Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Alternatives to the Big Bang

  1. #1 Alternatives to the Big Bang 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't really want to make this thread about trying to refute the Big Bang. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume it's got credible evidence (which it basically does), but also assume that it's subject to revision or replacement.

    What are the alternatives?

    We've got "Tired Light", and a few other variations on the expansion theme, but are there any other non-expansionist themed theories?

    Is "Tired Light" the only theory that suggests the universe might not be expanding? There's not like.... oh... say... a variation on relativity that allows for time to apparently pass more slowly at large distances?

    I want to hear other possibilities. I'm always skeptical of a field of theoretical inquiry that narrows itself too quickly to a number of options that I can count on my fingers. That indicates a flimsy chain of assumptions and inferences.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Redshifting caused by gravitation is more likely than tired light, to account for so-called expansion.

    It is easy to point out what is wrong with the big bang idea because there are so many holes in it. There is no really viable idea of how everything came about. I can visualise a steady state universe where there is a process of continuous creation over time but ultimately, no matter how far back you go, there must have been a time when it wasn't. That is still the great unknown for any theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I've wondered about gravity as a possibility. If information about changes in gravitational proximity to the emitting object(s) travels at C, and .... light travels at C, then how is information about the growing distance between a beam of light and the object that emitted it supposed to ever catch up?

    Wouldn't the beam of light believe that it's still right next to its emitter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    There's not like.... oh... say... a variation on relativity that allows for time to apparently pass more slowly at large distances?
    Interesting, but no. No such theory exists. Besides, what would that do?

    You could always go for the steady state theory, which says matter is created as the galaxies move away. However, no other theory apart from the Big Bang has yet credibly managed to explain the cosmic microwave background.

    It is easy to point out what is wrong with the big bang idea because there are so many holes in it.
    What holes? For one thing, it remains the only known theory able to account for the cosmic microwave background, and is a logical consequence of the fact that if you run time backwards, and if everything is moving away, then you get a big bang.

    What caused the Big Bang is a valid question, though.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    It is easy to point out what is wrong with the big bang idea because there are so many holes in it.
    What holes? For one thing, it remains the only known theory able to account for the cosmic microwave background, and is a logical consequence of the fact that if you run time backwards, and if everything is moving away, then you get a big bang.

    What caused the Big Bang is a valid question, though.
    Yes, there are "holes", or better put, inconsistencies or oddities. No decent cosmologist would deny that. But the research is far from finished. Sure, it is possible that some day the current standard model must be replaced with something else. But up to now, no other paradigm is able to explain the observed phenomena as elegant and consistent like the Big Bang theory.

    Just a few days ago, I asked a theoretical cosmologist, how much must go wrong until the standard model would be rejected. He mentioned in his talk that already Peebles postulated "Dark Matter" as a consequence of apparent inconsistencies. I told him that instead of postulating "Dark Matter" in order to keep the standard model valid, one could also have claimed that the model was wrong. He agreed, and said cosmology is always close to the borderline of rejection. But still, despite all the drawbacks, no other theory is as simple, consistent and successful, he said.

    The question about the cause of the Big Bang cannot be answered with physics, because it is outside the valid boundary conditions. And how do you define a "cause" when there is no time that allows for the concept of cause and effect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, as I said, I'm not trying to debate the BBT's accuracy on this thread, tempting though it sometimes may be. I'm just interested in alternatives, because it seems logical to look for them when the incumbent theory hasn't exactly proven itself (at least not to the point of genuine certainty.)



    Gravitational theories interest me because the anomolies that make us postulate Dark Matter point to the possibility that objects may exert gravity over longer distances/ with greater strength than our theories predict. (Or Dark Matter might actually exist... undetectible.... even using the methods we use to detect black holes)

    We know that escaping a gravitational field causes a redshift. But, Hubble's observations suggest that redshift grows with an object's apparent distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    We know that escaping a gravitational field causes a redshift. But, Hubble's observations suggest that redshift grows with an object's apparent distance.
    It's the same thing. Einstein's theories point to the fact that redshift will occur both with distance and moving away or towards a graviational field.

