Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 187 of 187

Thread: So who believes in the big bang theory?

  1. #101  
    Guest
    And there lies the rub, as William Shakespeare once said.

    You cannot comprehend it from nothing, I canot comprehend it as always being there, if it had always been there then my view is that it's energy would have long ago dissipated.

    Anyway it's al pretty much academic, have a look at my new thread 'near earth collisions for 100 yrs' Nasa have found this rather large rock due to come within a half diameter of the earth in 2036, then again within 1 year.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    And there lies the rub, as William Shakespeare once said.

    You cannot comprehend it from nothing, I cannot comprehend it as always being there, if it had always been there then my view is that it's energy would have long ago dissipated.
    The view that energy would have long ago dissipated is the "standard" view that Entropy will become complete, i.e. all useful energy will be used up. That is why the big crunch would have to recycle old cold matter back into useful energy. Big bangs occur, generate matter, life, etc., and expand out into the greater universe where the relatively old cold matter is attracted into other crunches that are always forming and then banging somewhere out there in all directions.

    But you are right, one person's rose is someone else's thorn.

    Anyway it's all pretty much academic, have a look at my new thread 'near earth collisions for 100 yrs' Nasa have found this rather large rock due to come within a half diameter of the earth in 2036, then again within 1 year.....
    Death by asteroid? I consider that a quick and easy way to go without having to make a bunch of arrangements, :-D .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    earlier i wrote a response someplace, that if your looking for an answer to what came first and you decision is complicated by Gods roll, then accept God and the universe have always existed. neither or both require a beginning so why make one up. this is the cause and reasoning for BBT to start with and mega, all BBT Ive read indicates a single unit dispersement of matter and the make up of what that unit was the only dispute.

    i have to agree with bogie's view over most and only have questions on just how much one bang can produce. at least his view fits a realm of logic i don't see in BB.

    i will check out the rather large rock thing, but my guess we will have more than one shot at it from space, by then.

    time for Omaha.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i have to agree with bogie's view over most and only have questions on just how much one bang can produce. at least his view fits a realm of logic i don't see in BB.
    The answer to how much one bang can produce lays in the amount of matter that can accumulate in a big crunch before it bangs. My idea is that there is a threshold that I call "critical capacity". When critical capacity is reached there is encough compression and heat and "gamma chaos" to trigger the bang. So big bangs would be pretty much the same in how much they can produce because they would be pretty much the same when the bang occurs.

    i will check out the rather large rock thing, but my guess we will have more than one shot at it from space, by then.
    Positive thinking is good!

    time for Omaha.....
    Still at PP or did you find a $ game?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    String Theory may offer an alternative to standard BBT. Instead of the universe starting from a singularity, it results from the collision of membranes of seperate universes in a multiverse. It would seem to fit the conditions we see now, as an infinitly expanding universe makes no sense. It clearly has a beginning but would have no end.

    It's possible that as our membrane(universe) expands, it could eventually come into contact with another membrane, starting a new cycle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Sanity

    Well, it certainly is not me. Ha ha.

    I am not a follower of the bible.
    I look to Nature for my religious solutions.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    [quote="bogie"]
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i have to agree with bogie's view over most and only have questions on just how much one bang can produce. at least his view fits a realm of logic i don't see in BB.
    The answer to how much one bang can produce lays in the amount of matter that can accumulate in a big crunch before it bangs. My idea is that there is a threshold that I call "critical capacity". When critical capacity is reached there is encough compression and heat and "gamma chaos" to trigger the bang. So big bangs would be pretty much the same in how much they can produce because they would be pretty much the same when the bang occurs.[quote]


    ..........................

    started to reply and realized i was saying what you said..agree.

    yes, still at PP, play money. lost 20k last night. they say there exploring ways around law so will give a couple more weeks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Currently I think that there is no better theory avalaible than the big bang. That's said this believe, is not a dogma believe. If someone find an another theory, and suceed to be backing by many other people, it won't hurt me at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    Currently I think that there is no better theory avalaible than the big bang. That's said this believe, is not a dogma believe. If someone find an another theory, and suceed to be backing by many other people, it won't hurt me at all.
    it hurts me to hear some one say "if most feel something, i would agree", since this is the very reason BBT is so dominate. not to be argumentative i would be interested in which BBT you consider valid. there have been so many in its very short 60-70 year life? also why you feel there is a need, all thats out there could not just have always been? this is certainly no less possible, than some very complex situations that have been orchestrated to give an appearance, something happened. that something defies logic and only can give understanding to a beginning. this need (a beginning) really only begs for additional questions, none of which are answered with logic. put another way BBT no matter how you look at it, infers a something and that something must have come from someplace or even that was always there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1
    Very clear explaination, thank you. One thing I'm a bit unsure of here-- are the singularities within black holes the same as the original, big bang singularity? Why don't they create universes?
    Thanks,
    Norm
    http://bostonenglish.pl
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    NS Comment

    The BB originated in the mind of a priest with a PhD named Georges Lemaitrae in about 1927.
    He could have been aware of Vesto Sliphers redshift observations.
    In 1929 when Edwin Hubble announced his redshift observations and increasing velocities presumed by the larger redshifts, it was than accepted that the universe was an expanding universe.
    However, these Dopplerian redshifts 'implied' that we were in the center of the universe. So this 'geocentric' implication had to be replaced.
    Thus, Doppler (real science) had to be replaced with another idea.
    So the subjective invention of an 'expanding space' was created and an expanding ballon analogy is used.
    This is all 'subjective' and UN scientific. But science embraced this with open arms.
    So the BB is nothing but an idea that was born in the mind of a priest.

    All the following science is purely 'subjective' and that incudes the CMBR that is assumed to be the clincher evidence but this radiation is nothing but a 'thermolized equalibrium' temperature in a Steady State Universe
    that complies with the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says heat will redistribute itself from 'hot to cold' until an equalized state is achieved.

