pantheory

Let's say my idea is put into use. Do you see any drawbacks that I haven't listed or discussed?

The biggest drawback that I see is that just to design a single microbe to do just one of those things you mentioned would take many decades of time to develop, test, and get approved.

As to the here and now, from what I have read, the best bet for uncontrollable obesity is a gastric bypass. It has the best record for effectiveness over other surgical methods with the least trauma and side effects, with other health benefits that could also improve longevity

pantheory; Although most of your definition/explanation, should already be known to argue or discuss the issue, I do thank you for your time. As said, in my first reply to you, you seem to have formed an opinion (model) contrary or based on the premise of BBT, which in my mind was never a stand alone, viable theory. There are many theory, including "String", "Multiple BB" or even a "Pulsating Universe", that have been used, but the folks in the OP Link, seemed to believe in some form of Steady State, generally what I think is probable.

 

On time and your axiom (nothing can start from nothing), I've always had trouble separating the two, in that whatever that something is/was, has a time period of existence. Your BH's, the Singularity or even the Creationist God, in each case the only conclusion I can draw is an eternal existence, in turn meaning time in either direction, must be eternal.

 

My own opinion, falls right in line with SSU or that the Universe (everything out there) has always existed, that everything we see or understand today, could have been argued if Planet Earth, humans and our rather primitive brains, had existed (as is) 100T/Y/A or in fact 100T/Y in the future.

 

Again thanks, for your time and reply....

Thanks for the conversation , as I said before when I was a teen I briefly believed in Hoyle's steady state model. As I stated before my own model is also a type of steady state model. For all observable past times and directions, the universe would appear the same. This is totally contrary to the BB model. About the only thing that I can think of that my model has in common with the BB model is that they both have a beginning. The BB beginning was 13.7 Billion years ago, and the beginning for my model was about 1.4 trillion years ago minimum. I've done the calculations.

Diamond,

I know Pantheory has said there is no conclusive evidence, but if there is not then why such bias/focus towards an inflation/expansion theory surely there must be a reason?

Today there is just one accepted model, the Big Bang, which has many versions. Less than 1% of the theorists consider any other model. Many different theorists work on different versions and facets of the same model. The BB model is all that is taught is schools today with only a brief mention to other cosmologies. All other generally known cosmologies are believed to have been disproved like in the video, and are therefore generally ignored. Those theories that are not known are never considered. Few if any are looking to find new models to solve problems. But there are hundreds of different mainstream versions of the BB model. This is cosmology today.

Here's an interesting link that if this information would have been available at the time the video was produced, this information would have been in the video.

It concerns the fact that a quasar's light is not time dilated.

http://www.physorg.c...s190027752.html

One of the primary subjects of the video you presented were quasars. The idea was that at least some quasars may not be at the distances that there redshift would indicate if their redshift was due solely to the expansion of the universe.

Events at a distance are time dilated. This means that a supernova type 1a explosion event will last twice as long as one relatively closeby which has half the redshifted value. The BB idea is that over the course of time the supernova light is been stretched to twice as long, in this example, so that the explosion will appear to last twice as long as it did in its own time. Quasars also have events that are consistent one to the other. They maintain a pattern of brightness and less bright over one cycle and then repeat the same pattern consistently over and over again. In the standard BB model this consistence is totally baffling since it violated the principle of time dilation.

In my own model, a quasars light profile is based upon its size and spin rate. Along with being a steady state model, my model is also a Scaling Theory, another type of cosmological model. It asserts that the size of matter decreases over time for a specified reason, and this diminution causes a change of scales concerning measurement over time and at distances. For a quasar its spin radius seems greater at a distance, but time at a distance appears to pass more slowly, therefore the velocity of rotation would appear the same with no change in the period of rotation as we would measure it in our own time frame. If space was expanding as in the BB model, this light stretching of light should be the reason for the observed redshifts which should lengthen the period of rotation of a quasar, but it doesn't. This is a direct contradiction to the standard model and all other models that propose an expanding universe.

(deleted, double posting)

Gravity as a repulsive force?

The closest thing that I can think of is a long history of pushing gravity models. In these models a aether like substance, maybe a kind of dark matter, flows into all matter generally to its core (or through it), and then is radiated away or otherwise cycled outward in a continuous cycle.

Using a search engine to find "pushing gravity" models you get numerous present and past proposed models over the centuries. The closest thing to being a repulsive force involves a uniform field pressure which pushes the field apart and things within it together, like matter that does not push back

Bacteria are probably the best bet, but parasites such as viruses and fungi might also do the trick But why stop with obesity, why not better gut microbes to help predigest food for skinny people and different ones to interfere with the process for fat people -- or plaque eaters to clear arteries, anti-viral living agents of some kind to fight viral infections, bacteria that produce insulin or other natural enzymes, hormones, etc., or microbe cocktails along with drugs for some of the above maladies, to thwart the ravages of genetic and/or age related diseases, etc.