    Gravitational theories interest me because the anomolies that make us postulate Dark Matter point to the possibility that objects may exert gravity over longer distances/ with greater strength than our theories predict. (Or Dark Matter might actually exist... undetectible.... even using the methods we use to detect black holes)
    They interest me too. However, I believe that quantum gravity alone may be able to explain these anomalies. Dark matter is simply an ad hoc way of solving a problem.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Liongold"]
    You could always go for the steady state theory, which says matter is created as the galaxies move away. However, no other theory apart from the Big Bang has yet credibly managed to explain the cosmic microwave background.
    You have a zillion stars putting out EMR and solar material for untold billions of years, where does it all go? It could be nothing more than a haze due to distance. I get those where I live on some misty mornings. Perfectly clear where I am but a mile away, a solid wall of whiteness.

    The CMB should be around 3,000.C, yet is the same temperature as space near us away from stars. -2.7K. Why is that?

    What holes? For one thing, it remains the only known theory able to account for the cosmic microwave background, and is a logical consequence of the fact that if you run time backwards, and if everything is moving away, then you get a big bang.

    What caused the Big Bang is a valid question, though.
    Assuming that the redshift is to do with objects moving away from us. I have an amulet that keeps green elephants away. Proof that it works is that there are no green elephants. A conclusion based on circumstantial evidence is not necessarily correct.

    The redshift according to gravity is indistinguishable and the universe is full of gravitational sources. A few holes for starters:

    The universe starts off with an impossible singularity from where? And created how?

    It should be ultimately stable but instead inflates faster than light. How?

    Matter is formed at around 10^-32 second so gravity appears. The reason that the whole lot did not collapse back into a singularity is?

    There are some laughable explanations but none I find remotely believable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Liongold"]
    They interest me too. However, I believe that quantum gravity alone may be able to explain these anomalies. Dark matter is simply an ad hoc way of solving a problem.
    If we live in a steady state universe, no need for DM or DE. Makes life a lot easier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Remember we're not trying to refute the BBT on this thread. Just looking for alternative theories. My problem with the whole discussion has always been that the competing theories seem to have been narrowed too rapidly to give us too short a list of possibilities to compare.


    A little more creativity might make a big difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Alternatives to the Big Bang 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't really want to make this thread about trying to refute the Big Bang. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume it's got credible evidence (which it basically does), but also assume that it's subject to revision or replacement.

    What are the alternatives?

    We've got "Tired Light", and a few other variations on the expansion theme, but are there any other non-expansionist themed theories?

    Is "Tired Light" the only theory that suggests the universe might not be expanding? There's not like.... oh... say... a variation on relativity that allows for time to apparently pass more slowly at large distances?

    I want to hear other possibilities. I'm always skeptical of a field of theoretical inquiry that narrows itself too quickly to a number of options that I can count on my fingers. That indicates a flimsy chain of assumptions and inferences.

    Kojax

    There is a very good alternative to the BBT that is more credible that the BBT.
    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise.

    My FLAT SPACE universe is based on real evidence with the Expansion of the Light Waves as a replacement for the expansion of space (vacuum(?)

    Light comes in different ENERGY levels as Bohrs Atomic model promotes. These energy levels are also proven by the ARP Redshift anomaly. Quasars have MUCH higher energy levels than the normal galaxies.
    So the variable energy level intrinsic force within these photons cause the expansions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    You know, it would be really funny if it turned out that some aspect of the geometry involved in seeing distant objects were responsible for the Hubble constant.

    Maybe in the process of a whole galaxy or group of stars converging toward appearing as an approximate point source of light, the spectra end up shifting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Can some one think like there was space and very dense matter which was bottled at very compressed state inside the tiny space. The space started to expand causing the matter to dilute form the present universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Can some one think like there was space and very dense matter which was bottled at very compressed state inside the tiny space. The space started to expand causing the matter to dilute form the present universe?
    I don't see how this idea is profoundly different to the conventional Big Bang hypothesis, except for avoiding the singularity. Such an approach would have to explain what kept it so confined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Lemaitrae plus others came up with the idea of the ExoSp.
    But he also had a beginning source to comply with the Conservation of Matter Law.
    His idea was a Primval atom that was very big rather than a singularity.