    So the BB never happened.
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Big Bang. Its the best theory I have read so far. The thing I have a problem with is that it apparently all "started" many billions of years ago, so theres something missing for me to grasp it (why then and not three years earlier?).

    Potentialy it could be that the energy(matter) was in another universe or in an other as yet unknown state and changed, a bit like you say it starting to rain when in reality it was usually already raining elsewhere where you couldnt see and when it got within your proximity(perception) you see your surroundings go from no rain to rain and conclude that the rain has "started".

    Anyway when we understand what the dark energy phenomenon is we'll probably have to adjust out model of the universe or have other clues as to its nature. (imagining a model of what happens in a black hole may help as well).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    time given to BBT is intended to be vague. everything is based on what is seen as known universe. if tomorrow we could see light and distances in all directions an estimated 17 billion light years out, then BB will be said to have been 17 billion years ago. the idea is nothing we could ever see should be the actual pre forming of the universe. as you continue to read and try to grasp BB, you will find many such questions.

    the matter you suggest could have come from another universe is coming up more and more on the misunderstanding of black holes. generally in a reverse order or that our BH produce other universe.
    a black hole is the final state of a death to a very large star. this matter will in time produce other stars and/or systems with in our universe and we know this because we see it happening. the matter to form the new stars came from someplace.

    briefly; a BH is a star 20-25 times ours. the matter with in this star has burned up (gone, not there and send out into space as energy) this then can no longer support the form of the outer star and this outer form implodes to a unit known as a BH. (this unit is about the size of our sun or 1/20th the original star and with the original gravity) the next step is evaporations as the remaining matter disburses into space. there is no hole or any worm hole, just as the burnt tree truck left no hole after consumed by fire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm
    Very clear explaination, thank you. One thing I'm a bit unsure of here-- are the singularities within black holes the same as the original, big bang singularity? Why don't they create universes?
    Thanks,
    Norm
    http://bostonenglish.pl
    norm; read what i mentioned above.

    its that singularity in BBT that really makes me question the whole thought. when & where could anything have come from to form this or if its the result of implosion- what imploded.

    no one has suggested this, but we could well be the result of a BB from some universe so large we couldn't conceive and our entire universe is a speck inside it or the reverse for ours and ours form something so small that nothing could ever be detected. even this would infer 10s of billions of universe from one BH, since so much matter is dispersed. it just seems much simpler to understand that matter will become another star or something, as some kind of natural process with in our understanding.

    since time relations would be so dramatic both could be and as those 10's of billions of universe died out our star could still form in a timely manner from those deaths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115 My Big BangS theory 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    I very much like the idea on a multiverse, that when a singularity is created in the "higer" universe. At the point of becoming a singularity it becomes a seperate universe. This is something which i believe to be the "everlasting process" and whilst we (inside the universe) witness it to be expanding, the higher universe, would witness it contracting. Of course, everyone knows that gravity becomes stronger and stronger and stronger as it nears the absolute point of singularity. of course as it does this, we (inside the "smaller" universe would witness that in the effect of......DARK ENERGY :-) which expands OUR universe at an ever faster rate. (Newton's law of for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)

    Of course, I also believe that each singularity has its own mesure of time.

    So......When our universe eventually dissappears into nothingness, as it will in a google or so. (thanks to atomic decay) the "higher" universe would witness the destruction of our universe simply as........black hole evaporation. :-)

    Well.....im not a scientist, im just a humble Chef.
    Hope my thought experiements will help.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116 Big bang 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2
    Big Bang is really not the beginning of universe. It is one of the parts of its whole process. Universe has no beginning and no end. Now it is expanding and after at certain condition it will shrink. Now we are in the time of its expansion. We may not see its shrink, because it will take very long period. There is much difference in our time and the universe’s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Guest
    I believe the big bang is a possible scenario for the birth/origin of the Universe, others include God, Steady state, plus many interesting theories first proposed on this science forum. I believe the ultimate answer has yet to be found, though passionately believe it never will, I am currently looking for it in the bottom of this glass...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Does a black hole get bigger as it sucks in more stuff?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Guest
    A black hole is an infinitely dense singularity, therefore it does not 'increase in size' as more matter falls into it. - this is my understanding from reading the works of others. I think the event horizon may expand which would seem logical but you'd have to verify that for yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by starlight
    Does a black hole get bigger as it sucks in more stuff?
    remember planets and objects other then stars are very small in mass compared to what the star was and became. however these units are thought to disintegrate as "sucked in". stars are massive but as the latest illustrations from NASA infer, this meal is in a stream of gases from a star being absorbed or little mass at one time and over a period of time. we can put a lot of gas into very small container, even on earth. any increase in mass of the "hole" or its horizon would be negligible.

    our sun is 99.80 % of all mass in our solar system. even most of the remaining .20 is gas. our star is about 1/20th of what is thought to be the required size to become a BH ie implode. larger ones are thought to have been 25 times our sun and larger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Let's assume there are 1 billion earths around one black hole and it eats all of it up. There must be a limit on how dense it could possibly be and then probably would explode. What do you guys think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Guest
    If it consumed a whole galaxy it would still not explode, I understand that the blackholes found in some super galaxies are thought to contain many times the mass of our own galaxy. As for the sun, it is now thought to be about 1/3rd the size of a star which would become a black hole, and about 1/2 the mass of a star that might nova. There is no known mechanism for a black hole to 'explode'.


    N.B With reference Jackson33 indicating 25 solar mass's for a black hole and my own of 3, there seem to be wide ranging views so don't take either as absolute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    So if everything were to reverse and shift inward in the far future, all the black holes will be merging into one and eating everything else in its way. What a beast. Cool science fiction movie!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Would the black hole explode, shrink, or evaporate as it moves inward?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If it consumed a whole galaxy it would still not explode, I understand that the blackholes found in some super galaxies are thought to contain many times the mass of our own galaxy. As for the sun, it is now thought to be about 1/3rd the size of a star which would become a black hole, and about 1/2 the mass of a star that might nova. There is no known mechanism for a black hole to 'explode'.