One strategy might be to start with ones own cells in a bacteria amalgam which would accordingly provide the "self" marker to avoid the normal immune response. Another might be a generic type of "marker-less" exterior that would not be as quickly identified by an immune system.

I think your idea is sound and someday in the not too distant future, living engineered organisms will begin to assist in our health and longevity, no doubt

According to this model the explanation of how the universe began is primarily based upon logic. In this way my explanation has a number of similarities with the original Big Bang explanation. The logic is as follows:

For such a discussion we must be using the same definitions of the words being used. For such an understanding of the beginning, all of these words must have the general definitions that I will now give. It means that for your understanding of the beginning you must understand the same definition of these words that are being used in this explanation and none other:

The first word defined for this understanding is "universe." The universe includes everything that exists. In this definition we are talking about an overall-universe. If there are many universe-like entities somehow in our same, or in some other spacial dimensions, then they collectively would by definition be part of the same overall-universe. If there was a spiritual world or god(s) of some kind, it/ they would still be part of the overall-universe. If there are other dimensions than the 3 physical dimensions and one of time, that we know of, then they too as well as anything they might encompass, would also be part of the overall-universe. If there was a Zero-Point-Field, space, or time outside the physical universe of matter, they would still be part of the overall-universe. Everything that is real and not imaginary accordingly would be part of the overall-universe. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow, I will use the wording overall-universe.

The next word defined is the word "infinite." The word infinite means without limit in at least one direction. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow the word "infinite" will mean infinite in all directions. For example infinite space would mean infinite space in all directions, a continuum. Infinite time would mean an unlimited amount of time in both the past and in the future. An infinite amount of matter would mean a never ending quantity of matter in all directions.

The next word defined is "finite." Finite means a limited quantity. Finite-space in this explanation would be a limited quantity of space in all directions. Finite-time would mean a limited quantity of past time; also a limited number of consecutive cause-and-effect sequences. A finite ZPF would mean a singular finite contiguous volume of the Zero Point Field.

Time is defined as an interval of change between two time frames. A time frame is a picture of things during an instant in time. No motion is involved.

Space is defined as the distance between matter and extending no farther than the Zero Point Field.

There is one assumed axiom involved: Something cannot come from nothing.

These are the definitions needed to explain the beginning. This beginning that will be explained is similar to the explanation of the beginning according to the standard (original) version of the Big Bang model since both my model and the standard version of the BB model propose a beginning for time and space.

We must start our explanation with "something," since according to the above axiom "nothing" could not be the beginning or start of anything.

So accordingly if there was a beginning of time there must have been something to start with which we could call substance -- as in my model, or in the BB model it is called an entity, as in the BB beginning entity or singularity. This something must not have changed from being anything else since if it had done so it would violate two of our definitions. It would violate our definition of the word time, since this would assert a change before the first change which would be an extension of time. It would also violate the meaning of the word "finite." Finite" in this case means a finite amount of past time. If there was anything before that then it must be included in our meaning of the word "universe" and it also would be part of the beginning. If there was something before, which there could have been in such a scenario, then what was the cause of that? This questions would lead in an infinite cycle which would result in an infinite times past without a beginning. But if there was no cause for a particular sequential past entity or causal condition, then the universe would be finite in time. It should be realized that no matter whether the overall-universe is infinite or finite concerning times past, it could not have had a cause for it for obvious reasons explained by the related definitions. For instance in Biblical creation the universe had a beginning time but the god who accordingly created it is infinite, so god must be within our definition of the overall-universe, so this would be an infinite universe model.

So we are back to our beginning entity that could not accordingly have had a cause, and consider that time thereafter would progress. For time to progress there is the old question concerning "a prime mover." For time to progress, our definition of time, changes of some kind must take place. Since nothing accordingly can exist outside our beginning entity, there would be nothing outside to motivate it, to cause a change of some kind in its form, since motion concerning its whole, could have no meaning (relative to what could it be moving, spinning, etc.). So we must conclude that any changes must be motivated by an internal force of some kind which could be mechanical, or energy of some kind. Accordingly from this beginning point in time the whole universe was created including the ZPF, time, and space. In the BB model all were created by the bang itself or similar explanation.

In my model the Zero Point Field was slowly created from this beginning, developing into spring-like stands of particles, evolving over trillions of years eventually creating what we call field pressure which accordingly created black holes, and these black holes accordingly created matter from the surrounding spring-like field material, by the torquing forces surrounding black holes.

In the BB model there are other versions that propose that there was a "before," concerning the Big Bang. These models propose an infinite universe concerning times past.

Diamond,

One question I have is, is there any evidence to suggest where the proposed expansion is emanating from within the Universe?