    Of course, this brings up the question again of how did the EoS get started.
    The BBT is nothing but a lot of questions and no answers.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Alternatives to the Big Bang 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    There is a very good alternative to the BBT that is more credible that the BBT.
    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise.
    As I understand it "cosmogony" is the study of the origins of the universe whereas "cosmology" is the study of the existing universe without necessarily delving into how, or even why, the universe came to exist.
    On that basis the BB is a theory in cosmogony so why do you say "the BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise" and even if it were the case why would that fact affect the credibility of the BBT?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Lemaitrae plus others came up with the idea of the ExoSp.
    Of course, this brings up the question again of how did the EoS get started.
    The BBT is nothing but a lot of questions and no answers.
    Cosmo, will you quit using non-standard, obscure, obfuscating abbreviations. There is no benefit to it and no excuse for it.

    I presume that ExoSp is expansion of space. Is it so very difficult to type that in full, at least once?

    Is EoS also meant to be expansion of space? If so consistency just went out the window. Or is it something else? Evolution of space? Exasperation of space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Alternatives to the Big Bang 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    There is a very good alternative to the BBT that is more credible that the BBT.
    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise.
    As I understand it "cosmogony" is the study of the origins of the universe whereas "cosmology" is the study of the existing universe without necessarily delving into how, or even why, the universe came to exist.
    On that basis the BB is a theory in cosmogony so why do you say "the BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise" and even if it were the case why would that fact affect the credibility of the BBT?
    Cosmogony is analogous to the Old Testament. In other words, it is similar to religion because with religion, all the evidence is mostly fabricated.

    Cosmology is the science of the Universe. Science requires research and evidence.
    So if you believe in science, than you should realize that the Laws of Conservation have been thoroughly researched and tested.
    As far as matter is concerned, the implication here is that matter always existed. So matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.

    The OT is nothing but a creation out of nothing that dates back just 6000 years.
    To give the universe such a brief lifespan is ludicrous.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Lemaitrae plus others came up with the idea of the ExoSp.
    Of course, this brings up the question again of how did the EoS get started.
    The BBT is nothing but a lot of questions and no answers.
    Cosmo, will you quit using non-standard, obscure, obfuscating abbreviations. There is no benefit to it and no excuse for it.

    I presume that ExoSp is expansion of space. Is it so very difficult to type that in full, at least once?

    Is EoS also meant to be expansion of space? If so consistency just went out the window. Or is it something else? Evolution of space? Exasperation of space?
    Well, I generally do not use these abbreviations unless I have the total spelling of the meaning above the abbreviated version.
    However, I will eliminate these shortcuts if you think it is necassary.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Remember we're not trying to refute the BBT on this thread. Just looking for alternative theories. My problem with the whole discussion has always been that the competing theories seem to have been narrowed too rapidly to give us too short a list of possibilities to compare.


    A little more creativity might make a big difference.

    For me the main problem with the big bang is the singularity start. I don't believe they exist but if they did do, at billions/trillions of times the necessary density for a black hole, they would be ultimately stable. More realistically, the universe could have started out with matter and energy spread out, much of it below the necessary density to collapse into a black hole, though a fair bit did, forming the central SMBH's in the middle of galaxies around with matter congregated to form galaxies.

    Though I don't believe in the big bang, we do not have a credible theory to take it's place. Even with the big bang, it is still "something from nothing" unless you want to take it back a step and say the stuff came from a collapsing universe, elsewhere in a multiverse, so allowing conservation of matter and energy over all. But we still do not know the first cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16
    The main problem with our view of the "beginning" of the universe (and I use that term lightly) is that we assume it operates unlike any other phenomena we observe. We have decided it has a start, and it operates in a linear "always expanding" way. This is really quite faulty logic, since everything in the universe operates in a cyclical manner. Why dont we just assume that the expansion of our universe is localized, and that as a result of expansion, SOMEWHERE there has to be a causative force (an area of compression). So the question then becomes "why is this force "undetectable""? We know that the rate of expansion increases the farther away we look. We know that there are galaxies beyond our ability to view. Why is this? They are moving away faster than the speed of light. So what i'm getting at here, is WHAT CAUSES expansion like that in our natural world. There is only one thing I can think of, and thats the trough of wave. In the trough of a wave forces are being pulled away from the center, and the closer to the "peak" you get from the center, the speed of expansion speeds up, and then slows back down again as you reach the "peak" (area of compression). This would explain how spacetime is supposed to be "uniformly curved"(only if you happen to be at the bottom of a wave). This would also explain things like gravity as nothing more than matter clinging to matter in response to energy being removed. Matter is energy that is being drawn in and cooled down in the "expansion" process. (much like the expansion of freon causes heat to be drawn in). This has alot of implications. One would be parts of the universe where multiple forces are condensed into a singular force, instead of the entropy we experience, and in the process, energy is forced off, and that energy cascades down the gradient, and ends up cooling in the bottom of the wave, becoming a form of condensation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Remember we're not trying to refute the BBT on this thread. Just looking for alternative theories. My problem with the whole discussion has always been that the competing theories seem to have been narrowed too rapidly to give us too short a list of possibilities to compare.


