Jump to content
Diamond

Big Bang theory disputed (with evidence)

Recommended Posts

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[12][/Quote]

 

Peron, Arp a skeptic in his day, remained so till his death and was not convinced. Much as was Fred Hoyle, was NOT convinced on his death around 2003. I'm not qualified to break down the arguments opposed to Lerner's theory, but I would suggest none of these folks were hostile and most certainly believed they were the rational ones in a field of frenzy to prove something, that just might be wrong...that's all any skeptic is saying.

 

Correction; Halton Arp, is still alive, age 84.....

 

 

Sorry, but you don't get to pass the buck like this. The way you framed the question, you are definitely questioning the BB theory. [/Quote]

 

swansont; What is science, if NOT questioning even the acceptable. How do you think BBT came about in the first place, disregarding the creationist theory or a need for a beginning of existence, as folks questioned the acceptable, some form of an eternal Universal Existence?

 

As for Diamond's thread, it's based on the links provided, some 15 or so short tubes, which I'm sure you watched all of them and they made some valid points, from people that fought this BBT, in many way's changing the "USED" and acceptable models, from the start.

 

My two cents...

Edited by jackson33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont; What is science, if NOT questioning even the acceptable. How do you think BBT came about in the first place, disregarding the creationist theory or a need for a beginning of existence, as folks questioned the acceptable, some form of an eternal Universal Existence?

 

I didn't say it was wrong or evil to question a theory. All I meant was that you need to take ownership of the issue, and not pass the buck if you have, in fact, questioned the theory. You do have an obligation to have an understanding of the theory you are criticizing, as well as a justification for why you accept the critique (or alternate hypothesis) but not the theory itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well even though as I said the scientists in part 8/9 of that series can address it better than I they basically say that without dark matter / dark energy the BB theory does not hold up which is why they were put forward in the first place and yes I am questioning the theory based on qualified scientists claiming that the BB theory is ad hoc.

 

1) Does anyone here who are believers in the BB theory have any evidence this two phenomena actually exists ........ ?

 

2) The discovery in the last decade of Martín López-Corredoira and Carlos Gutierrez of the redshift issue between the two Quasars and the linked galaxies.

 

What about this discovery, or has this been proven to be a load of rubbish as well? you ask me to provide evidence I could upload their paper but unless you wanted to go all through that I'm making these You tube links to get to save time.

Edited by Diamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

..

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Does anyone here who are believers in the BB theory have any evidence this two phenomena actually exists ........ ?

 

The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[8] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

 

Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies.[9] Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Experimentally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, cannot be explained by only the visible matter. Assuming that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster is the most straightforward way of accounting for this. Galaxies show signs of being composed largely of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface brightness dwarf galaxies are important sources of information for studying dark matter, as they have an uncommonly low ratio of visible matter to dark matter, and have few bright stars at the center which would otherwise impair observations of the rotation curve of outlying stars.

 

Gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters allow direct estimates of the gravitational mass based on its effect on light from background galaxies, since large collections of matter (dark or otherwise) will gravitationally deflect light. In clusters such as Abell 1689, lensing observations confirm the presence of considerably more mass than is indicated by the clusters' light alone. In the Bullet Cluster, lensing observations show that much of the lensing mass is separated from the X-ray-emitting baryonic mass.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

SupernovaeIn 1998, published observations of Type Ia supernovae ("one-A") by the High-z Supernova Search Team[7] followed in 1999 by the Supernova Cosmology Project[8] suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[9] Since then, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large scale structure of the cosmos as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent with the Lambda-CDM model.[10]

 

Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law. It is relatively easy to measure redshift, but finding the distance to an object is more difficult. Usually, astronomers use standard candles: objects for which the intrinsic brightness, the absolute magnitude, is known. This allows the object's distance to be measured from its actual observed brightness, or apparent magnitude. Type Ia supernovae are the best-known standard candles across cosmological distances because of their extreme, and extremely consistent, brightness.

 

Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.[11]

 

[edit] Cosmic Microwave Background

Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universeThe existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, most recently by the WMAP spacecraft, indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to a certain critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured by the CMB, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.[10] The WMAP five-year analysis estimate a universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter.[12] More recently, the WMAP seven-year analysis gave an estimate of 72.8% dark energy, 22.7% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter.[2]

 

[edit] Large-Scale StructureThe theory of large scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

 

The WiggleZ galaxy survey from Australian Astronomical Observatory scanned 200,000 galaxies to determine their redshift. Then, by exploiting the fact that baryon acoustic oscillations have left voids regularly of ~150 Mpc diameter, surrounded by the galaxies, the voids were used as standard rules to determine distances to galaxies as far as 2000 MPc (redshift 0.6), which allowed to pin down the speeds of the galaxies from their redshift and distance. The data allowed to confirm cosmic acceleration up to half of the age of the universe (7 billion years), and constrain its inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10.[6] This provides a confirmation to cosmic acceleration independent of supernovas.

 

[edit] Late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe EffectAccelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe,[13] and has recently been detected at high significance by Ho et al.[14] and Giannantonio et al.[15]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. [/Quote]

 

http://pantheory.com/Pages/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently posted a well-developed spiral galaxy dated at 13.1 trillion LY away.

 

At the end of "dark age after inflation?"

 

And just found another dated at 13.2, but with much poorer pictures (for good reason, probably), in that same wiki.

Edited by Realitycheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson 33, Pantheory and co, pro and anti BB, thanks a lot this is really helpful stuff.

 

This is the first forum I've found to have such a good mixture of ideas at this level.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

Sorry but I can easily match your response ....

 

Go to the very bottom of the page listed Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

 

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm

 

 

I read Dr Wrights rebuttal and all I see are two scientists misinterpreting or misleading what the other is saying, more to the point ....... neither have solid evidence to prove the other wrong, yet the same BB underlying problems remain and remain ignored or adjusted to suit.

 

Zapato's thanks, does anyone have a good rebuttal for these dark energy / dark matter existence claims?

 

What conclusions should we take from this ......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

 

Are they valid enough to assume they exist or is it a smoking gun at best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

\//

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.[/Quote]

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I checked out Pantheory's alternative model thread and I am way out of my depth on the discussions on that one, dark matter, CRB and inflation seem easy to comprehend compared to all that lol.

 

Jackson 33 your idea's do interest me, I think that presents 2 major schools of thought no matter which model you believe, either A) The Universe developed from a singularity or B) Matter in abundance has always been there.

 

Depending which you adhere to it would effect a model from start to finish, is there any evidence at all to suggest either or could be correct?

 

I suppose for me who has to view these things in an abstract manor due to my lack of specialist understanding I would say that if you find the idea of all matter coming from a singularity a bit of a stretch at best then your idea seems more reliable.

 

We know matter is here therefore your idea seems to be in the driving seat against a minimised start of existence from a common sense point of view, so has there been any evidence to suggest the universe was once at a condensed point?

 

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?

Edited by Diamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackson 33 your idea's do interest me, I think that presents 2 major schools of thought no matter which model you believe, either A) The Universe developed from a singularity or B) Matter in abundance has always been there.

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? [/Quote]

 

Diamond; A- The following links are the most current model explanations of the BB, that I can find and they explain expansion from simple reactions from 13.7 B/Y/A, on to the current idea that expansion is due to other forces, called "dark energy", I believe answering your other question on expansion.

 

B- It's only my opinion, even Fred Hoyle disagreed (briefly; felt Hydrogen was created in space to regenerate matter) that all that goes into matter is limited to what's always been or could be. That is, matter exist today in various stages (Solids/Liquid/Gas), changing states under certain phenomenon/process, I believe happens under yet unexplained gravitational principles, probably due to star formation...

 

Also, I'm skeptical of expansion itself, primarily because of the explained causes and added theory, over years to justify it. Age and distance, for the most part are based on luminosity and that alone to me, questions the Red/Blue Shifts (1842 theory "doppler effect") explanation being applicable, in this case.

 

I don't want to, in anyway to discourage your apparent interest and feel very strongly that science itself is based on questioning the acceptable, but there are many people on this forum, more qualified than myself, to explain BBT in a manner you might accept.

 

 

 

 

This timeline of the Big Bang describes the history of the universe according to the prevailing scientific theory of how the universe came into being, using the cosmological time parameter of comoving coordinates. The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from an extremely high energy density is known as the Big Bang.

The best available measurements as of 2011 suggest that the initial conditions occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.[1][2] It is convenient to divide the evolution of the universe since then into three phases. The very early universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

 

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy. [/Quote]

 

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

 

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.[/Quote]

 

pantheory; It's that beginning that worries me. If BBT, put the age of the U (it has increased over the years), at 1.4 trillion years ago, I'd still have the same problem, that singularity existed and had to come from someplace....But then you have a good deal of thought behind your model and it's not for me to try and change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson33,

 

pantheory; It's that beginning that worries me. If BBT, put the age of the U (it has increased over the years), at 1.4 trillion years ago, I'd still have the same problem, that singularity existed and had to come from someplace....But then you have a good deal of thought behind your model and it's not for me to try and change your mind.

Except for theorists, most people usually never fathom or ever realize that no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite concerning times past, according to my explanation in the previous posting, the overall-universe could not logically or possibly have had a cause. No matter what model one chooses there could have been no original cause for its existence.

 

My own model has a mathematical reason for its age according to the model. In the BB model the redshift interpretation is that the universe is expanding at a calculated rate. When you follow this rate back in time you get an age of 13.7 billion years old. My model has a similar type of calculation inherent in the model. Matter accordingly doubles in quantity while its relative size decreases by 1/2. Like the BB model this is also calculated from observed redshifts. From a single field particle roughly a million of which make up an electron, the whole universe was very slowly created by doubling in numbers every ~5 billion years. It then would take roughly 1.4 trillion years to produce the observable universe, which is probably minuscule compared to the size of the entire universe -- but still accordingly finite in time, quantity, and extension.

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it).

 

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-universe-not-so-missing-mass.html

 

Pantheory in extreme layman's terms are you suggesting in your model .....

 

A similar path of the BB except a lot older and the Universe is a lot bigger than BB theorists perceive?

 

Unless I'm wrong you are saying matter is multiplying at a much slower rate than the inflation theory suggests?

 

I would put this questions in your thread but I've been through it and it is not a debate for amateurs lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it).

 

http://www.physorg.c...ssing-mass.html

 

Pantheory in extreme layman's terms are you suggesting in your model .....

A similar path of the BB except a lot older and the Universe is a lot bigger than BB theorists perceive?

Little or no similarity to the BB model at all other than both models propose a finite beginning of the universe, otherwise they are very different. Not a similar path, a completely different evolution process of galaxies and of the universe.

 

Unless I'm wrong you are saying matter is multiplying at a much slower rate than the inflation theory suggests?

The Inflation model of the BB relates to how fast the universe supposedly first expanded. In my own model there is no expansion, no Inflation, dark matter, or dark energy. The Inflation model is not a model concerning the creation for new matter, it is the mechanism that supposedly transported mass/ energy to the far corners of the universe according to the BB model.

 

In the BB model there is no new creation of matter simply stellar nucleosynthesis which is the fusion processes within stars which all cosmological models adhere to. New matter is created in Hoyle's Stead State Model, the Plasma Cosmology model, and my own model. Such a model which proposed the creation of new matter was first proposed by Paul Dirac in the 1920's.

 

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it).

I think the Bullet Cluster is a good example concerning evidence that suggests that there is something going on the we cannot see, hence they presently call it dark matter. Also in my opinion, another model of gravity is needed based upon pushing gravity and an aether. I believe mathematical formulations alone cannot solve this problem.

 

I would put this questions in your thread but I've been through it and it is not a debate for amateurs lol.

Thanks Diamond. I expect that you will have learned from this thread since one can learn a lot by asking questions :)

//

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like to say thanks to Pantheory and Jackson 33 you've been a great help and I think I have enough to help me view this further with a much better view than I had when I started this thread, I'll be keeping an eye on your theory (Pantheory) and will give some thought to Jackson 33's idea also both I think are very interesting and worth seeing where those models could lead compared to current mainstream theories.

 

 

 

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.