    N.B With reference Jackson33 indicating 25 solar mass's for a black hole and my own of 3, there seem to be wide ranging views so don't take either as absolute.
    the size of the original star is thought to be about 20 to 25 times what our star is to become a BH. the BH itself is one to maybe three times our star as a star and while in this condition BH, the total gravity is what that star was to begin with, before implosion. think we agree but any google of BH will indicate this.

    this gravity would not be enough to consume all that many other stars or systems. the only reference i know of is a theory that several giant stars become BH and somehow join or one consumes the others. i think this has be dropped. it was an effort to explain a Big Bang and that original unit kind of a universal BH, to begin with.

    the process from implosion to evaporation is also explained and the times given are in millions of years for the process. the process of evaporation leaves no room for a single unit in the way you describe BH's. the mass and gravity prior to total collapse could be, but the evaporation or dispersement of matter should be happening (for a horizon to appear).

    personally i see no reason why any fusion reactor with lost fuel or substance should not become nova or fall into the space once held and have a 1/25th reduction in size for a moment in space time and the gravity equal to its then mass (equal to what was when imploded) and then disperse or vaporize as any other star. but this is not what is said to be and why i question the BH as a former star to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by starlight
    Would the black hole explode, shrink, or evaporate as it moves inward?
    as mega said, all this BH stuff is reasonable new and theory runs the gamut. what we see through Hubble or NASA is a shot in time to process that takes a great deal of time.

    its not likely any BH is rummaging through a galaxy eating up planets, not getting bigger or will never explode. the mass of what is called a black hole is near the density any absorption should not be possible unless this is one matter that can fit with another in the same space. Gases can do this but sooner or later something will give, maybe what is called evaporation.

    the implosion is similar to a weakening support of anything. the elements that are burning (so to speak) to cause the energy and light we see in our sun, eventually are gone. sent out into space in various forms of energy.
    the outer parts of the star that have been held in check away from the center lose support and fall toward a central point. when they are all there the process of evaporation has begun (the process cycle overlaps) but still talking thousands of years if not hundreds of thousand. no real hole is made and whatever this thing is is not seen because it gives no light and blocks light from the other side. i feel the mass is to great by volume and no light is possible by substance that light as we know it is detectable. most think the gravitational pull of the immense mass will not allow light to exit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mega; one thing on density. the type density required for BB people is only explained from the point that no comparable density could exist in space or that which space filled to allow formations. this density was unique and maximum density is a current understanding of physics. at least thats the way i see something i can't understand...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    An interesting discussion you have started here. I think the material the universe consists
    of must have been coming somewhere from. Hence, all must have been included
    somewhere before the big bang. Therefore, even if the big bang was real, the
    begin of the universe must have been an other one and something has
    been even before the big bang, respectively, as the big bang
    was real, at all.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hello!

    An interesting discussion you have started here. I think the material the universe consists
    of must have been coming somewhere from. Hence, all must have been included
    somewhere before the big bang. Therefore, even if the big bang was real, the
    begin of the universe must have been an other one and something has
    been even before the big bang, respectively, as the big bang
    was real, at all.

    Steve
    since you have a doubt as to this big bang; i don't feel guilty in saying this theory, although accepted in science did not occur---in my opinion.

    what ever you consider the universe to be, has always been that. to me the concept of "always" makes sense and requires very little additional to make sense of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    If there was no big bang, why is everything moving outward? It must have something to do with the very first black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by starlight
    If there was no big bang, why is everything moving outward? It must have something to do with the very first black hole.
    this is as the big bang somewhat contested. everything in space is moving and at some pretty fast speeds. we, earth, travels around the sun. the sun and our little solar move around our galaxy center and our little four galaxy cluster is moving. if the observances of red shifts or the reverse blue shift have been properly understood then the meaning could be some combined movement and that observation. it could also have been interpreted wrong. the idea of expanding universe however is not material to anything i consider possible or as in BB, not probable. for instance if all the universe was spinning then the natural effect should be a general outward motion. my problem here is this is said to be from us, our little spot in this very large universe and i feel we are not anywhere near any perceived center....

    no the black hole thing has made many people think in terms to explain what was considered a single unit in BB theory. the black hole or at least the one we are talking about is simply the remains of what was a star. all it is said to be may not be at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Ali
    Ali is offline
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    in space
    Posts
    1
    its kid of hard for me to actually to believe that
    i mean if u are religious its kinda hard to believe that since u believe something else
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565

    Starlight

    Everything in the universe is not moving away from each other.
    This interpretation of an expanding universe has replaced Doppler science with a subjective 'expansion of space' as the cause of the cosmological redshifts.

    My interpretation of these redshift observations as the cause is that the LIGHT WAVES are expanding. This creates the 'illusion' that space us expanding.

    There is plenty of science for support of this view.
    EM field patterns that show expansions in the central bulges between the magnetic field poles and the electric charges.
    The M-M experiments have proven that space has NO influence on the lightwaves.
    The Halton Arp redshift anomalies imply that the 'temperature' of the emitting objects creates different redshifts at similar distances. The reason for this is that light has different ENERGY levels and this causes the different redshifts at the same distances because these energy levels cause the light to expand at different rates.
    This is my opinion.

