clear that you know the issues surrounding the topic. First let’s look at your post as a whole. The first thing I notice is that you have presented no model of the universe to compare with data and observation. Do you believe in a steady-state universe? Has the universe always existed? If so, why isn’t it full of a bunch of dead stars? Is it isotropic and uniform? If so, are Einstein’s laws of GR wrong? If they are wrong, who’s laws of gravity are correct, Newton’s? Is there a cosmological constant? If so, what is it? What caused CMBR. If it wasn’t hot, what caused the emission spectrum? If the universe is timeless, why isn’t CMBR being emitted now?

 

So, let’s get to the details of your post:

 

The first and most important reason that discredits the big bang is the anomalous redshifts that Halton Arp has discovered.

 

I should start by saying that Halton Arp believes that high-redshift-quasars are local events. That didn’t seem so nutty before Hubble was launched, but with new, detailed observations – it’s all-out-nutty. Also, Hubble has now found very-faint, very-high-redshifted, very-distant galaxies without quasars.

But, to your point: redshifts are not a good judges of distance. Standard Cosmology knows this. One reason is that redshift can be caused by 3 different things (speed, expansion, and gravity) The examples Halton sites could have anomalous redshifts due to speed or gravity. We don’t know. We do know that 99.9% of the redshift data supports expansion. So, if I look at the 99.9% of the data an you look at the .1% and we have differing opinions then we need a tiebreaker. If only there was some way to compare redshift, distance, and expansion with something independent. Some new (and exact) way of looking at redshift that would be conclusive. Supernova 1a standard candle experiments! Yes, that’s right, they are a new and independent way of supporting the 99.9% of redshift data and expansion. And they have, so precisely that we know exactly how fast the universe is expanding. Flawless Victory :thumbs_up

 

They (the BB’ers) use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis. However, this is a false analogy. Three dimensional cubic space can not be compared to two dimensional space. You will notice that all three dimensional bodies have a single point source of gravity. This is the center of those three dimensional bodies. Since our current Universe is a three dimensional structure, the only possible center to this Universe can only be the point source of the initial expansion.

 

There is no point source of the initial expansion. That’s the whole point of the balloon or stretchy rope example. Things in the universe have a center. The universe does not. It never did. You are thinking of a universe expanding into something. – no. Math says that 1, 2, 3, 4 dimensional space can expand without a center. This is because every point in our universe is surrounded by the rest of the universe and thus ‘appears’ to be the center.

 

 

The third reason which is also important is that the 'Laws of Conservation' are violated by the big bang concept that the Universe started from an undefined quantity of mass or energy that is inadequately defined. It would appear that the big bang started from nothing when the clock is reversed that terminates at zero

 

The big bang does not say the universe started from nothing. It makes no claim to say how the universe started or from what it came.

 

Also, the beginning of the CMBR was when the progression of matter formation from a plasma to matter radiation could not have transformed suddenly from plasma to matter . It would have some plasma mixed in with the matter radiation to prevent a perfect BBR curve to happen.

 

However fast or slow it happened does not change the source of the radiation. Maybe one source of the sky it happened 1,000 years before another source in the sky. This would not change the blackbody spectrum. Indeed it did not, because we detect it.

 

10th post :)

[Pluto]

Hello Mike C

 

Mate you hit the nail on the head.

 

Big Bang people will do anything to protect a theory that is based on Ad Hoc ideas: God knows why?

 

Rather than trying to protect the theory look at the parts within the universe and work out how they work?

 

The Big Bang has had its day, big time and in the future it will be known as the crank pot theory of the last 8 decades.

 

Any person with a bit of insight will look at the millions of galaxies that are out there and will tell you that 14 gyrs is not enogh time to form them. The Big Bang people will add ad hoc ideas and make it work.

 

Hey! thats my opinion.

[Mike C]

What you have done here is very clever. I give you a lot of credit for making a compelling case. It is very clear that you know the issues surrounding the topic. First let’s look at your post as a whole. The first thing I notice is that you have presented no model of the universe to compare with data and observation. Do you believe in a steady-state universe? Has the universe always existed? If so, why isn’t it full of a bunch of dead stars? Is it isotropic and uniform? If so, are Einstein’s laws of GR wrong? If they are wrong, who’s laws of gravity are correct, Newton’s? Is there a cosmological constant? If so, what is it? What caused CMBR. If it wasn’t hot, what caused the emission spectrum? If the universe is timeless, why isn’t CMBR being emitted now?

 

So, let’s get to the details of your post:

 

 

 

I should start by saying that Halton Arp believes that high-redshift-quasars are local events. That didn’t seem so nutty before Hubble was launched, but with new, detailed observations – it’s all-out-nutty. Also, Hubble has now found very-faint, very-high-redshifted, very-distant galaxies without quasars.

But, to your point: redshifts are not a good judges of distance. Standard Cosmology knows this. One reason is that redshift can be caused by 3 different things (speed, expansion, and gravity) The examples Halton sites could have anomalous redshifts due to speed or gravity. We don’t know. We do know that 99.9% of the redshift data supports expansion. So, if I look at the 99.9% of the data an you look at the .1% and we have differing opinions then we need a tiebreaker. If only there was some way to compare redshift, distance, and expansion with something independent. Some new (and exact) way of looking at redshift that would be conclusive. Supernova 1a standard candle experiments! Yes, that’s right, they are a new and independent way of supporting the 99.9% of redshift data and expansion. And they have, so precisely that we know exactly how fast the universe is expanding. Flawless Victory :)

 

 

 

There is no point source of the initial expansion. That’s the whole point of the balloon or stretchy rope example. Things in the universe have a center. The universe does not. It never did. You are thinking of a universe expanding into something. – no. Math says that 1, 2, 3, 4 dimensional space can expand without a center. This is because every point in our universe is surrounded by the rest of the universe and thus ‘appears’ to be the center.

 

 

 

 

The big bang does not say the universe started from nothing. It makes no claim to say how the universe started or from what it came.

 

 

 

However fast or slow it happened does not change the source of the radiation. Maybe one source of the sky it happened 1,000 years before another source in the sky. This would not change the blackbody spectrum. Indeed it did not, because we detect it.

 

10th post :)

 

I will reply tomorrow. I have copied the thres.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Hello Mike C

 

Mate you hit the nail on the head.

 

Big Bang people will do anything to protect a theory that is based on Ad Hoc ideas: God knows why?

 

Rather than trying to protect the theory look at the parts within the universe and work out how they work?

 

The Big Bang has had its day, big time and in the future it will be known as the crank pot theory of the last 8 decades.

 

Any person with a bit of insight will look at the millions of galaxies that are out there and will tell you that 14 gyrs is not enogh time to form them. The Big Bang people will add ad hoc ideas and make it work.

 

Hey! thats my opinion.

 

I am glad to see you are of the same opinion.

 

One mathmatician (Anthony ?, can't recall his last name just now) said it would take a hundred billion years to form some of those galaxy clusters.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

The first thing I notice is that you have presented no model of the universe to compare with data and observation. Do you believe in a steady-state universe? Has the universe always existed? If so, why isn’t it full of a bunch of dead stars? Is it isotropic and uniform? If so, are Einstein’s laws of GR wrong? If they are wrong, who’s laws of gravity are correct, Newton’s? Is there a cosmological constant? If so, what is it? What caused CMBR. If it wasn’t hot, what caused the emission spectrum? If the universe is timeless, why isn’t CMBR being emitted now?

 

So, let’s get to the details of your post:

 

 

 

I should start by saying that Halton Arp believes that high-redshift-quasars are local events. That didn’t seem so nutty before Hubble was launched, but with new, detailed observations – it’s all-out-nutty. Also, Hubble has now found very-faint, very-high-redshifted, very-distant galaxies without quasars.

But, to your point: redshifts are not a good judges of distance. Standard Cosmology knows this. One reason is that redshift can be caused by 3 different things (speed, expansion, and gravity) The examples Halton sites could have anomalous redshifts due to speed or gravity. We don’t know. We do know that 99.9% of the redshift data supports expansion. So, if I look at the 99.9% of the data an you look at the .1% and we have differing opinions then we need a tiebreaker. If only there was some way to compare redshift, distance, and expansion with something independent. Some new (and exact) way of looking at redshift that would be conclusive. Supernova 1a standard candle experiments! Yes, that’s right, they are a new and independent way of supporting the 99.9% of redshift data and expansion. And they have, so precisely that we know exactly how fast the universe is expanding. Flawless Victory :doh:

 

 

 

There is no point source of the initial expansion. That’s the whole point of the balloon or stretchy rope example. Things in the universe have a center. The universe does not. It never did. You are thinking of a universe expanding into something. – no. Math says that 1, 2, 3, 4 dimensional space can expand without a center. This is because every point in our universe is surrounded by the rest of the universe and thus ‘appears’ to be the center.

 

 

 

 

The big bang does not say the universe started from nothing. It makes no claim to say how the universe started or from what it came.

 

 

 

However fast or slow it happened does not change the source of the radiation. Maybe one source of the sky it happened 1,000 years before another source in the sky. This would not change the blackbody spectrum. Indeed it did not, because we detect it.

 

10th post :)

 

Rather than answering all your questions individually, why don’t you read all my articles that I posted on this forum?

I posted several articles on this forum.

 

You are a supporter of the BBU.

Read my article on the Steady State Universe (SSU). It complies with ALL the laws of physics as well as the experiments and observations.