There is no conclusive evidence the universe is expanding. The primary evidence according to the BB model and many other models is the observed galactic redshifts. There is also much evidence to support the assertion that there is a direct correlation between a galaxy's brightness and its redshift. This would mean that we accordingly can calculate galactic distances based upon their observed redshifts. As to determining the expansion of the universe, an assumption must first be made. This assumption is that the redshifts of galaxies are caused by their relative recession velocities away from us and each other. If this assumption is wrong then the observable universe is not necessarily expanding. All of the cosmological models mentioned in the video, along with the Big Bang model, make this same assumption that redshifts indicate a recession velocity and related to the Doppler effect. For my own cosmological model I make a different assumption and otherwise explain galactic redshifts having a different cause, so in my model the observable universe is not expanding.

In the BB model the expansion of the universe is generally associated with the expansion of space. Reasons for this expansion of space seem to be hypothetical since there is no consensus of opinion concerning why space accordingly should expand. In most Steady State models the expansion of the universe is due to the continuous creation of new matter which accordingly would expand the space that encompasses this new-creation process. In the Plasma Cosmology model the universe's expansion is proposed to be created by a continuous matter creation mechanism at the centers of galaxies which result in the creation of both matter and anti-matter which upon their interaction and anti-matter's annihilation, would accordingly cause the expansion of galaxies and ultimately the expansion of the universe.

I'm assuming that as we are supposed to be observing expansion due to the BB model the reversing of time must show or give an indication of a starting point in space?

In a totally flat universe this might be true, flat meaning Euclidean geometry. But according to the BB model based upon General Relativity, space "warps" (bends). This means that it does not follow Euclidean geometry which is common-sense to our senses, but instead follows another kind of geometry called Riemann Geometry. If the universe curves around on itself as many BBers propose, then the universe however large it may be, would have no edge since when traveling far enough in a straight line one eventually would move in a three dimensional circular path. In this model the universe also would have no center to it.

If some time down the road we discover the Universe is much larger than anticipated and that it could be twice maybe more so as big would that not completely destroy the notion that we are in the vicinity of that starting BB point because surely we could not be the centre point of something that large?

According to the BB model the size of the universe must remain unknown because of the Inflation hypothesis which has a number of different versions. Accordingly the universe could be almost countless time larger than we can presently observe. According to the BB model, everywhere was the center of the BB since space has expanded everywhere since the proposed initial expansion.

jackson33,

pantheory; Since some might be interested, including Diamond, please briefly, explain how you feel the U came into existence, if not eternal. When suggesting the appearance of what's known today, may not have always been, it's difficult to theorize how anything can evolve without near the same basic mass make up, much less from nothing. Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately such an explanation although I think simple, requires some verbiage; I will try to be as brief as possible. According to my explanation of how the universe began, is simply based upon logic. In this way my explanation has a number of similarities with the original Big Bang explanation. The logic is as follows. For such a discussion we must be using the same definitions of the words being used. For such an understanding of the beginning, all of these words must have the general definitions that I will now give. It means that for your understanding of the beginning you must understand the same definition of these words that are being used in this explanation and none other:

The first word defined for this understanding is "universe." The universe includes everything that exists. In this definition we are talking about an overall-universe. If there are many universe-like entities somehow in our same, or in some other spacial dimensions, then they collectively would by definition be part of the same overall-universe. If there was a spiritual world or god(s) of some kind, it/ they would still be part of the overall-universe. If there are other dimensions than the 3 physical dimensions and one of time, that we know of, then they too as well as anything they might encompass, would also be part of the overall-universe. If there was a Zero-Point-Field, space, or time outside the physical universe of matter, they would still be part of the overall-universe. Everything that is real and not imaginary accordingly would be part of the overall-universe. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow, I will use the wording overall-universe.

The next word defined is the word "infinite." The word infinite means without limit in at least one direction. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow the word "infinite" will mean infinite in all directions. For example infinite space would mean infinite space in all directions, a continuum. Infinite time would mean an unlimited amount of time in both the past and in the future. An infinite amount of matter would mean a never ending quantity of matter in all directions.

The next word defined is "finite." Finite means a limited quantity. Finite-space in this explanation would be a limited quantity of space in all directions. Finite-time would mean a limited quantity of past time; also a limited number of consecutive cause-and-effect sequences. A finite ZPF would mean a singular finite contiguous volume of the Zero Point Field.

Time is defined as an interval of change between two time frames. A time frame is a picture of things during an instant in time. No motion is involved.

Space is defined as the distance between matter and extending no farther than the Zero Point Field.

One axiom is involved: Something cannot come from nothing.

These are the definitions needed to explain the beginning. This beginning that will be explained is similar to the explanation of the beginning according to the standard (original) version of the Big Bang model since both my model and the standard version of the BB model propose a beginning for time and space.

We must start our explanation with "something," since according to the above axiom "nothing" could not be the beginning or start of anything.

So accordingly if there was a beginning of time there must have been something to start with which we could call substance -- as in my model, or in the BB model it is called an entity, as in the BB beginning entity or singularity. This something must not have changed from being anything else since if it had done so it would violate two of our definitions. It would violate our definition of the word time, since this would assert a change before the first change which would be an extension of time. It would also violate the meaning of the word "finite." Finite" in this case means a finite amount of past time. If there was anything before that then it must be included in our meaning of the word "universe" and it also would be part of the beginning. If there was something before, which there could have been in such a scenario, then what was the cause of that? This questions would lead in an infinite cycle which would result in an infinite times past without a beginning. But if there was no cause for a particular sequential past entity or causal condition, then the universe would be finite in time. It should be realized that no matter whether the overall-universe is infinite or finite concerning times past, it could not have had a cause for it for obvious reasons explained by the related definitions. For instance in Biblical creation the universe had a beginning time but the god who accordingly created it is infinite, so god must be within our definition of the overall-universe, so this would be an infinite universe model.

So we are back to our beginning entity that could not accordingly have had a cause, and consider that time thereafter would progress. For time to progress there is the old question concerning "a prime mover." For time to progress, our definition of time, changes of some kind must take place. Since nothing accordingly can exist outside our beginning entity, there would be nothing outside to motivate it, to cause a change of some kind in its form, since motion concerning its whole, could have no meaning (relative to what could it be moving, spinning, etc.). So we must conclude that any changes must be motivated by an internal force of some kind which could be mechanical, or energy of some kind. Accordingly from this beginning point in time the whole universe was created including the ZPF, time, and space. In the BB model all were created by the bang itself or similar explanation.

In my model the Zero Point Field was slowly created from this beginning, developing into spring-like stands of particles, evolving over trillions of years eventually creating what we call field pressure which accordingly created black holes, and these black holes accordingly created matter from the surrounding spring-like field material, by the torquing forces surrounding black holes.

In the BB model there are other versions that propose that there was a "before," concerning the Big Bang. These models propose an infinite universe concerning times past.

Any further discussion should take place in my thread, "alternative to the big bang," otherwise the mods might give a warning since this explanation extends beyond the video presented, and the related models. This does however, explain the beginning of the Big Bang model, and why most consider that there was no space of time before that.

http://pantheory.com...s/PanTheory.php

 

pantheory; Sorry I missed this from an earlier post, as my interest/education on the issue also stems from the 40's/50's, but went on with other lifetime career's in Business, long retired. A couple things;

 

Having only quickly scanned through your theory, I'm thinking you are/were making the same mistakes, as Fred Hoyle did, in trying to link arguments with BBT, rather than to build on any version of an Eternal Universe, Steady or Static State Models. When on this issue, from my layman's approach, a strong believer in the "always existed/never ending" ideas, I preferred building on what was actually the acceptable theory, before about 1930.

 

For instance; Rather than accepting nucleosynthisis as a solo stellar event, or 'H" needing to be replaced, I've always thought stable elements can and do break down, either over time or the more probable during extreme heat/pressure as stars are formed. This all meaning atoms in the U have never changed, not needing to be replaced. Even the idea that during early expansion, under BBT and as space cooled creating Hydrogen/Helium, would seem to agree in theory.

 

Later my interest were again stimulated, when seemingly well formed Spiral Galaxies were apparently photographed up to 8 or so TLY away, Elliptical's then classified older. If true IMO, this would indicate a much older and stable Universe. That is they could not exist together 8BY ago, with an U age of 13.5BYO. Somebody earlier mentioned the James Webb Telescope, now planned for 2018 and I believe actual pictures (opposed to artist illustrations/IMO guesses) will show much greater detain, possibly to 10-12BLY away, showing much the same. I don't know the expectations for exposures or times required per photon, but from long distances today, are very low....

 

My skepticism, doesn't mean the U has always existed as is today or maybe a few trillion years ago, but that what the U is made of today, in some manner as always existed.

This being the "BB theory disputed" thread I won't go into much detail concerning my own model which if you are interested can be discussed in the "alternative to the Big Bang model" here in the speculation forum.

I'll give you my opinions on your above mentions. As to stellar nucleosynthesis I think this is a great theory that has few detractors and almost universal acclaim, and it can fit with all cosmological models that I know of. My own model is of a universe trillions of years old but not infinite or eternal in any way. All of the theory is tied together by theory, reasoning, and observations. Most models classify elliptical galaxies as older galaxies which does not fit well with the Milky Way galaxy being 12-13 billion years old, its current estimates. As to stable elements breaking down there are two paths. One is surrounding black holes where nuclear fission might take place, and another is withing stars where some nuclear fission takes place, but the mechanics and degree of it is still speculative.

When the James Webb goes up if we continue to see the same kinds of galaxies whereby some will appear quite old as we presently can see with the Hubble, at that time the BB lose favor since no old appearing galaxies should exist near the beginning of the universe according to the BB model. I expect the BB model to be replaced within 20 years or less.

\//

You're confusing hostility with rational thinking. just look at the evidence and you will see that it supports the big bang theory.

the theories of Halton Arp and Eric Lerner have been disproved. Here, Arp

and here Lerner

The strict interpretation that all quasars are closer than their redshifts would indicate, can be challenged. This was Arp's strictest interpretation. But the idea that no quasars could be closer than their redshifts indicate cannot be challenged based upon existing evidence. This was mentioned in Arp's book "Seeing Red." This reluctance of consideration is what much of the presented video is all about.

Eric Lerner believes in Plasma Cosmology. Much of his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" remains a valid criticisms of the BB model to this day, in my opinion. Ned Wright from U.C.L.A. has challenged some of the numbers and statements in Lerner's book written in '92'. Although some of Wright's criticisms may have validity it does not address the ad hoc foundation crisis of the BB model or many of the most damaging criticisms of the model. Neither Arp nor Lerner have been disproved, nor have there theoretical models been disproved. Yes there are some valid arguments against aspects of these models as they were once presented. Equally there are a number of valid arguments against the BB model as it was once presented.

One of the major criticisms in the video concerns the scientific approach of present-day theorists. It concerns their reluctance to fund or evaluate ideas outside the mainstream Big Bang model. This reluctance is well known and well documented.

..

Diamond,

......I honestly think that the BB theory will turn out to be completely invalid the work those scientists are doing in the documentary seem to me to be more on the right track and maybe if the scientific community had continued to question the BB model this would have been completed much sooner?

 

Pantheory I'd be interested in light of what those particular scientists (in the video) are claiming what theory you think is more probable and if you choose the BB model what is your personal reasoning behind that?

In my opinion it's not that the scientists discussing that some quasars might have redshifts that are unrelated to their real distances from us; it's that theorists will not discuss it seriously because it would interfere with one of the pillars of the BB model. That pillar is that redshifts are directly related to distances. I agree with the scientists in the video that such fear in not warranted in that "some quasars" does not mean all quasars, nor does it necessarily mean that any galaxy's EM radiation could be influenced in such a way. The most common explanation for such a redshift is called a gravitational redshift, which is also called an Einstein redshift. This proposal if valid would weaken the BB model but I don't think by much. I agree that probably no BB theorists want to consider such a possibility, and believe as they have suggested, it's because of the possible destabilization of the BB model. This one possibility is not a big challenge to the BB model in my opinion. Halton Arp according to the video, on the other hand, believes that galaxies in general are created from proto-galaxies by an ejection process from a central black hole area of a parent galaxy. He believes this is the standard mechanism of galaxy formation via proto-galaxies. This idea/ model is totally contrary to the standard BB model and if valid might do away with the BB model. But to consider the possibility of some proto-galaxies might be at distances different from their observed redshift might open the door for the possibility of all, so such an idea will not even be considered unless the evidence is overwhelming which it presently is not.

I am a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the second order (little recognized). I've been creating theories since the late 1950's. I have never believed in the BB model. There was a time in my early teens when I adhered to Hoyle's steady state model. Since that time I have developed my own theory which can be found by using any search engine looking for the Pan Theory. My own theory I believe is vastly simpler than the BB model or the steady state model. In my own model I allow for some quasars to be at distances different than their redshifts would indicate, similar to what the scientists in the video believe should be considered.

In the BB model, Hoyle's steady state models, and Plasma Cosmology, the universe is expanding based upon the observed redshift of galaxies. As Hubble first pointed out these redshifts correlate with a galaxy's brightness meaning that redshifts, at least concerning galaxies, appear to be related to their distances. The farther away a galaxy the greater its redshift. One further assumption must be made to conclude that the universe is expanding. The assumption is that these galaxies are moving away from us which is the reason for their apparent redshifts. In my own model I make a different assumption which explains galactic redshifts differently. In my model the universe therefore is not expanding. I consider it the simplest possible model consistent with observations but it remains generally unknown to most mainstream theorists and the public in general. My expectation is that the BB model will begin to lose ground to other models maybe 5 years after the James Webb goes up. This is because I believe they will continue to see old appearing galaxies as far as they can observe which will be contrary to the BB model but consistent with "older universe," or infinite universe models.

As the gents in the video have pointed out there are a number of ad hoc hypothesis that have necessarily been added to the BB model so that it can remain consistent with observed reality. The dominant hypotheses that had to be added were Inflation, dark matter, and some kind of dark energy.

For my own model I have developed observational experiment(s) that might exclude all models based upon General Relativity, which include the BB and all the other models mentioned. Such experiments or observations that point solely in the direction of another model of gravity or point to the prediction(s) of a particular model, could demand the attention and consideration of present day cosmologists.

//

Every force needs a energy ? What is the energy source of gravity ? how is it made?

Newton's motivation source for gravity was matter/ mass. When Newton was asked why mass causes gravity, he said that he did not propose hypothesis. Einstein's motivation source for gravity was the warped space concept that accordingly surrounds all matter. When Einstein was asked why mass warps the space that surrounds it he accordingly gave an answer similar to Newton. Few alternative gravity models such as gravitons, for instance, cannot answer the energy-source-of-gravity question either. Maybe the simplest alternative model of gravity (alternative theory) that might answer this question is pushing gravity. This theory requires currents of something like dark matter or aether to inflow into all matter from all sides pushing matter together. There are various proposed reasons for this supposed inflow and radiation cycle depending on the model.

Presently General Relativity is the mainstream gravity model which does not propose an energy source for gravity.

//

Thanks for the welcome jackson33 and for pantheory's helpful comments.

 

Does anyone know since this video was released what theory of the two pro and anti BB is gaining ground or if there has been new evidence to support either theory?

 

I know I'm translating my opinions in layman terms but surely if the Universe is indeed a lot larger than what we can detect does that not make a singular BB creation model all the more irrelevant? it appears to me the equations to justify the BB model are being sought to prove the theory rather than actually providing evidence to an answer which may lead elsewhere.

 

My common sense led me to question it and the more I learn about it the more I wonder how more established minds have not questioned it also or more to the point how it's become so widely accepted as gospel when it clearly has inherit problems?

Although anti Big Bangers may have some valid arguments, my guess is that they represent no more than 1% of the total theorists in cosmology. Part of the reason is based upon few jobs, funding, or grants available for alternative study or theorists. Probably most pursue alternative theory and hypothesis with their own funding. There is also is no consensus among alternative theorists other than some beliefs in common concerning problems with the BB model. As to which is gaining grounds, I think that the BB model has lost little grounds to other models in the last 40+ years or more. It would seemingly take a discovery that both is contrary to the BB model and which seems to add credence to another model, to change the tide if the BB is wrong. Such observations might be after the James Webb telescope goes up. If at that time as far as we can observe we still see old appearing large elliptical galaxies at the farthest distances as we now see with the Hubble, then I think the tide in favor of the BB model will begin to turn. And if another theory makes a prediction that is confirmed which contradicts the BB model, then there would be for the first time in nearly 50 years serious consideration given to another cosmological model. There are possible experiments that seemingly could accomplish this in the next decade. Providing strong evidence that some QUASARS are closer than their redshifts would indicate is just one possibility.

//

Ok, that's reasonable. Since we are in the speculations forum, let's take it a step further. If the speed of light does vary slightly due to variations in gravity on earth, but the subtle changes are imperceptible, what would happen if we were observing a photon traveling at c as it traveled towards the event horizon of a black hole? As the gravity becomes more extreme, space-time dictates that time slows down. As an unaffected observer, would the beam of light continue to move at c, or would it exponentially decelerate as it approached? Or would the photon continue to cruise along at c in our eyes, therefore moving faster than c when compared to an object that is also undergoing the gravity induced space-time crunch? Side-note: I'm a biologist, not a physicist, so I don't really know anything about the specifics of this thought experiment. If photons carry mass, which I don't know whether or not they do, is it possible that a photon with a starting velocity of c would accelerate from the added force of extreme gravity as it became closer to the event horizon? Again, I welcome any and all discussion and help.

There are at least two alternative models that differ from the mainstream explanation. In the first example it is known that gravity bends light. Accordingly light trying to escape a black hole would be stretched and redshifted, giving the impression that the black hole is much farther away than it really is. This would normally be only a small percentage of the light spectra since most escaping light would escape tangential to the torus of the black hole. Maybe only for certain types of galactic black holes could this effect be detected. For this small portion of the spectra to be properly identified is another matter

The other model relates to a particulate aether such as dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, field strings, etc. In this model light still moves at the same speed of light relative to the background field but the background field moves, therefore here on Earth there would be a difference in the speed of light that might now be detectable with such precision timing devices such as those in orbit used in GPS technology. I have designed an experiment to test such a small speed differential of up vs. down.

..

Yes my apologies I mean't 14 Billion not 140.

 

I don't expect people to watch the whole series but the last two parts roughly 7mins each have most of the contradictions summarized.

 

I'm using this as my source as I understand these guy's are fully qualified scientists, I'd like to know your rebuttals on their claims.

 

This is part 8, there are only 9 parts.

 

Yes, I watched the whole video and think that most of the criticisms are valid. It is nothing new however since some of the clips were filmed before the production date 2003, maybe decades ago. Since that time the Big Bang model has seemingly not improved with the additional epicycles such as the cosmological constant or dark energy, dark matter, the Power Spectrum of the microwave background, etc. One improvement of the model I believe involves no requirement for a beginning BB. The theory now begins with a hot dense expanding field. Before that is now considered as hypothesis by most theorists.

Some possible epicycles have so-far been avoided such as Multiverses, higher dimensions such as string theory, Brane theory, quantum field addendums, etc. You might realize that the production of this video is directed toward novices considering the hoaky crumbling Greek monuments, the 1950's patriotic inserts, some of the analogies, references discussing religion and the BB model, etc.

Many of those who commented are famous dissidents concerning the Big Bang model since its beginning. Some of these physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers, are/ were Nobel Prize caliber scientists, even though none actually won the Prize. The most noted would be Fred Hoyle. He and Jayant Narlikar, a famous mathematician and theorist , together wrote a number of alternative cosmological theories. Geoffrey Burbrige and his wife Margaret both were professors and astrophysicists, and both were founding members of the University of California at San Diego and long standing theorists who have written books and numerous papers concerning what some consider to be serious problems with of the Big Bang model. Also dissident astronomers such as Halton Arp who along with the Burbriges are well known concerning their opposition to the idea that all QUASARS must necessarily be at the distances as seemingly indicated by their redshifts.

Eric Lerner produced the video and is a known author, researcher, and theorist in the field of Plasma Cosmology, which is a proposed alternative to the BB model. He is known for his book The Big Bang Never Happened and his theories concerning Plasma Cosmology which were also discussed. With the exception of the one Spanish astronomer who grew up in the modern age of the Big Bang era, all the rest of the theorists featured in this video have stated either that they have always had doubts concerning the BB model, or that they never believed in the possibility of the Big Bang model based upon the evidence.

//

Why light speed is constant? Are there any reason? Intensity and wave length are changed. But, we have not detected a light of different speed yet.

Although the speed of light is presently thought to be constant in a vacuum, its speed varies greatly through different transparent mediums. In some solids it can move at a relatively slow speed. In air its speed is slower than through a vacuum but faster than through water. It is thought that the "slowing" of light is a function of the incidence of refraction. In the old aether model the speed of light was thought to be controlled by the density of a particulate aether which was thought to be generally constant at least in our solar system, and that the speed of light was relative to the motion of the aether which accordingly was the "carrier" of light.

With such new hypothesis as dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. the idea of a particulate ZPF is back again and if such entities exist then their densities in space might control, influence or determine the speed of light. This might again involve a luminiferous aether even though Michelson and Morley and others seemingly could not find a significant difference in the speed of light with their equipment, more than a century ago.

..

I suspect diamond confused the 80 billion-140 billion figure as the age of the universe when it is actually the the possible range of its size or concluded, wrongly, that because the universe is that big it must be that old...he/she is not aware of inflation.

 

Diamond

 

Here's some straightforward cosmo links from the sticky in the Astro/Cosmo section on this site that will put you on the right track:

 

http://www.sciencefo...0-cosmo-basics/

I wrote my posting last night. Now in retrospect I think Diamond was probably misquoting something that was discussed in the video, that supposedly to get the abundance of light elements to come closer to what is observed, the numbers supposedly would crunch better if the universe were 8 billion years old instead of the presently asserted 13.7 Billion, but there are some known stars in our galaxy that some astronomers believe are at least 14 billion years old. My guess is that he meant to say 8 and 14 billion years, not 80 and 140

..

Diamond,

Aspects and segments of this video have been around for many decades. It was written by Eric Lerner who wrote the book The Big Bang Never Happened. I think his book was quite good. In my opinion there are many serious problems with the Big Bang model that are generally discussed in this video but there is also some sarcasm included and I think some wrongful characterizations of the model. It certainly is not just a scientific criticism. It seems to have been produced to sway the opinions of those who are unaware of the issues. By blanketly implying the Big Bang model has numerous problems, for most knowledgeable readers would be no revelation. So what are your particular concerns that might be discussed here?

Also your posting #7 contains inaccurate information. If you have your own opinion or alternative sources for this info you need to post them, otherwise no one could guess where these numbers came from. It might be better to ask questions. Maybe some astronomers or theorists think some stars are 80-140 billion years old but who are they? You may have simply misunderstood. You need to clarify this

This seems like a reasonable question for speculation because I know of no consensus answer. Stars and planets with a large torus type vortexes which started their formation, can extend their gravitational influence farther outward away from the star/ planet itself because of their larger mass. By doing so it is able to capture more material in stellar or planetary vortexes which are generally traveling on the same plane. Each body it captures, its orbital motions is transferred into stellar or planetary rotation as the star or planet absorbs the matter which is orbiting it adding to the increased rotation of the central absorbing body. Mercury is close to the sun so tidal locking influences have likely slowed down its original rotation period which still might have been slower than the Earth because of its smaller size. Venus is farther out from the sun and tidal forces of gravity alone seemingly could not have caused its retrograde orbital motion. It is likely that a proto-planet collision of some kind could explain its slow retrograde rotation rate, something like a Mars sized body that is presently thought to have created our moon.

The orbital axis of Uranus also seems to indicate that it iteracted with a proto-planetary body in its early history because of its greatly inclined axis of rotation relative to the plane of the solar system.

Widdekind,

Escaping radiation might be rather red-shifted ?

The existing view is that force acting at a distance can impart energy. But I propose an alternate view: the force does not impart energy, but causes thermodynamic changes (in the body) such as changing the speed and internal energy. An increase in speed causes a reduction in the internal energy and a decrease in speed causes an increase in the internal energy, thus the total energy remains constant. The changes in the internal energy can cause either heating or cooling. That is, unless energy is put into the body or removed from the body, a force on itself cannot impart or remove energy from the body.

As Dr. Rocket explained, the primary definition of energy in physic is a force applied to an object over a distance which defines the increased energy that the object being acted upon, receives. The totally different concept of "a force at a distance" is simply a force and nothing more until an action takes place concerning an applied force. There have been a number of arguments in physics concerning the validity of pulling forces at a distance such as gravity and magnetism, etc. But this is an entirely different subject. You can always argue about theoretical mechanics but not definitions. You can say I don't like that normal definition of that word for xyz application because .......... But you can't ever say a definition is wrong. If you don't like the word use a different one or make up your own word/ phrase then define it.

I do disagree. However, I cannot discuss it in this forum just because the forum rules does not allow that. I will post a reply in the speculation forum.

You can disagree with theory but never definitions. The word energy has several dictionary definitions. Even in physics energy has more than one meaning. You could say that I prefer another definition of the word energy to explain reality because of XYZ reasons or you could invent another word for what you mean. But not simply to say the definition of the word energy is wrong when it is the primary definition and meaning of the word in physics. It is simply a matter of your knowledge of all the definitions, and your choice of the proper vocabulary to explain your opinion.

//

You need to summarize what you are arguing for or against, and what your contentions or proposal to the contrary is. Very few will enjoy reading through this material without a simple comprehensive teaser to start with IMO.

himoura,

§ The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos.

An explosion is not what the standard model proposes. A rapid expansion of the original condition is what the standard model proposes. And is your proposal based upon the standard cosmological model? If not then there would be almost infinite other possibilities.

§ We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off.

Your complaint seems to be solely based upon the standard model. That's cool but can your proposal stand alone without complaint and on its own merits?

§ Order can only be created and exists as a result of its circumstances

This is a statement, but how can circumstances create order? If you believe in theistic creation then there are no circumstances involved, solely the will of a creator. If you are talking about evolution, then circumstances concerning the environment can randomly select the survival of the fittest living entities. But maybe this is contrary to your proposal? How the first life on Earth came to be, is recognized as an unknown. But as conditions change, life accordingly evolves. The fittest survive and those that cannot adapt die out. My guess is that 99% or more of all the species that have every lived on this Earth have perished because of changing conditions.

§ When compared, the odds of any number of scenarios that could permanently destroy our planet's ability to support life far exceed the odds of nothing happening

Once life gets established in countess forms as it did on Earth, it would seemingly take a monumental catastrophe to wipe it all out. According to my belief and current evolutionary theory, such a monumental catastrophe has not occurred since the beginning of life here on Earth. Maybe not monumental, but many great catastrophes have happened since that time.

If life could happen just as a sheer coincidence then what are the odds of it happening again? What are the odds of another planet just like our own sustaining life in similar fashion for 4.5 billion years? Many scientists now believe there has to be life elsewhere in the universe because of the sheer number of systems and galaxies. If that is true then the odds continue to increase exponentially. Other systems will be experiencing impossible "winning streaks" just like our own.

Of course the odds of life happening again in the same way and form are close to zero. Using your own line of thought, it may have been only a winning streak that enabled life to get started, but once started life on Earth accordingly had the evolutionary capacity and resilience to continue which was supported by natural selection.

It is certainly a wonder that life evolved/ got started in the first place, but less of a wonder that it survived the countless catastrophes that it had to endure thereafter -- IMHO.

Hi BJC,

I am unsure of what you mean by "logically allow"

As the Big Bang makes no statement about what existed prior to the "zero point" there cannot be a "logically derivation" of anything prior to that point.

The original Big Bang model stated the universe started as a singularity X number of years ago. This was a model concerning the entire universe having a finite age. In this model there is just one universe, our own. A universe having a finite age involves a limited number of sequential cause and effect incidents based upon the definition of the word finite, meaning limited. It is therefore logically impossible for time or space to have existed before the beginning of the universe. You can only do so if you change how the universe began or by changing the definitions of the words finite, universe, or space. The original definition for universe was: everything in existence.

If the Zero Point Field (ZPF) pre-existed the universe then time pre-existed the universe. If so then the ZPF had a different beginning than the rest of the universe, or the ZPF could be infinite concerning times past.

//

ajb,

....The point being if one were to follow Occam's razor to the letter then I expect that progress in physics would be slowed down. One has to allow a bit of imagination in physics. This is particularly true when probing the frontiers of knowledge.

I don't think Occam's Razor should be followed as the ultimate guide concerning theory, but if more consideration were given to it over the years, I believe we would be farther ahead concerning our understandings of reality.