    On the other hand, there is no evidence to explain what is causing the EoS? So there is no real science to support this view.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2
    I go by the multiple big bang theory. The universe is infinite with no begining and no end. The current phase is an expansion from just one big bang of infinite big bangs. Eventually when the universe cools it will contract and another big bang will ocuur, repeating the cycle evermore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Avern
    I go by the multiple big bang theory. The universe is infinite with no begining and no end. The current phase is an expansion from just one big bang of infinite big bangs. Eventually when the universe cools it will contract and another big bang will ocuur, repeating the cycle evermore
    if you can feel this way, why would it have to be the whole universe. the same principle is already seen every day. stars blow up, form nebula and new stars are formed. the old dead stuff then becomes new and the cycle goes on....

    since space is 3 degree K and cold, how much cooling are you expecting.
    i might also wonder what activity in matter is stimulated from cooling rather than heating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Avern
    I go by the multiple big bang theory. The universe is infinite with no begining and no end. The current phase is an expansion from just one big bang of infinite big bangs. Eventually when the universe cools it will contract and another big bang will ocuur, repeating the cycle evermore
    Are you assuming that the BB is the result of an explosion?
    If you are, then you should know that the BB is NOT an explosion but just an expansion of space.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    There is an article in the 2006 December issue of the S & T Magazine entitled 'Where Did Our Universe Come From?'

    However, it deals primarily with the 'dark matter' problem.

    The nuclear accelerators are smashing matter to smithereens to find the 'god' particle that may have created the BBU?

    Now this search for DM involves Gamma Rays' that may lead to a solution for the BB origin?

    I believe both of these searches will be without end.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    S & T = Sky and Telescope
    BB = Big Bang
    DM = Dark Matter
    NS = NoSense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    Mike NS said:

    "Everything in the universe is not moving away from each other. This interpretation of an expanding universe has replaced Doppler science with a subjective 'expansion of space' as the cause of the cosmological redshifts."

    - There's nothing subjective about the observations confirming the expansion of space. (Read about COBE and the Cosmic Background Radiation)

    "My interpretation of these redshift observations as the cause is that the LIGHT WAVES are expanding. This creates the 'illusion' that space us expanding...The reason for this is that light has different ENERGY levels and this causes the different redshifts at the same distances because these energy levels cause the light to expand at different rates."

    - Which disproves the theory, since the entire spectrum is actually uniformly shifted to the red.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Guest
    Here's a complete description of the BBT, the myths, legends and misunderstandings attached or commonly perceived.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by redewenur
    - There's nothing subjective about the observations confirming the expansion of space. (Read about COBE and the Cosmic Background Radiation)
    The 'expansion of space' is not related to COBE.
    It is derived from Lemaitraes idea of an EoS that he cincluded was from the Slipher, Hubble and Humason observations implying a Doppler expansion.

    - Which disproves the theory, since the entire spectrum is actually uniformly shifted to the red.
    How does the EoS disprove the EoLWs since the light waves do the same thing as the EoS does with MORE evidence for its support than the EoS?

    Since the Doppler science was refuted, what evidence is there for the EoS?
    Also, what is the CAUSE for the expansion of space?
    Can you answer that?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Here's a complete description of the BBT, the myths, legends and misunderstandings attached or commonly perceived.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
    That site above requires too mush time and I am familiar with them.

    They do NOT explain how it all began plus other answers that the BBU raises like 'cause and effect'.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Um, what exactly do you mean by "cause and effect" here Mike?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Um, what exactly do you mean by "cause and effect" here Mike?
    The expansion of space is an EFFECT.
    What is the cause of this expansion?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    Mike said: "The 'expansion of space' is not related to COBE."

    Pardon?

    So, in your opinion, what is COBE designed to do, if not measure with good accuracy the CMBR? - Or is it that you think that the CMBR says nothing about the expansion of space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by redewenur
    Mike said: "The 'expansion of space' is not related to COBE."

    Pardon?

    So, in your opinion, what is COBE designed to do, if not measure with good accuracy the CMBR? - Or is it that you think that the CMBR says nothing about the expansion of space?
    The CMBR is a thermolized equilibrium temperature of the space particles.

    It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that 'heat flows from hot to cold' regions only until an equal temperature is reached throughout the system.
    With a temperature that varies by only 7/100,000K, I think that is equal enough.

    Mckellar discovered a interstellar space molecule back in 1940 that had a temperature of 2K.

    This preceded Gamows prediction a decade later of a residual BB temperature left over from the beginning of the BB.
    He oredicted a temperature of from 5K to 10K.
    So with this knowledge, I will accept McKellars data over Gamows.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    OK, Mike, let's go through that a piece at a time. You said:

    "Mckellar discovered a interstellar space molecule back in 1940 that had a temperature of 2K."

    - Please tell me more about this "Mckellar". I'm really keen to read about his work, but I've been unable to find any reference to him in any encyclopedia, or anywhere on the internet. Can you give me a link, or reference?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by redewenur
    OK, Mike, let's go through that a piece at a time. You said:

    "Mckellar discovered a interstellar space molecule back in 1940 that had a temperature of 2K."

    - Please tell me more about this "Mckellar". I'm really keen to read about his work, but I've been unable to find any reference to him in any encyclopedia, or anywhere on the internet. Can you give me a link, or reference?"
    The Encyclopedia of Cosmology has Andrew McKellar and his diccovery listed on pages 39 and 101
    He is/was an Australian Astrophycisist.
    This Encyclopedia is edited by Noriss S. Hetherington and the book is printed by Garland Publishing, Inc. in New York and London, 1993.

    I am sure there are other sources of this information.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Um, what exactly do you mean by "cause and effect" here Mike?
    The expansion of space is an EFFECT.
    What is the cause of this expansion?

    NS
    Um, the expansion of space is more a phenomena - but ignoring that the expansion of space really falls out of the GR equations, the universe cant be static. It must either be contracting or expanding and we notice it to be expanding - i dont see your problem?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Um, the expansion of space is more a phenomena - but ignoring that the expansion of space really falls out of the GR equations, the universe cant be static. It must either be contracting or expanding and we notice it to be expanding - i dont see your problem?
    Einstein himself admitted he made a blunder when he introduced his 'cosmological constant'.
    Well, he was wrong because he did not need it to begin with. He was wrong in assuming that a 'static' universe would collapse because he ignored Newtons 3rd Law of Motion that I interpret as 'inertial resistance' or 'equal and opposite reactions' to all forces.