    A little more creativity might make a big difference.
    For me it is not pro BB vs. anti BB, because in either case in order to make any
    theoretical progress one is forced to the level sub atomic physics and even pre-
    atomic quantum events which may or may not have occurred and began Time
    as we know it, such that we say we have a Universe with certain structure and
    forces etc. I came to this view clear back in the 1960s as a student at the U of Chicago - I guess in some way I represent the Univ of Chicago School of thought?

    The salient aspect of my focus is not so much whether there was a BB or not,
    but how and in what sense, and any larger framework, a BB would fit as a natural
    event, and this focus immediately takes one to pre atomic conditions where quite
    frankly there isnt much hard data. And time scales are different. A nanosecond in this realm, under these conditions, could be several universe-lifetimes on the
    other side of the line, so to speak. And the only way you are ever going to test
    "state of being" scenarios is through experiments in particle physics, for example
    looking for the Higgs Boson which may or may not shed any light on these matters.
    But it was precisely because of the anticipated need (some day) to connect pre
    and post atomic physics into a Unified Whole that String Theory, for example,
    was developed ..... but the real world counterparts of such a theory have yet to
    be proven/identified in any lab, so far. But the theoretical works lays a foundation
    for what labs might try and look for,or take notice of if anomolies in ordinary
    particle behavior are noticed. To my mind these kinds of explorations address
    the fundamental issues involved in what BB could mean, might mean, does mean,
    or may not mean at all, in any substantive sense.

    For example, I know what Oppenheimer thought. (Teller for example thought
    this was all wish-washy nonsense and he had a German expression for that).
    Oppenheimer thought the pre-atomic realm must have consisted of a very large
    group of competing forces, in very hostile competition, almost a natural selection
    process where the strongest evolving forces eventually won out to create a group of basic forces which in the end express themselves as relatively concrete manifestations we know as the building blocks for protons and neutrons. Basically
    a bubble of existence consisting of fundamental forces and energy cast off from a
    (mother source?) which for a time (billions of years) could be self-sustaining but
    subject to entropy. As seen from one vantage point that 'scenario' could be
    synonymous with the BB, or a precursor leading to a BB and the Universe we
    know - Time & Space created at the same time. Oppenheimer thought a hallmark
    of such a scenario would be a set of fundamental forces very well defended given
    their history of how they evolved in hostile conditions, but Oppy thought other
    'universe scenarios' were possible ... and of course theoretical physics play on
    that very field.

    But whatever the case, from our perspective and need, all theoretical matters
    must be tested and made concrete. Intelligence has become a creative and
    interactive force in its own right, to some extent. (some people say 'Hydrogen
    thinking'?)

    But for me, the whole issue of a Big Band is no more and no less than Particle physicists doing their work and investigators on the macro scale making their contributions, with the two merging at some point to give a concrete perspective
    or maybe even a new physics.

    All I can say is that for me personally I have never been too concerned if there
    was a BB or not so much as the forces and time scales and dynamic processes
    involved which evolved from something and will end in something, and some
    part of the whole thing defining ourselves. Maybe that's a religious view - I dont
    know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Yes there is a very good alternative 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I'm new to posting so please bear with me for a bit and please read my posting titled Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe

    It's quite rough but does get the point and concept accross and the standard model is going down without a doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Yes there is a very good alternative 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I'm new to posting so please bear with me for a bit and please read my posting titled Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe

    It's quite rough but does get the point and concept accross and the standard model is going down without a doubt.
    Well, if you will read all my posts, you will see that I have cosistently refuted the BBT and I also do not accept 'black holes but consider them to be high concentrations of neutron stars in the cores of galaxies.

    But my main interest is cosmology and refuting the BBT.
    The BBT is based on the red shifts (RS) observed by Slipher, Hubble and Humason.

    At the lime of these observations, there was only one source for the RS's and that was the Doppler RS's.
    So these RS's were accepted as Doppler but had to be refuted because of the implied central location of our position in the universe.

    So these RS's had to be replaced and the 'expansion of space' (EoS) was adopted.
    Since this is a subjective creation, it only leads to more questions.

    So I consider the BBT to be cosmoGONY since it implies 'creation out of nothing' (time zero).

    This is power science similar to the Roman churches geocentric promotion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Hawking describes how he and a colleague developed a new mathematical technique that proved that “there must have been a big bang singularity” at the beginning of the universe. He then goes on to state that “it is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe...!”


    A Brief History of Time. Page 50.


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Reply 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Hope you are not getting this twice, my computer crashed when I pushed the submit button the first time. My first computer was an IBM XT with a 5mb hard drive and I have been swearing at them ever sense and anything that can go wrong actually does.

    You make a couple of good points, I haven't yet read all your postings and from your ranking on this board I have to think that might take awhile.

    Anyway although I don't buy your position on black holes your ideas about the maybe erroneous conclusions on our expanding universe based on the red shifting measurements are of interest to me and if true will help solve one of my problems.

    Also I am glad you brought up the point about our lucky position in the middle of the universe. <Smile> Being able to see illuminated galaxies out to the same 13 – 14 billion light years distance in every direction is a bit much and to assume we are in the middle of the universe rather than one of the many other higher probability solutions might at least qualify as a conversation starter. My first choice would be our instrumentation still needs a few years to grow into the task at hand and people being what they are, are doing their best come up with an answer before it's time. Can't say I blame them for that, but anybody that really thinks we are in the middle of the universe. I would sooner think photons have a max range and start dropping into subspace when they run out of steam. What can I say I'm a big SciFi fan and what appears to be impossible sometimes comes back as so obvious it really does hurt. But that's hindsight for you.

    If on the other hand what I believe to be true turns out right, I would expect all that talk about the discovery of a truly immense void will turn out to be located in the middle of our visible universe. Again what can I say, if a black hole reaching critical mass goes pop, I would expect a very large void to be where it was and that would have to be at the center of it all from any point of view in our visible universe and if anybody can show believable prof that the biggest of the voids is not at the center of our visible universe, I will bow out at that time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Lance

    I had the same idea of the BBT as being a 'hollow sphere. But since I now refute it entirely, than I place it in the same category as the bible and that is a religion born of the human mind.

    That rating here on this forum may be accurate, but to be honest, I am an amateur astronomer/cosmologist that has studied these two subjects for more than 20 years and with an extensive library of books written by the experts.

    But I have sense enough to think about all these topics and see the glaring flaws
    that most everyone accepts as truth.
    Since I believe in the basic physics like the Laws of Conservation, the history of the heliocentric theory and the scientists that contributed to its current acceptance, I cannot accept any science that tries to refute or change its history.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Lemaitrae plus others came up with the idea of the ExoSp.
    But he also had a beginning source to comply with the Conservation of Matter Law.
    His idea was a Primval atom that was very big rather than a singularity.

    Of course, this brings up the question again of how did the EoS get started.
    The BBT is nothing but a lot of questions and no answers.

    Cosmo
    Again, it is all based upon assuming that there is no causative force. Its the same kind of thinking that gave us the flat earth, or the concept of spontaneous generation. It is totally devoid of every bit of reasoning science has to offer, and yet we still have people attempting to find a particle that will explain their observations (or lack thereof). If you were a meteorologist, and the only radar you had was of one specific region of the planet, and you didnt have access to anything else because lets just assume you dont have satellites, so any information about the other side of the world is totally inaccessible. Would a meteorologist ever assume that a cold front could cover the entire globe? Even if they only had information regarding one section, and that section was obviously experiencing a cold front, they would never assume an area of expansion exists EVERYWHERE, because that would defy some mainstay principles of physics. But for some reason, cosmological astrophysics has been able to do just that, invent a variable, and give it some menacing name(Dark matter), and then pretend we know what the heck it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Dangerous Thinking 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Religious intimidation is a very insidious tool used to perpetuate control over large populations while making it hard to refute. After all if someone talks to God today they are simply crazy, but if they talked to God two thousand years ago they were saints and prophets who really did hear the word of God and were commanded to bring it to all the people. Priest and preachers are the lawyers and judges of religion and shall decide who gets burned at the stake for wrong thinking.