 

The BBU violates all these laws as I have explained in my post on the BBU.

 

Since the origin of the BB is a question mark, that means that it is NOTHING but cosmoGONY.

 

There are NO question marks in my SSU.

 

Mike C

[Tormod]

Big Bang people will do anything to protect a theory that is based on Ad Hoc ideas: God knows why?

 

I guess it's related to the same urge that plagues people who support (insert any other theory here) to an extent where they think everyone else is wrong.

[LaurieAG]

Well, the Big Bang Theory has been around for more than 80 years.

 

Yes, and Aristotles Earth centric universe model held for 2000 years.

[Mike C]

The facts are:

1 – there IS cosmic microwave background radiation

2 – those emissions DID radiated from black body plasma (i.e. the universe was hot) some time ago

3 – the universe is cooler now

 

1 + 2 + 3 = an expanding universe

 

Before fact 1 came out in the 60’s, maybe half of physicists supported steady-state. After fact 1 there were few steady-state physicists. When fact 2 came out in the 90’s it shut the door on the steady-state universe.

No physicists or cosmologist has been able to add 1, 2, and 3 and make a steady-state universe that looks like ours does now. Because, that’s not our universe. Our universe is a “Big Bang” universe.

 

Modest

 

Yes, the CMBR was accepred as the clincher evidence in support of the BBU, but the more logical evidence that complies with the CMBR is the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' that portrays it as a 'Thermolized Equalibrium' temperature of all the space dusts, particles and molecules in space.

 

In 1940, an Australian astronomer named McKellar, detected an interstellar space molecule with a temperature of 2.3K.

This is much closer than the Gamow et al combinations prediction of 5K, later revised to 10K.

 

More evidence to refute the source of the CMBR is its 'redshift' that is supposed to be 1000 in the BB context.

Since this is for a universe that is just 14 billion years old, this than calculates to a redshift of 'one' for every 14 million years (14 billion divided by 1000 = 14 million).

In this case, if we use the 14 million as a distance indicator in ligth years, than the Virgo Cluster of galaxies that are calculated to be at a distance of 54 million light year, should have a redshift of 3+.

Yet we know that the redshift of that cluster is just a fraction of one at

.0035-.004.

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

Yes, there is a CMB thermal blackbody radiation.

 

No, it is not evidence in favor of one theory or another. In fact there is no conclusive evidence that the CMB is even redshifted. So, of all the arguments in favor of the BBT, the CMB is the least compelling, not the 'most' as is often erroneously considered.

 

It is certainly not evidence in favor of a hot dense state in the past, anymore than it is evidence for a ultra-cold high-vacuum in the past, where stellar processes lead to thermalization on the background spacetime manifold.

 

It is very likely, according to Hoyle and Burbidge, that the CMB was produced by stellar means (hydrogen burning stars, supernovae) over a time span of approximately 100 billion years, or more (Burbidge, Hoyle, 1998).

 

My calculations push that "or more" back to about 650 Gyr (a slow evolution, thanks in part to the first and second laws of thermodynamics).

 

True, current assumption and belief has it that the universe has never been colder than the 2.726 ± 0.01 K observed.

 

I argue the contrary: The universe has never been warmer.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

I agree with CC

 

to add to that

 

Temperature of Space

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.

 

 

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

 

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

 

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”

 

 

Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

 

Read the rest of the paper.

 

 

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

 

Tomod said

 

I guess it's related to the same urge that plagues people who support (insert any other theory here) to an extent where they think everyone else is wrong.

 

Your 100 % correct.

 

I do not have any emotional "THING" about any theory.

 

I forgot who said the saying "Keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) I think they mad it for me.

 

If a theory cannot stand on good foundations, Why try to underpin the foundations and for what reason?

 

If you notice in the last few years more and more people are questioning all theories particularly the Big Bang, owing to the flood of information and deep field images and because of this WEB of info.

[modest]

Alright,

I guess instead of trying to point out the observations congruent with BBT, I’ll point out observations incongruent with other theories.

 

After reading some old posts, I’ve got an idea of where some people are coming from. There has been a lot of arguing over the fine points - but I’ll just stick to some of the overall themes. Here they are followed by easy ways to disprove them:

 

1 - The universe is old (I mean really old). Let’s say older than a trillion years. Why not? Well, I’ll tell you why not:

 

First off: We don’t see ultra-bright objects (like quasars or supernova) far enough away. There is a limit to the extent of our observations. Furthermore, near this information “black out” we see young and immature galaxies. This is in direct conflict with #1.

 

2 - Redshift is caused by anything and everything except expansion:

 

Everyone seems to agree that redshift is something that happens to light. So, as light bounces around the universe for trillions of years and ends up on earth - “Steady State” tells us there is no upper limit on redshift. Observation squashes this and thus squashes #2

 

3 - CMBR is caused by anything and everything except plasma:

 

Easy to find out - CMBR would have any absorption spectrum of whatever is everywhere in the universe. Dust - Stars - whatever. If it has no such absorption spectrum (it does not) then theory must be reevaluated.

 

4 - The universe has a fixed amount of matter / energy (combine this with #1)

 

Fusion (in stars) + Radioactive Decay (outside stars) = a universe of mostly iron. If untrue theory must be quite reevaluated.

 

5 - BBT feels icky.

 

I can’t help you there.

 

- modest

[Mike C]

CC

 

I do not know where you got your information from but the origin of the CMBR was back in time when the BB was cooling out from a temperature of 3000K to ots current temperature of 2.73K. That gives it a redshift of 1000.

 

The current 'text' books say so.

 

Mike C

[Mohit Pandey]

Yes, and Aristotle's Earth centric universe model held for 2000 years.

But that was the time of unquestionable belief and faith.:D Now the time has changed. We are daring to question everything. It was not possible in past to do so as the case of Galileo's suffering proves my point. We are not taking anything as granted. That's why it implies that if BBT is there for 80 years, it means something. It has gone through many tests.B)

[modest]

CC

 

I do not know where you got your information from but the origin of the CMBR was back in time when the BB was cooling out from a temperature of 3000K to ots current temperature of 2.73K. That gives it a redshift of 1000.

 

The current 'text' books say so.

 

Mike C

 

Thank you for expanding on what I was saying. I agree with this completely. “Steady state” gives no such upper limit on redshift.

 

- modest

[modest]

More evidence to refute the source of the CMBR is its 'redshift' that is supposed to be 1000 in the BB context.

Since this is for a universe that is just 14 billion years old, this than calculates to a redshift of 'one' for every 14 million years (14 billion divided by 1000 = 14 million).

In this case, if we use the 14 million as a distance indicator in ligth years, than the Virgo Cluster of galaxies that are calculated to be at a distance of 54 million light year, should have a redshift of 3+.

Yet we know that the redshift of that cluster is just a fraction of one at

.0035-.004.

 

Mike C

 

I’ve seen you go over this before, or maybe it was somebody else. In any case, the mistake you make is plotting this linearly. That is to say, you assume the universe is now and always has expanded at the same rate. I don’t know what lead you to this conclusion (maybe convenience) But, if you redo your calculations using a higher expansion rate (let’s say the speed of light) for our young universe, and current expansion rates measured today, I think the results will speak for themselves.

[modest]

Yes, there is a CMB thermal blackbody radiation.

 

No, it is not evidence in favor of one theory or another. In fact there is no conclusive evidence that the CMB is even redshifted. So, of all the arguments in favor of the BBT, the CMB is the least compelling, not the 'most' as is often erroneously considered.

 

It is certainly not evidence in favor of a hot dense state in the past, anymore than it is evidence for a ultra-cold high-vacuum in the past, where stellar processes lead to thermalization on the background spacetime manifold.

 

It is very likely, according to Hoyle and Burbidge, that the CMB was produced by stellar means (hydrogen burning stars, supernovae) over a time span of approximately 100 billion years, or more (Burbidge, Hoyle, 1998).

 

My calculations push that "or more" back to about 650 Gyr (a slow evolution, thanks in part to the first and second laws of thermodynamics).

 

True, current assumption and belief has it that the universe has never been colder than the 2.726 ± 0.01 K observed.

 

I argue the contrary: The universe has never been warmer.

 

 

CC

 

What you have just deduced is that CMBR is the only electromagnetic radiation in the universe that is not subject to redshift - but that it comes from the same sources that we see redshifted all over the sky. Your theory defeats itself at face value.

 

- modest

[coldcreation]

What you have just deduced is that CMBR is the only electromagnetic radiation in the universe that is not subject to redshift - but that it comes from the same sources that we see redshifted all over the sky. Your theory defeats itself at face value.

 

- modest

 

Not so fast. You have overlooked a possibility (that would have been fatal in a game of, say, chess).

 

Cosmological redshift z according to the standard model is an effect that begins outside the Local Group (or beyond the local supercluster): meaning that expansion is not operational inside that area. And so radiation emitted from objects inside the local group is not redshifted. Some galaxies actually show a blueshift, as you may know.

 

The blackbody spectrum observed by COBE and WMAP is locaed inside the local group. The question is, how did it get there, how was it produced?

 

If, as Hoyle and Burbidge calculated (note this is not my theory), the thermal blackbody radiation was produced by stellar means, then there is no reason why it would be redshifted, since it did not come from a hot dense epoch over 13-14 Gyr ago.

 

Check!

 

 

 

CC