    Example:
    In the galaxy clusters, Zwicky noticed that the galaxy velocities were increased relative to their determined mass, based on their luminosities.
    These enhancements of velocities implied an increase in masses.
    Yet, there was no collapse of these clusters even though the enhanced gravity was determined to be 10x to 20x times greater. This then is because the velocities increased to resist collapse.

    This is an example of 'equal and opposite reactions' to prevent collapse.

    The hydrogen atom also does not collapse but for another reason.
    There is a magnetic interaction between the protons 'spin' MF and the electrons MF from its orbital motion.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Well, he was wrong because he did not need it to begin with. He was wrong in assuming that a 'static' universe would collapse because he ignored Newtons 3rd Law of Motion that I interpret as 'inertial resistance' or 'equal and opposite reactions' to all forces.
    Please show me how to phrase newtons third law in General relativity - as im sure you cant. Once again show me the maths for the stable atom using your magnetic stabilization - i think you would find that it is not stable
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Please show me how to phrase newtons third law in General relativity - as im sure you cant. Once again show me the maths for the stable atom using your magnetic stabilization - i think you would find that it is not stable
    Inertia is mass. Momentum is mass in motion. So when an orbitting body is influenced by another, the center of gravity causes the 1st body to move in the opposite direction around this center of gravity.

    How would GR explain this?

    Einsteins GR is supported by VERY TINY corrections that I believe can be MIND MANIPULATED.
    I have seen 'spiritual' influences on the physical level. That is why so many people belive in religion.

    Einsteins GR cannot solve the Zwicky Dark Matter problem because these are NOT tiny corrections. See my solution of this problem in 'pseudoscience' where it was 'wrongly moved.

    I solved the reason why the hydrogen atom does not collapse. I do not need QM to solve a problem that never existed in the 1st place.
    I will post on this subject tomorrow.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I have some objections to the theory. In the first place, why must everything have a begginning? We mostly accept that a spatial distance can be infinite (or at least it seems that space has no spatial end). Why can't a temporal distance be infinite as well?


    As far as the observational evidence goes, it doesn't logically add up for me. Hubble's law is v = H*r

    V is velocity at which the object is percieved to move away from us.
    H is Hubble's constant.
    R is the distance between the object and the Earth.

    It's a linear function. If both the earth and the distant object are moving away from a common third point in space, you should need to use some kind of a function that uses pi or sine or cosine or tangient.... etc. A triangle or circle function would be needed to describe it.

    I agree that an object moving toward or away from us can shift the color of the light. I don't agree that it's the only thing that can cause a red shift. Anything that would accelerate or decelerate any ordinary object will redshift or blue shift light.

    I'll repost the example used earlier by musicalaviator :

    The speed of light is constant. It always travells the same speed.

    If a fighter jet is flying at the speed of sound, and fires a bullet which is accelerated to a static speed of mach 1, the bullet will initially fly out the barell at mach 2 compared to the ground. If the same gun is on a plane flying mach 2, the bullet will be Mach 3 on barell exit.

    If a torch is shone out the front of a spacecraft on the launchpad the lightbeam flys out at the speed of light (C)

    Put that spacecraft into a few thousand km/hr escape trajectory, the light is still travelling at C

    push the Spacecraft right up to 90% of C, the light still travels at C
    Would you assume that any bullet of that type found to be traveling at mach 3 is certain to have come from an aircraft traveling at mach 2? I hope not, because there are many different events that can accelerate or decelerate a bullet. It's also safe to assume that there are many events that can accelerate or decelerate light.

    I think Hubble's observations point to three other, more likely, possibilities than the big bang:

    1) Maybe light simply loses energy as it travels vast distances of space. I'm not saying I know why that would happen, but nobody has ever really tested the laws of inertia on that grand of a scale. How would you?

    2) All the light beams from that far out were emitted a long time ago. Maybe the objects were emitting more red light back then. (but that probably leaves the big bang intact)

    3) Maybe red light disperses differently than blue light, so even though the same ratios of red and blue light are being emitted from those distant objects, less of the blue is reaching us than the red.

    #3 is really my favorite. It makes the most sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    river

    I solved the reason why the hydrogen atom does not collapse. I do not need QM to solve a problem that never existed in the 1st place.
    I will post on this subject tomorrow.

    I have posted the article. Read it.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    3) Maybe red light disperses differently than blue light, so even though the same ratios of red and blue light are being emitted from those distant objects, less of the blue is reaching us than the red.

    #3 is really my favorite. It makes the most sense
    If you are comparing your statements above to the Earths atmosphere, then intergalactic space is not the same.
    Our atmosphere contains oxygen. So when the rising and setting Sun appears red, it is because the blue light of the Sun is scattered by the oxygen molecules.

    That is also why the waters appear blue, because the oxygen reflects the blue light.

    If you ever studied physics in high school, you may have seen the color of liquid oxygen . It is light blue.

    In intergalactic space, the average density of our Universe is about ONE hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Then when you consider that most of this matter is concentrated in the galaxies and the clusters, then that means that 'great' stretches of space is completely devoid of matter.
    Also, hydrogen and helium are colorless. So that means that light moves through space with VERY little scattering.
    So the 'expansion of the light waves' is the only logical conclusion to the cosmological redshift.
    .
    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Guest
    Mike NS, Please read your PM's and take note.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; i find your post very interesting, in essence agree with all...

    question out of curiosity only;

    in your mind what would result if a space craft going near C fired an object traveling 1/4 C or a combined C+?


    on the R/B shifts and understanding that distortion or what appears to be color can be influenced to our perspective of a color...also disregarding what was sent.

    this also to Mike, since i have trouble with expansion of energy waves, picture any high energy source and replace the rays with strings. say a billion trillion such streams of energy, heading out with an ever increasing angle. near by object to this source will take out some and then as travel continues these string become further apart. an object 7 billion light years may receive say 50 of these strings and so on to where this light is accepted by a very tiny lens of a telescope. then one string is observed. the problem is there are likely billions of sources for light rays from any distant point in in space all with strings of energy and whats seen is a string from several million different in any one lens opening. now take this to hundreds of such openings to be eventually computed into an image.

    on empty space or any possibility that light can travel through 14 billion years of empty space is so far out of possibility i doubt any one thinks some gaseous mass or porous matter has not been penetrated through the journey. solid mass would absorb, any energy and we could never see this part...then this that gets through regardless of what was sent would appear as distortions to our observance and/comparisons to near by objects, which are said to be going nowhere and not in expansion.

    mega; i have no source for this opinion. their are those that understand the distortion formula used by astronomers, which are well beyond my pay grade, but i have not seen any one suggesting that these distance light are accepted as multiple sources. this is merely an OPINION as to a possible misunderstanding of RB shifts...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    Mike said:
    "Our atmosphere contains oxygen. So when the rising and setting Sun appears red, it is because the blue light of the Sun is scattered by the oxygen molecules"

    - Rayleigh scattering causes the blue colour of the sky. Longer wavelengths - toward the red - pass through the atmosphere almost unaffected. Blue wavelengths get scattaered around the sky by gas molecules, so wherever you look (almost), it's blue. Sunsets tend to be red due to the same effect, but the angle of incidence of the sunlight means that it has to penetrate more atmosphere, so there's more scattering, and much of the blue light absorbed leaving the red light. There is nothing special about oxygen in this process. If you think you know better, please post a link with the details.

    "That is also why the waters appear blue, because the oxygen reflects the blue light."

    - Water absorbs red light and reflects blue but, again, it's not an oxygen specific process. The spectrum H2O is blue.

    "then that means that 'great' stretches of space is completely devoid of matter."

    - Wrong. Virtual particles are present.

    "So the 'expansion of the light waves' is the only logical conclusion to the cosmological redshift."

    - Right, and the expansion of light waves is due to the expansion of the space through which they pass.
    ___________

    "Einstein...was wrong in assuming that a 'static' universe would collapse because he ignored Newtons 3rd Law of Motion that I interpret as 'inertial resistance' or 'equal and opposite reactions' to all forces.

    Example:
    In the galaxy clusters, Zwicky noticed that the galaxy velocities were increased relative to their determined mass, based on their luminosities.
    These enhancements of velocities implied an increase in masses.
    Yet, there was no collapse of these clusters even though the enhanced gravity was determined to be 10x to 20x times greater. This then is because the velocities increased to resist collapse.

    This is an example of 'equal and opposite reactions' to prevent collapse."

    - This nonsense should be banned from the forum. It's mental polution. Some people are likely to take this pseudoscientific clap-trap as the real thing.

    This is my last post on this forum. Let it serve as a warning for any young folk interested in science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by redewenur
    ... This nonsense should be banned from the forum. It's mental polution. Some people are likely to take this pseudoscientific clap-trap as the real thing.

    This is my last post on this forum. Let it serve as a warning for any young folk interested in science.
    I agree.

    Mike, I don't know where you get your crackpotty ideas, but this forum really needs Zelos to come back and slap you around some more....

    Bottoms up,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    river

    I solved the reason why the hydrogen atom does not collapse. I do not need QM to solve a problem that never existed in the 1st place.
    I will post on this subject tomorrow.

    I have posted the article. Read it.

    NS
    No you haven't - solving the problem would be demonstrating mathematically that the model you suggest is stable and reasonable. What you have done is write a nice poem about science and presented it as proof.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I accidentally posted this in the wrong place before here......... sorry.

    Mike NS

    Quote:
    In intergalactic space, the average density of our Universe is about ONE hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Then when you consider that most of this matter is concentrated in the galaxies and the clusters, then that means that 'great' stretches of space is completely devoid of matter.
    Also, hydrogen and helium are colorless. So that means that light moves through space with VERY little scattering.
    So the 'expansion of the light waves' is the only logical conclusion to the cosmological redshift.


    So, in a vacuum, there's no dispersion? That is one thing I have always wondered.

    Remember, though, that we're talking about beams of light that have traveled many many lightyears. One atom per cubic meter still gives us poor odds of a lot of interaction, but we are talking about a lot of meters here.

    I wonder how much interaction photons have with the other photons that cross their path or are near them. Their mass may be so negligible that we can barely even detect it, but .... again.... they have a lot of time to interact.

    ----------------------------

    jackson33
    Quote:
    question out of curiosity only;

    in your mind what would result if a space craft going near C fired an object traveling 1/4 C or a combined C+?


    Particles do an interesting thing as they approach the speed of light. They begin to move in a sine wave instead of a straight line. The more energy they get, the more compressed a sine wave they move in.

    From a straight line perspective, the craft and the projectile would take the same amount of time to get from point A to point B. The projectile, however would be taking a less direct route.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by redewenur
    - Rayleigh scattering causes the blue colour of the sky. Longer wavelengths - toward the red - pass through the atmosphere almost unaffected. Blue wavelengths get scattaered around the sky by gas molecules, so wherever you look (almost), it's blue. Sunsets tend to be red due to the same effect, but the angle of incidence of the sunlight means that it has to penetrate more atmosphere, so there's more scattering, and much of the blue light absorbed leaving the red light. There is nothing special about oxygen in this process. If you think you know better, please post a link with the details.
    I was talking about the rising and setting Sun, not the sky.
    Yes, there is a greater depth of atmosphere to do what I said.
    Yes the sky is blue because of the scattering.
    However, you ignored what I said about the COLOR of oxygen. It is blue.

    - Wrong. Virtual particles are present.
    So the vitual particles are causing the 'extinction of light' to cause Olbers ' paradox? Ha ha.
    Virtual particles are nothing but a mathematical curiousity, IMO.

    - Right, and the expansion of light waves is due to the expansion of the space through which they pass.
    So what is causing the EoS? Your VP's?

    You have not contributed anything of value so thank you and goodby.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    river

    The density average is one atom (HA) per cubic meter but I said these gases are concentrated into clouds and other structures, so space is almost completely empty of matter.

    In the EoS causing the expansion of the light, that would cause the light to expand SIDEWAYS as well as lengthwise, so this would disipate the light that much faster since space is expanding equally in all directions.
    This thought just came to mind.

    In the intrinsic expansion of light, this problem would not be that great.

    The photon interactions crosswise would be negligible.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    My problem is that the red shift indicates an equal amount of expansion in all directions. Somehow I kind of have a problem with that. If it were the result of a big bang, everything would be moving a way from a common center point.

    It's just not consistent. If the universe must expand or contract why would this expansion be so perfectly uniform? Why would everything be expanding at the same rate in every direction, rather than at different rates in every direction?

    If the amount of redshift depends solely on the distance between objects and us, this points to a relationship between distance itself and the color of light. Relating it to some kind of expansion theory seems like a horribly obtuse way to go about explaining something that is likely to be very simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My problem is that the red shift indicates an equal amount of expansion in all directions. Somehow I kind of have a problem with that. If it were the result of a big bang, everything would be moving a way from a common center point.

    It's just not consistent. If the universe must expand or contract why would this expansion be so perfectly uniform? Why would everything be expanding at the same rate in every direction, rather than at different rates in every direction?

    If the amount of redshift depends solely on the distance between objects and us, this points to a relationship between distance itself and the color of light. Relating it to some kind of expansion theory seems like a horribly obtuse way to go about explaining something that is likely to be very simple.
    The BB uses a 2 dimentional ballon to justify this equal expansion in all directions.
    In a 3 dimentional scenerio, I contend that the lateral expansion as in a ballon would not be the same as a 'radial' expansion from a common center that the BB does not have.
    This is just another example of why the BB is not science, IMO.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    river

    The density average is one atom (HA) per cubic meter but I said these gases are concentrated into clouds and other structures, so space is almost completely empty of matter.

    In the EoS causing the expansion of the light, that would cause the light to expand SIDEWAYS as well as lengthwise, so this would disipate the light that much faster since space is expanding equally in all directions.
    This thought just came to mind.

    In the intrinsic expansion of light, this problem would not be that great.

    The photon interactions crosswise would be negligible.

    NS
    If it is negligible please show it - prose is not the same as proof mike. What does this have to do with my post anyway? I see no reference to anything baring any relation to what i asked or mentioned :?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The photon interactions crosswise would be negligible.
    If it is negligible please show it - prose is not the same as proof mike. What does this have to do with my post anyway? I see no reference to anything baring any relation to what i asked or mentioned :?
    Quote Originally Posted by river

    I wonder how much interaction photons have with the other photons that cross their path or are near them. Their mass may be so negligible that we can barely even detect it, but .... again.... they have a lot of time to interact.
    So, the objects we see in the HDFN are about 30 billion light years deep (the tiny specks) in a SSU IMO. These deep objects are not dispersed but are sharp images.
    This ought to tell you that the light in the universe is predominently UN-obstructed.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Um mike, what does that quote of kojax from a thread i did not even take part in have to do with this discussion? I had to search for it to even see where it came from :?

    And why is it quoted as if it is my quote?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I have to admit I'm grasping at straws a bit in my determination to disbelieve the BB.

    What if the reason for the redshift is like how the orbits of binary star systems gradually degrade over time until they collapse. Maybe the curvature of a beam of light slowly flattens out over time or decreases in frequency by a similar effect?

    Remember that, when we're talking about light, distance and time are the same thing. If the light is from 100 light years away, then it's been flying through space for 100 years by the time we see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Um mike, what does that quote of kojax from a thread i did not even take part in have to do with this discussion? I had to search for it to even see where it came from :?

    And why is it quoted as if it is my quote?
    Sorry if I misquoted you. Also, I cannot recall the misquote?


    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8
    i do believe that the big bang does exist. it's th eonly theory which logically explains the expansion of the universe and how the univers was created 13.6 billion years ago. i just learnt about red shift in school though it was abit confusing but red shift proves that the universe is expanding. and if the universe is expanding, then if we reverse back the time billions of years ago, then the universe must have come from one point.
    correct me if im wrong, im just giving my opinions as a high school student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Shadow; yes, the accepted scientific community does say the Big Bang, happened, that the universe is expanding and its said took place about 14 billion years ago.

    i am posting a reply to this old thread, since you are a student, showing an interest in science...

    there are other theory as well. the most viable being called, Steady State which as BBT, has some variations. they claim the expansion theory is flawed, by either interpretations or whats seen as blue or red via the 5-14 billion year journey.

    question; why would you think, the Universe had to have a beginning?
    were you taught that the Red/Blue shift were in some degree controversial? couldn't the universe if expanding be from another reason, maybe even as in swelling?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8
    there are many theories apart from the big bang but the most popular and most logical theory is the big bang.
    because the universe is expanding, so if we reverse back the calculations, the universe must have come from one single point which states the beggining of the universe.
    i don't think swelling is the answer for the expansion of the universe because scientists can detect a cosmic radiation - heat that has been left over from the explosion.

    i'm just gathering facts from what my science teacher told me so i don't have much knowledge in this so i welcome any comments that can broader my mind abit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What evidence do we really have that the universe *is* expanding? The hubble redshift? That can be explained other ways......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Freshman BenTheMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    42
    What evidence do we really have that the universe *is* expanding? The hubble redshift? That can be explained other ways......
    Like what, praytell?
    Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What evidence do we really have that the universe *is* expanding? The hubble redshift? That can be explained other ways......
    well the stars are moving apart
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowfierce
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What evidence do we really have that the universe *is* expanding? The hubble redshift? That can be explained other ways......
    well the stars are moving apart
    No. The stars in this galaxy and any other galaxy are not moving apart. But an expanding universe requires that the galaxies themselves are moving apart.
    The Hubble redshift is exactly that - a redshift. Currently the best explanation for this redshift is an expanding universe, but it is not the only explanation. That is the point that kojax is making, that our evidence for expansion is based largely on observations that might be accounted for in other ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowfierce
    there are many theories apart from the big bang but the most popular and most logical theory is the big bang.
    because the universe is expanding, so if we reverse back the calculations, the universe must have come from one single point which states the beggining of the universe.
    i don't think swelling is the answer for the expansion of the universe because scientists can detect a cosmic radiation - heat that has been left over from the explosion.

    I'm just gathering facts from what my science teacher told me so i don't have much knowledge in this so i welcome any comments that can broader my mind abit
    If the universe is expanding, based on the expansion theory and the heat from this expansion is seen as 3 degrees over absolute zero (suggested temperature of space) then what must the temperature have been when expansion went by our known space. that is how much time would be required for what should have been quite hot to cool back down. heat requires a dispersement means.

    another thought; if that expansion was and is has C or C plus speed, just how is that energy getting back to us, when even light energy has not. under some BBT the expansions are up to 150 billion years out there in all directions.

    i do agree swelling or a natural reaction to heating is not likely an answer.
    to give an appearance of outward motion or suggested red shifts, wouldn't the speed or velocity of both the object seen and receiving instruments need to be known...

    if you feel that BBT is the best, then if expansion is disprove, you do know the theory will go no where. its to widely accepted, with explanations probably being that we cannot see far enough to see or determine an expansion or that the expansion as stopped and the contraction may be coming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    from what ive read on it, i believe it and its a good explanation, i'll carry on believing until a better explanation arises(if one ever does), thats the benefit of science over religion, its fluidity
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    A photon is constantly oscillating between a magnetic, and an electric charge. What if it has some sort of internal friction effect?

    Over time, that energy could build up until it emits a second, very low frequency photon, and then drops to a lower frequency itself.

    Conservation of energy holds true if the intensity of a beam of light increases enough to counter the drop in frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    X=
    X= is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

    If the big band theory holds true then the question remains where did the source of such large amounts of matter come from? .
    Here is a couple of excellent books to read.

    Steven Wienberg : "The first Three minutes"
    Briane Greene: "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
    Watch the pbs special "The elegant universe"

    Matter is NRG. NRG is matter. The Big Splat would have had ALOT of NRG, which only a small, VERY small portion was converted to the nucleic constiuents of current matter as we know it.

    I dont claim to have an intimate knowledge of all of this, but I thought these where good resources for understanding the development of the universe from the perspective of two closely related yet divergent theories.

    Inflation Vs Cyclic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Naz
    Naz is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    20
    wow I've never seen a thread get so many replies!

    As far as the question 'who believes in the big bang?' goes... It's not about believing in it or not, we have to think about this like scientists! What theory carries with it the most evidential value?! Without a doubt, in this instance, the big bang is supreme. For the simple reason than general relativity is the most accurately tested theory in history (known to be accurate to 1 part in 10 to the 14) and this theory necessarily implies that the universe began in a big bang as the hawking/penrose singularity theorems show. Understanding how or why this happened requires a theory of quantum gravity.

    I can understand why people don't like the idea of a big bang as, at present, no one can explain the process in scientific terms. Regardless, this should not prevent anyone from looking purely at the facts!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Let's look at what the facts are.

    1)- Light from distant objects is red shifted. The amount of redshift is proportional to the distance.

    2)- There are microwave beams/ blackbody radiation flowing in all directions in space. No matter which way you point the detector, you'll register almost exactly the same amount of radiation coming from that direction.

    3)- There seems to be a kind of uniform distribution of elements found in distant objects. Apparently the BB predicted how much of which elements would be found?


    Ok.......... outside of these, do we have any other facts?





    (And do I have these facts right, or are they slightly off?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Naz
    Naz is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    20
    With respect (and I genuinely mean with respect), it's not people like you or I that entirely understand the predictions of the singularity theorems. I certainly don't fully understand their implications, you might, I'm not going to question your capacity as a physicist, you could be the next Einstein for all I know!

    Either way, the question you have to ask is... 'is there a better theory that fits our observation?' At present, there isn't.

    As far as I know, you got the facts pretty much right. The thing is, no other theory at the moment corresponds to those facts so the big bang is accurate a description as we have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Ok.......... outside of these, do we have any other facts?

    (And do I have these facts right, or are they slightly off?)
    Kojax and Naz

    Read my posts on the 'Steady State Universe' and 'CMBR as Evidence'

    further down this Cosmology Thread. Thank you.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Is this the post you're talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The CMBR is a thermolized equilibrium temperature of the space particles.

    It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that 'heat flows from hot to cold' regions only until an equal temperature is reached throughout the system.
    With a temperature that varies by only 7/100,000K, I think that is equal enough.

    Mckellar discovered a interstellar space molecule back in 1940 that had a temperature of 2K.

    This preceded Gamows prediction a decade later of a residual BB temperature left over from the beginning of the BB.
    He oredicted a temperature of from 5K to 10K.
    So with this knowledge, I will accept McKellars data over Gamows.

    NS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [quote="kojax"]Is this the post you're talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The CMBR is a thermolized equilibrium temperature of the space particles.

    It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that 'heat flows from hot to cold' regions only until an equal temperature is reached throughout the system.
    With a temperature that varies by only 7/100,000K, I think that is equal enough.

    Mckellar discovered a interstellar space molecule back in 1940 that had a temperature of 2K.

    This preceded Gamows prediction a decade later of a residual BB temperature left over from the beginning of the BB.
    He oredicted a temperature of from 5K to 10K.
    So with this knowledge, I will accept McKellars data over Gamows.
    Yes. Another later version has McKellers space particle as having a temperature of 2.3K that is closer yet to the current 2.73K.

    Also, if you read my theory on the SSU, you will notice that it complies with all the Laws, experiments and observations of physics.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
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
  •