    Cosmo you aren't thinking something wrong are you? <Smile> I could be wrong and I frequently am and I would like to apologize to all who are never wrong for being the nuisance I am, but I think I might enjoy our conversations.

    One of the things the Internet and World Wide Web does for everyone is that it is hard to be intimidated while sitting in your home talking to people who might be anywhere in the world and have no idea where you are. Next once an idea has been put out on the Net, it can't ever be taken back or stopped if even one other person has seen it. Whatever else reality might be the social mind of man is still but a child. The majority might rule but is frequently not right, so you tell me, what is the new social mind of man going to become?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Dangerous Thinking 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Religious intimidation is a very insidious tool used to perpetuate control over large populations while making it hard to refute.
    It may even be as insidious as adopting an adversarial position simply because one is adversarial in nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Lance

    The answer to your question on your last post is that we will have to wait until these power factions realize that they could be wrong.
    This time will come when those next generation space telescopes are launched and their much deeper probes into space will create a dillema for the BBT.
    Some are already being constructed now with sizes from 24 meters to 40 meters.
    This will allow them to probe from 4+ times further in space.
    I wonder how the BB'ers are going to explain those huge redshifts?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Alternatives to the Big Bang 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't really want to make this thread about trying to refute the Big Bang. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume it's got credible evidence (which it basically does), but also assume that it's subject to revision or replacement.

    What are the alternatives?

    We've got "Tired Light", and a few other variations on the expansion theme, but are there any other non-expansionist themed theories?

    Is "Tired Light" the only theory that suggests the universe might not be expanding? There's not like.... oh... say... a variation on relativity that allows for time to apparently pass more slowly at large distances?

    I want to hear other possibilities. I'm always skeptical of a field of theoretical inquiry that narrows itself too quickly to a number of options that I can count on my fingers. That indicates a flimsy chain of assumptions and inferences.

    Kojax

    There is a very good alternative to the BBT that is more credible that the BBT.
    The BBT is nothing but CosmoGONY in disguise.

    My FLAT SPACE universe is based on real evidence with the Expansion of the Light Waves as a replacement for the expansion of space (vacuum(?)

    Light comes in different ENERGY levels as Bohrs Atomic model promotes. These energy levels are also proven by the ARP Redshift anomaly. Quasars have MUCH higher energy levels than the normal galaxies.
    So the variable energy level intrinsic force within these photons cause the expansions.

    Cosmo
    I was just reading about something like this in a magazine today. I'll have to go back and get the name to give a proper link, but here's the wiki article related to the theory:;

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

    Apparently the idea is to do with how information about a black hole can be encoded into its event horizon, and then just extending this idea to the world we're familiar with, suggesting that the outer edge of the universe as we know it might be kind of like another event horizon.

    It's found limited validation in some of the graviton detection projects. They keep picking up noise (which is hardly surprising given the number of sources they have to constantly filter out), and some people suggest that the noise might be caused by genuine gaps in reality, or blurring of the "holographic" image.

    Not sure if it's the same thing as what you're talking about, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    The CMBR is equivalent to an 'idral' gas and its expansion is 3 dimensional.
    So these radiations are moving in all directions. So that creates the space noise.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Lance

    The answer to your question on your last post is that we will have to wait until these power factions realize that they could be wrong.
    This time will come when those next generation space telescopes are launched and their much deeper probes into space will create a dilemma for the BBT.
    Some are already being constructed now with sizes from 24 meters to 40 meters.
    This will allow them to probe from 4+ times further in space.
    I wonder how the BB'ers are going to explain those huge redshifts?

    Cosmo
    I can hardly wait for the new instrumentation to come online. Yes you are right. There is something very fundamental about space-time, gravity and the speed of a particle moving through space-time, that everyone is not seeing. At a future time someone looking back through the eyes of hindsight will say, those ignorant primitives couldn't possibly be my ancestors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Whatever the CMB is, it's pretty much opaque to most of our telescopes so we won't be able to see any further with better telescopes. Just see "the mist" better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •