David Levy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) The BBT is the ultimate golden egg of the modern science. I will explain this statement. During our discussion about the CMB, it comes to me again and again that the BBT is the cause. Yep. That is what happened in our universe. Without knowing the cause we wouldn't have had an explanation for redshift, the CMB or any of the other evidence for the big bang model. In this case, it was theory (cause) first and then the evidence to confirm it. Somehow, the modern science positions the cause – BBT, before the evidences as the ultimate solution. I have never seen similar case at any aria which I deal with. Based on that cause they have developed a full system to protect and support that golden egg. They have set this golden egg at a golden cage. No one is allowed to touch it. Sometimes - it is even forbidden to look at it. I'm not against that golden egg. I'm not against any sort of theory, but please - after 50 years, don't you think that we should give us a small change to look beyond that golden cage? Just a brief glimpse… What is the chance that this cause is incorrect? Is it 10%? Is it 1%? Even for a chance of 0.1% we are requested to look for better golden egg. Let me use the medical community as a comparison to the modern science community. 50 years ago, they have also developed at least one medical golden egg. But fortunately - they didn't place it in a golden cage, protecting it from any sort of vandalism. In the contrary, at each corner of the word, at any given time, Doctors and medical scientists try to find better and better solutions. Better and better golden eggs. They do not fight for their current golden eggs (maybe sometimes), but mostly, they try to find different ways and different approaches to invent the next generation of the medical golden egg. Somehow, the time had been freeze over the modern science community. Even after 50 years, it is an impossible mission for a real modern scientist even to consider an option to bypass that BBT golden egg. Actually, in every site of the word there are very skilled scantiest with one real mission -- shut down any attempt to insult that golden egg. They are very focused. Once you take the BBT from the table, they instantly loose all their knowledge. With regards to my question about Redshift, I have got the following answer from Strange. What is the cause of the redshift in this? If you are just going to invent random redshifts with no cause and random distance with no basis in reality, then you are not doing science. It is just The Game of Thrones. (But less interesting.) So, without the BBT "cause" there is no redshift. However, we know exactly the ,meaning of readshift. It was actually discovered long time before the BBT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift "This phenomenon was first observed in a 1938 experiment performed by Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, called the Ives–Stilwell experiment.[23]" So, how could it be that just after the BBT golden egg delivery, we suddenly can't think about redshift without keeping the BBT cause in the loop? Never the less, Strange, one of the best knowledgeable scientist in this site, (please forgive me all the others - you are all great) have tried to encourage me: The current theory is based on a mountain of evidence. The discovery of galaxies with an age of 13.8 billion or more years would therefore contradict all that evidence. So, technically, I don't have to worry. If I think that the BBT is incorrect, than let's give it some more time. If this golden egg is defective, then sooner or later the science community should find an older star - which should proof that the BBT is incorrect. Correct? No, No. NO. This is absolutely incorrect? Asking why? O.K. Let's look at the following article In order to extract the age, the scientists are using Metallicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity "Metallicity within stars and other astronomical objects is an approximate estimation of their chemical abundances that change over time by the mechanisms of stellar evolution,[4] and therefore provide an indication of their age.[5] In cosmological terms, the universe is chemically evolving" However, the whole idea of metalicity is based on BBT approach: According to the Big Bang Theory, the early universe first consisted of hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium, but no heavier elements. Through the process of stellar evolution stars first generate energy by synthesising metals from hydrogen and helium by nuclear reactions, then disperse most of their mass by stellar winds or explode as supernovae, dispersing the new metals into the universe.[6] It is believed that older generations of stars generally have lower metallicities than those of younger generations,[7] having been formed in the metal-poor early universe. Is it correct? Could it be that the early universe was different? Well, not according the BBT. The BBT is the cause – therefore it should set the whole system, including the clocks Could it be that there are better ways to find the real age? Well – not at our closed loop system. So, the BBT (cause) set the clock for the modern science – which is Metallicity The metalicity should now protect on the BBT (golden egg) from any sort of vandalism. What a great closed loop system. This is just one example – the whole system had been set around the BBT cause. Can we bypass it? No, Never, Ever! So, dear Friends –Thanks for your great support so far. Keep on. One day one of you might have the guts to set the difference. Good Luck. Edited January 21, 2016 by David Levy -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Somehow, the modern science positions the cause – BBT, before the evidences as the ultimate solution. I have never seen similar case at any aria which I deal with.[/size] I have no idea what you are talking about. We have the Lambda CDM model of cosmology, which is a big bang cosmology. Based on many observations, including details of the CMBR, we know that there is a reasonable fit of parameters that describes our Universe. We have a model that comes from the accumulation of theoretical and experimental studies. What more do you want? Based on that cause they have developed a full system to protect and support that golden egg.[/size] I have no idea what you are talking about. People collect data all the time in observational cosmology. Should something come to light that just does not sit will in the Lambda CDM model then it will attract some attention. They have set this golden egg at a golden cage. No one is allowed to touch it. Sometimes - it is even forbidden to look at it.[/size] I'm not against that golden egg. I'm not against any sort of theory, but please - after 50 years, don't you think that we should give us a small change to look beyond that golden cage? Just a brief glimpse…[/size] People have and do think about alternatives. The problem is the the Lambda CDM model, as a phenomenological model, works quite well. Moreover, the generic features of the Universe just seem to fit with a big bang cosmology. No other competing model comes close. In short, unless you have such a model, what are we actually discussing here? "This phenomenon was first observed in a 1938 experiment performed by Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, called the Ives–Stilwell experiment.%5B23%5D" So, how could it be that just after the BBT golden egg delivery, we suddenly can't think about redshift without keeping the BBT cause in the loop?[/size] Of course people knew about red shift both relativistic and non-relativistic before big bang cosmologies were discussed. The point is that in order to have a Doppler shift the source and receiver must be in relative motion. In short, observational cosmology fits the idea of an expending universe by using red shifts of light from galaxy clusters. So, technically, I don't have to worry. If I think that the BBT is incorrect, than let's give it some more time. If this golden egg is defective, then sooner or later the science community should find an older star - which should proof that the BBT is incorrect.[/size] Or whatever phenomena cannot be accommodated. It is not like anyone holds big bang cosmologies as sacred, but rather we acknowledge they are the best we have right now. In order to extract the age, the scientists are using... [/size] The big bang cosmologies give a good prediction for the abundemnces of the light elements in the Universe. The predictions match the observations quite well here. Could it be that there are better ways to find the real age?[/size] The definition of the age of the Universe in big bang cosmologies is tied to the expansion. One matches data to the model and makes a prediction, but this cannot be independent of the model. The best we can really do is take the Lambda CDM model, take the best fit for the parameters and then state the age of the Universe. Loosley, the age is one over the Hubble parameter. Can we bypass it?[/size] If one can find a model that allows for a good fit to the data them maybe. But we do not have such models and so what do you propose we do? The bottom line really is, put up a new model or shut up! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Somehow, the modern science positions the cause – BBT, before the evidences as the ultimate solution. I have never seen similar case at any aria which I deal with. I don't know if there is much point responding to this emotional rant but there are a few things which need correcting.... It is very common in science for theory to come first and then evidence is found to confirm it. Sometimes it isn't and the theory is rejected. You ignore the fact it took decades for enough evidence to be found for the big bang model to be accepted over the alternatives. As with all theories, it is constantly being tested, new evidence is always being looked for. People would love to show that it was wrong there would be great fame and massive prizes for anyone who did so. You have some emotional dislike of the big bang model for some reason. But that's just too bad. Anyone could come up with an alternative model and test it against the evidence. I'm sure this happens all the time and then they realise their idea won't work for one reason or another (i.e. doesn't fit all the evidence). All you have done is make up numbers and then use your misunderstanding of the theory to try and show that your invented numbers show the science to be wrong. That is not how things work in science. Even after 50 years, it is an impossible mission for a real modern scientist even to consider an option to bypass that BBT golden egg. You can find plenty of papers which challenge aspects of the big bang model. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is so overwhelming the most they can do is make small modifications to the theory (like the addition of dark energy - based on exciting new evidence). With regards to my question about Redshift, I have got the following answer from Strange.[/size] So, without the BBT "cause" there is no redshift. You were making up fictional numbers and then asking for a conclusion. Without knowing on what basis you invented the numbers, how can anyone answer any questions abut them? (For any new readers, it is important to know that the question was based entirely on a fictional universe, not evidence from ours.) However, we know exactly the ,meaning of readshift.[/size] It was actually discovered long time before the BBT:[/size] There are many possible causes of red-shift. Some of them may have been known earlier, but they are not relevant. The cosmological redshift was predicted in 1927 by Lemaitre and discovered by Hubble two years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law But, of course, it was decades until there was enough evidence for the big bang model to be generally accepted. That is often the case with radical, paradigm-shifting ideas. At any point evidence could have been found that contradicted the big bang model. But it wasn't. Today the evidence is overwhelming. But we might still discover something that shows the model to be fundamentally flawed. In which case we will have the (exciting) challenge of finding a new explanation for all the existing evidence. I suggest David hides under the bedsheets until then. But what is more likely is that we will develop a theory of quantum gravity that gives us a much better understanding of the early universe. And that may change the big bang model (as it has already been modified by theoretical and observational advances). Never the less, Strange, one of the best [/size]knowledgeable scientist in this site[/size] Thanks for the compliment but I am neither especially knowledgable nor a scientist. (Although the only science research project I have worked on did involve the CMB.) So, technically, I don't have to worry. If I think that the BBT is incorrect, than let's give it some more time. If this golden egg is defective, then sooner or later the science community should find an older star - which should proof that the BBT is incorrect.[/size] That is possible. But I would be happy to bet it won't happen. However, the whole idea of metalicity is based on BBT approach:[/size] No it is based on observations and knowledge of nucleosynthesis. Interestingly, much of the fundamental work on stellar nucleosynthesis was done by Fred Hoyle, one of the smartest and most outspoken opponents of the big bang model. (He gave it is name. He was also a good friend and drinking buddy of Lemaitre, the founder of the big bang model.) Could it be that the early universe was different? Well, not according the BBT. Er... Yes, according to the big bang model the early universe was different. The first stars would have been low (effectively zero) metallicity and therefore very large and short-lived. We begin to see some evidence of this in the most distant galaxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You can find plenty of papers which challenge aspects of the big bang model. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is so overwhelming the most they can do is make small modifications to the theory (like the addition of dark energy - based on exciting new evidence). This really is the heart of the matter. So far we have no models that come close to explaining the observations that are not based on big bang cosmologies. Indeed, the Lambda CDM model really is all we have right now. No amount of complaining that such models are 'unnatural' will over turn these models, only a better model can do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The BBT is the ultimate golden egg of the modern science. I will explain this statement. During our discussion about the CMB, it comes to me again and again that the BBT is the cause. Somehow, the modern science positions the cause – BBT, before the evidences as the ultimate solution. I have never seen similar case at any aria which I deal with. ! Moderator Note This is a science site. We expect you to be able to back up your claims. So here is your homework: you must substantiate this with references. When was the big bang theory proposed, when was it accepted, and when were various lines of evidence used in support discovered. If you are right, all of the evidence will post-date the theory's acceptance. If science has proceeded normally, though, some will precede and some will follow. This needs to be in your very next post in this thread. You don't get to ignore it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Thanks for the homework. However, I have full appreciation for all your knowledge and support so I do not wish to argue on subject which isn't fully clear to me. The support helped me to develop deeper understanding how the universe really works. There is no need for Inflation, Expansion, Dark matter or even Dark energy to understand how it works. It is as simple as the Darwin Idea for the evolving life on Earth. Actually, there is high similarity between the evolvement of life and the evolvement of the Universe. Few hundred years ago, people believed that some sort of big bang had started the versatility of life on Earth. Darwin had showed us the simple way. He claimed that by giving enough time, all the versatility of life could be evolved from a single ameba. In the same token, I have found that all the versatility of our universe could start from just one galaxy. Darwin didn't explain how this ameba had been created. I can't explain how this first galaxy had been created - it could be by the same phenomenon which we call BBT. However, once it's there, the Universe had evolved to what we see today. But time is needed - very long time. Actually, we could visit this Alfa universe, but it is forbidden to join the ride with even a fraction of information about the BBT. In any case, based on that deep understanding, I have set long expectation list about the Universe. One item in the list is that there is a nearby star which its age is over 20 B Years. (According to Strange, that could give an indication that the BBT is incorrect) Every new discovery in the last few years meets my expectation list by 100%. I do not need to adjust this deep understanding, as the science is doing it with the BBT from time to time. So, if you wish, I'm ready to share with you some items from this list. If you wish, I'm ready to discuss about it in a closed environment - so it will not be open to public. If you wish, I will keep it to myself. Thanks again Edited January 23, 2016 by David Levy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 If you wish, I'm ready to discuss about it in a closed environment - so it will not be open to public. ! Moderator Note This is a public forum, so no. we can't do that. Why would you come here for that? In any case, it seems once again that you have lots of assertions and nothing to support them. You say you don't want to discuss things that aren't fully clear to you, yet you claim some mystical knowledge you can't explain gives you "full appreciation" and a "deeper understanding" than anyone else has. How convenient! If you can't explain yourself, and can't support your assertions (historically noted), then your guess is as good as anyone's. No reason to discuss wishful thinking on a science site. You failed your homework assignment too. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts