| |
| Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| kojax |
 Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
I'm always against the Big Bang theory, but often run short of ammunition to throw at it. So, after a few months' break, here we go:
The primary basis for belief in the BB is Hubble Redshift. It's been observed that light from distant stars is uniformly redshifted across the entire spectrum of emitted light, so that even the shades of light we don't see are moved.
So we have:
1) - Uniform shifting of spectrum
2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.
3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.
The BB seems very sound up to this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
Next, an interesting logical developement happens.
Mathematicians soon realized that, since it takes time for the light to reach us, Hubble's observations are actually not consistent with a doppler redshift. In order for the shift in color to be the result of actual motion, the objects he observed would have to be accelerating, not just moving, and that would result in a redshift that increases over time.
So, Ad Hoc, a new theory emerges:
The redshift, it is claimed, results not from a Doppler effect, but from the expansion of space itself. The light actually shifts red *after* being emitted, while its on its way here, because the space it's moving through is expanding.
(The theory begins to look an awful lot like tired light, which never held a lot of credibility with people)
Now we start with
1) - Hubble's observations
2) - An entirely undisprovable, but also unprovable theory of a light wave lengthening as space itself expands, which ties us to point 3.
3) - Space must be expanding.
Note how, in the original case, we could tie Hubble's observations to the final theory using a mechanism that had at least been tried and proven to work. Now, the mechanism is one based entirely on pure speculation, for which no experamental evidence exists, or ever could exist.
We'd have to create expansion of space in a laboratory (to show that space even *can* expand.), and then pass a beam of light through the expanding space to see if its wavelength actually lengthens because of it.
Do you see how closely this kind of speculation resembles religion? It's an uncallable bluff. Nobody can ever experamentally show that it *isn't* true, and so we are asked to accept it on faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
| kojax wrote: |
2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.
3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.
. |
You might wish to note that (as far as I understand it, which is about two light years and the width of a plump ferret) the Hubble redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not because the galaxies are moving away from us, it is because space is expanding, which is an altogether different thing.
Warning: the foregoing is based upon an incomplete grasp, of an intermittently studied, poorly presented oversimplifcation. It may therfore be wrong. 
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1578
Location: Pennsylvania
|
I will preface this with the same disclaimer Ophiolite used, but I think Kojax has the history wrong.
According to the Wikipedia articles on Expanding Universe and Big Bang, the sequence was: 1922 - Alexander Friedman postulates expanding universe. 1927-1931 Lemaitre develops big bang theory. 1929 - Hubble's law. The Big Bang Theory did not become dominant until the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 520
|
To All
The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do.
The sad thing here is that it will not go up untill 2012(?).
I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.
Cosmo
Pardon me but I am the former Mike NS.
My computer was hacked and destroyed my OS, so I had to get another replacement and new OS and email to reregister.
Hello to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do. I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.
. |
Mike/Cosmo, welcome back. Remeber that at present we a change in character of galaxies as we move further away, i.e. further back in time. Are you suggesting this trend will be reversed/halted in more distant galaxies that may come into view?
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1216
|
I wish I had your optimism, Mike. The James Webb, currently having cost 4.6 billions (over budget a billion) and two years behind schedule (currently expected 2013) is a program of technology I am not sure exist.
This observatory, is expected to be launched and travel a million miles into space (away from the sun), where it will then kind of build itself. The 20 foot mirror in 18 pieces will expand into one and a *sun shield* (to lower temperatures) about the size of a tennis court will also expand. For the telescope to work, both events will need to be successful. If not, its just 10-15 billion plus down the drain, at least for the foreseeable future. Currently there are no docking facilities planned, but some are suggesting this for future flights years from now that these be added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.
3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.
. |
You might wish to note that (as far as I understand it, which is about two light years and the width of a plump ferret) the Hubble redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not because the galaxies are moving away from us, it is because space is expanding, which is an altogether different thing.
Warning: the foregoing is based upon an incomplete grasp, of an intermittently studied, poorly presented oversimplifcation. It may therfore be wrong. |
I think you're articulating my point better than I am. I was trying to address the misconception that it's a doppler effect. The doppler effect has been tested. The "expansion of space time" effect is not tested, and is pretty much untestable.
It's funny to me how many scientists object to the claims of religion, because they are untestable, but see no problem with the BBU's "red shift caused by expansion of space itself" theory.
I mean, while we're in the realm of untestable claims, why don't we just argue that unicorns did it?
| Harold14370 wrote: |
I will preface this with the same disclaimer Ophiolite used, but I think Kojax has the history wrong.
According to the Wikipedia articles on Expanding Universe and Big Bang, the sequence was: 1922 - Alexander Friedman postulates expanding universe. 1927-1931 Lemaitre develops big bang theory. 1929 - Hubble's law. The Big Bang Theory did not become dominant until the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. |
Yeah, the CMBR was seen as some kind of world shattering "confirmation", because one of the BBU's predictions involved it.
All I see is the same thing you see in religion. People see something extraordinary, and want it explained so badly that they're willing to disregard any sensible notion of empirical evidence, and suspend disbelief, just to have it explained.
How can we, as scientists, look down our noses at religion, if we're just as bad? It seems to me that a true scientist would not always infer to the best theory, if there aren't any really credible theories in front of him/her, but sometimes just leave the matter open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 520
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Cosmo wrote: |
The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do. I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.
. |
Mike/Cosmo, welcome back. Remeber that at present we a change in character of galaxies as we move further away, i.e. further back in time. Are you suggesting this trend will be reversed/halted in more distant galaxies that may come into view? |
Ophi
When I saw the Hubble Deep Field photos, I did not see any evolution as the current BB'ers see.
So if we were to see any deeper into space than at present, I think there will just be more of same. Galaxies with larger redshifts.
The question is, how large of a redshift can they detect?
Right now, they detect the largest redshifts with the 'drop off' of the 'Lyman Spectrum' series.
So now, they will need xray telescopes to read the larger redshifts since this region (xray) will move into the current Lyman or Balmer area.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 520
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
I wish I had your optimism, Mike. The James Webb, currently having cost 4.6 billions (over budget a billion) and two years behind schedule (currently expected 2013) is a program of technology I am not sure exist.
This observatory, is expected to be launched and travel a million miles into space (away from the sun), where it will then kind of build itself. The 20 foot mirror in 18 pieces will expand into one and a *sun shield* (to lower temperatures) about the size of a tennis court will also expand. For the telescope to work, both events will need to be successful. If not, its just 10-15 billion plus down the drain, at least for the foreseeable future. Currently there are no docking facilities planned, but some are suggesting this for future flights years from now that these be added. |
Yes, the placement of that telescope will be in deep space.
So that telescope will have to be right when it is deployed.
There is a movement against the BBU but they do not get much 'press' (news).
There is a scheduled conference being programmed for next year in the state of Washington by the Aternative Cosmology Group scientists.
However, this is beyond my 'budget' capabilities.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1362
|
| kojax wrote: |
| I'm always against the Big Bang theory |
Why? Is it because you don't understand it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1216
|
Cosmos; From what I can find on the *technology* behind the JW photographic abilities, they infer a difference between the Hubble and JW.
As I understand it, Hubble relies on light energy and the JW is going after EM field in general. This would mean some mechanical or instrumental analysis/interpretations of whats seen. This worries me, as much of what Hubble is said to see at distant locations, are in fact offered as artist illustration already. They are also trying to figure a way allow Hubble and JW to work together (although not interfering with each other or disrupting there designed functions), which begs the question...Why? If JW is designed to handle all EME, this should include light and offer what many SSU proponents feel should offer, as you. A more clear understanding of what is 10-14 BLY away and beyond, then the questionable.
Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense.
Spontaneous creation of the Universe, dates back to 500-700 AD, in the Catholic Church. At the time, no reason or cause was needed to exploit the idea. Lamaitre (1927), offered what became the singularity, or something to form from and into what later became, nothingness. There is just so much information available to show a "need" for "creation" of everything, its objective purpose, it boggles my mind, the entire idea has progressed to where it is today.
Most of us SSU proponents, do not object to BBT or its purpose, even it being taught but do object to, not being taught or mentioned, there may be another explanation for the existence of our Universe and most accept the idea in some manner its always existed. When BBT, takes a back seat in science and it will IMO, all these years, efforts and money will have been lost. Worse yet, many qualified people who have questioned BBT, have gone on to careers in other fields, just to maintain creditability. Wasted educations and in many cases even ruined lives have been associated with these objections...I won't go into the name calling, I have seen on Science Forums, especially to the young minds, trying to grasp BBT, people barred or banned and so on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1362
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense. |
Hubble's observations were congruent with equations from General Relativity. Observations made later also followed GR, hence the theory became more clearly refined.
The singularity is also predicted by GR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
| (Q) wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
| I'm always against the Big Bang theory |
Why? Is it because you don't understand it? |
It frustrates me that people always assume that. It's like the story of the emporer's new clothes.
I'm against theories that move continually, by degrees, further and further from observation. If the theory is especially complex, its final conclusions can be very far removed from the original observations, with a lot of circular reasoning included along the way.
How do we explain redshift? Expansion of space itself. What's the evidence for the expansion of space itself? The redshift.
Does anything else in nature tell us its possible for space itself to expand? Does anything else (other than the redshifted light) tell us that space is expanding?
| (Q) wrote: |
| jackson33 wrote: |
Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense. |
Hubble's observations were congruent with equations from General Relativity. Observations made later also followed GR, hence the theory became more clearly refined.
The singularity is also predicted by GR. |
"Congruent with" and "followed" are the kinds of half baked appeals to credibility that religious arguements are always riddled with. What you're really saying is that there is room in those theories to accomodate the BBT.
Yes, GR is subjective enough to allow for a lot of things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4555
Location: Scotland
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
| When I saw the Hubble Deep Field photos, I did not see any evolution as the current BB'ers see. |
Why do you think hundreds of experts can see what you cannot see?
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
