Thread: BBT Fallacy

Big Bang Fallacy

The BBT seems to be a ‘creation theory’.
Since it goes back to time zero and than through the creation of forces, matter and etc.

This is a violation of the Laws of Conservation of Matter, energy, momentum and charge.
These are the basic and totally credible laws in science.

My opinion regarding matter is that it cannot be created, or destroyed, so there was no beginning and there will be no end.

2 – They say that the expansion was not an explosion.
So what is driving the expansion? No answer given.

3 – They say that the CMBR is a remnant of the BBT.
It is supposed to have a red shift of 1000.
!3.7 billion years is the age given for the BBT.
Divide that by 1000 and you should have a red shift of one for every million years of its age.
Transform this age into light years and that would give the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies a red shift of about 4 for its age/distance of 54 million light years.
Yet we know that the red shift for the Virgo cluster is only .0035-.004.
So I think this remnant cannot be from the BBT.

4 – And the most important evidence that refutes the BBT is the Halton Arp Cosmological Red Shift Anomalies.

The following objects are at the same distance but have different Red Shifts.

NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210, AM 0328-222.

So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Big Bang Fallacy

The BBT seems to be a ‘creation theory’.
Since it goes back to time zero and than through the creation of forces, matter and etc.

This is a violation of the Laws of Conservation of Matter, energy, momentum and charge.
These are the basic and totally credible laws in science.

My opinion regarding matter is that it cannot be created, or destroyed, so there was no beginning and there will be no end.

2 – They say that the expansion was not an explosion.
So what is driving the expansion? No answer given.

3 – They say that the CMBR is a remnant of the BBT.
It is supposed to have a red shift of 1000.
!3.7 billion years is the age given for the BBT.
Divide that by 1000 and you should have a red shift of one for every million years of its age.
Transform this age into light years and that would give the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies a red shift of about 4 for its age/distance of 54 million light years.
Yet we know that the red shift for the Virgo cluster is only .0035-.004.
So I think this remnant cannot be from the BBT.

4 – And the most important evidence that refutes the BBT is the Halton Arp Cosmological Red Shift Anomalies.

The following objects are at the same distance but have different Red Shifts.

NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210, AM 0328-222.

So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

Cosmo

Oh no not you again. I thought we had lost you for good. And still you spread your own illusions about what you think is the essence the Big Bang paradigm. Please acknowledge that it does NOT say anything about the origin of the universe.

The fact that we don't know what is driving the expansion does not mean that it does not exist. This is science in progress. Centuries ago, we did not know anything about gravity and that it determines the orbits of planets. Would you argue that this force was not existing then?

Show us the math that a redshift of 1000 means an age of 3.7 billion years. All statements quote an age of 380000 years.

Ahh, not again Arps crazy idea. How do you determine the distance of the mentioned objects independent of the redshift?

Warning from the moderator:

I have left your post in this subforum for now just to give you a chance to reply to arguments. As soon as I see that you are still being stubborn as usual, I will kick you out.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

The real Big Bang Theory fallacy is this: people criticizing it who have learned almost nothing about the theory. This is all too common.

What could Cosmo possibly respond to? He or she is ignorant of the content of the theory and assuredly wishes to remain ignorant. Almost every statement except the two about Cosmos's opinion are false, so where would one start criticizing?

Heck, let's look at the not false statements (assuming "they" are the scientists that actually study this stuff):

• My opinion regarding matter is that it cannot be created, or destroyed, so there was no beginning and there will be no end.
• They say that the expansion was not an explosion.
• So I think this remnant cannot be from the BBT.
• So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

That's it. Everything else is false on the facts.

So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

Wait, Physbang, this is actually correct? I've always been under the impression that red shift is caused by the expansion of space between two objects which causes a photon of visible light to be "stretched", thus shifting to the red end of the spectrum- but now you say that space itself doesn't expand?

This seems like an appropriate time to post this paper:

[0707.0380] Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

Since we have shown how bodies held together by electromagnetic forces do not expand with the expansion of space, why should electromagnetic waves be affected? The key is to make it clear that cosmological redshift is not, as is often implied, a gradual process caused by the stretching of the space a photon is travelling through. Rather cosmological redshift is caused by the photon being observed in a different frame to that which it is emitted. In this way it is not as dissimilar to a Doppler shift as is often implied. The difference between frames relates to a changing background metric rather than a differing velocity. Page 367 of Hobson, Efstathiou, & Lasenby (2005) as well as innumerable other texts shows how redshift can be derived very simply by considering the change in the orthonormal basis of observers with different scale factors in their background metrics. This process is discreet, occurring at the point of reception of the photon, rather than being continuous, which would require an integral. If we consider a series of comoving observers, then they effectively see the wave as being stretched with the scale factor.

Cosmo;
Since I'm not aware of any PM system on this new format, I'm just going to say how nice it is to see you back on line and since a couple post, in a couple day's, assume you have yourself a computer. You being near 94 now and still interested in being skeptical of BBT, is an inspiration to this older member and also very skeptical...Good Luck.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

Wait, Physbang, this is actually correct? I've always been under the impression that red shift is caused by the expansion of space between two objects which causes a photon of visible light to be "stretched", thus shifting to the red end of the spectrum- but now you say that space itself doesn't expand?

I accept that the information actually convinces him. As in that paper, I prefer to talk about the increase in the average distance between galaxies.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Cosmo;
Since I'm not aware of any PM system on this new format, I'm just going to say how nice it is to see you back on line and since a couple post, in a couple day's, assume you have yourself a computer. You being near 94 now and still interested in being skeptical of BBT, is an inspiration to this older member and also very skeptical...Good Luck.

Thanks for the respect Jackson. I appreciate it.
My first computer was destroyed by a self serving billionaire when I started criticizing
those dollar stuffers.
My next computer was locked to keep me off the internet. I filed a complaint with IC3 and that took about 3 months before it was served.
But to get back to my qualificatios to discuss astronomy, I believe I deserve to be promoting my truth as I see it.

I have a bookshelf of astonomy, physics and other science books to know what I am
talking about.
The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

By the way Jackson, I am 93 years old and in good helth for my age. The Vegan diet is the source for my longevity.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

And yet there have been many successful and repeatable tests of both Special and General Relativity.

Yesterday I saw an elderly lady crash into two cars and then park and walk off, blithely unaware of her actions. That one could simply dismiss Einstein's work based on a quick look is indicative of a very similar blindness to one's own inabilities.

Cosmo, the truth be known many older folks (over 50), those that grew up during the BBT debate, have been and remain skeptical, especially when all additional theory to justify/validate the original theory have been added, expansion can't be explained, so add dark matter and the like. Best I can tell most BB advocates today are walking away from the singularity all together.

Personally I've quit arguing the issue, since as with any improvable idea, science to politics, once the educational system gets involved, indoctrination takes a toll over reasonable discussion. As we discussed maybe 6-7 years ago, I feel when the James Webb is sent up, now scheduled for 2018 (was 2013), observable Universal content as it was maybe 12-15 BLY out there, will be hard to explain, no less than when Hubble and others show pretty much the same things existing around us today, was nearly the same 10BLY away. You might remember Harry Costas (aka, Pluto) whom could argue with the best of them, a Science teacher from Australia has long been banned from at least 4 forums I know of and in each case was getting the best of those that tried to argue pro BBT...

Yes, I know your 93 and "nearing 94, Dec." and have studied Astronomy for many years, seem to remain coherent and give credit to your diet. In the event you may have forgot, we are also social and political adversaries and I believe your longevity is based on keeping your brain active. Also, at least my history with BBT vs. SSU (think you dismiss SSU), is basically from Fred Hoyle in my learning days and as with him, I feel your trying to incorporate your version of an eternal universe, opposed to proving your own ideas. Anyway it's good to see you back and no matter what happens to your threads, dropping them into speculation or whatever, you don't become discouraged.

Big bang theory does NOT violate conservation laws of mass/enrgy for two reasons.

It could and has been argued that the net energy of the universe is zero.

Conservation of mass/energy does not apply at t=0. I don't want to repeat the explanation but you can view the thread in the physics forum. It has to do with Noether's theoem, look it up.


Others have already dismissed and explaned your other objections to BBT.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

And yet there have been many successful and repeatable tests of both Special and General Relativity.

From what I understasnd about his other math is that only about 5-6 other math experts could understand his math.
Ha Ha.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

And yet there have been many successful and repeatable tests of both Special and General Relativity.

From what I understasnd about his other math is that only about 5-6 other math experts could understand his math.
Ha Ha.

Cosmo

So, in essence, you are arguing that it must be wrong, because you (and many other people) don't understand it. Interesting ... And still the truth is that from all that we know its validity was tested and confirmed uncountable times.

The trouble with the BBT is that it's an incomplete theory, and people are always trying to understand it completely. Until we have a complete set of predictions, there's no way to tell how many of them do or don't fail. And, to some degree, this allows its supporters to pick and choose which aspects of it they feel like testing. The rest they get to postulate.

[QUOTE=MigL;276094]

Big bang theory does NOT violate conservation laws of mass/enrgy for two reasons.

It could and has been argued that the net energy of the universe is zero.

I guess you could argue that, but then wouldn't the net matter content also have to be zero? It's clearly not zero.

Conservation of mass/energy does not apply at t=0. I don't want to repeat the explanation but you can view the thread in the physics forum. It has to do with Noether's theoem, look it up.


Others have already dismissed and explaned your other objections to BBT.

The T=0 argument sounds an awful lot like creationists arguing that "God" him/her/its self doesn't need someone to have created him/her/it because he/she/it exists "outside of time".

Ok kojax I'll explain.

One could argue that the universe began as a vacuum fluctuation. Since time and energy are related by the uncertainty principle, an exactly zero energy means that the uncertainty in time is infinite, ie the universe could last for ever. It has also been argued effectively that the vacuum energy is negative, to account for the expansion of the universe, and it exactly balances out the mass/energy content of the universe.

The t=0 argument has nothing to do with creation. Noether's theorem states that the law of conservation of mass/energy follows from the invariance of continuous symmetry transformations in time, ie the laws of the universe work the same at any time and direction of time, ie. there is no preferred time. I would think that at time t=0 there is an explicit asymmetry since there is no before, only an after, and this implies mass/energy conservation laws do not apply.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Cosmo, the truth be known many older folks (over 50), those that grew up during the BBT debate, have been and remain skeptical, especially when all additional theory to justify/validate the original theory have been added, expansion can't be explained, so add dark matter and the like. Best I can tell most BB advocates today are walking away from the singularity all together.

Personally I've quit arguing the issue, since as with any improvable idea, science to politics, once the educational system gets involved, indoctrination takes a toll over reasonable discussion. As we discussed maybe 6-7 years ago, I feel when the James Webb is sent up, now scheduled for 2018 (was 2013), observable Universal content as it was maybe 12-15 BLY out there, will be hard to explain, no less than when Hubble and others show pretty much the same things existing around us today, was nearly the same 10BLY away. You might remember Harry Costas (aka, Pluto) whom could argue with the best of them, a Science teacher from Australia has long been banned from at least 4 forums I know of and in each case was getting the best of those that tried to argue pro BBT...

Yes, I know your 93 and "nearing 94, Dec." and have studied Astronomy for many years, seem to remain coherent and give credit to your diet. In the event you may have forgot, we are also social and political adversaries and I believe your longevity is based on keeping your brain active. Also, at least my history with BBT vs. SSU (think you dismiss SSU), is basically from Fred Hoyle in my learning days and as with him, I feel your trying to incorporate your version of an eternal universe, opposed to proving your own ideas. Anyway it's good to see you back and no matter what happens to your threads, dropping them into speculation or whatever, you don't become discouraged.

My diet is very important because my brain gets full blood circulation resulting from my clean arteries.
I also believe in the 'truth' as I see it.
The BBT violates too many laws and rules in physics as I have mentioned.

NS

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

And yet there have been many successful and repeatable tests of both Special and General Relativity.

From what I understasnd about his other math is that only about 5-6 other math experts could understand his math.
Ha Ha.

Cosmo

So, in essence, you are arguing that it must be wrong, because you (and many other people) don't understand it. Interesting ... And still the truth is that from all that we know its validity was tested and confirmed uncountable times.

Those confirmations are miniscule corrections. FYI, there is a 'Spiritual universe also. After all, many swallowed his M/E formulaHe admitted to making a 'big' blunder regarding his 'cosmological constant'.
So you see he is not invincible.

NS

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

So, in essence, you are arguing that it must be wrong, because you (and many other people) don't understand it. Interesting ... And still the truth is that from all that we know its validity was tested and confirmed uncountable times.

Those confirmations are miniscule corrections. FYI, there is a 'Spiritual universe also. After all, many swallowed his M/E formulaHe admitted to making a 'big' blunder regarding his 'cosmological constant'.
So you see he is not invincible.

NS

This is not a reply to this comment. He may have been incorrect on some terms (QM), but this does not do away the results and confirmations in SR and GR.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I have a bookshelf of astonomy, physics and other science books to know what I am
talking about.
The scientists that I respect and consider credoble are Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, Bohr and Arp.
I left Einstein out because when I did a dimensional analysis of his simple formula E=mc^2, I find that it does not fit any
format in science.

By the way Jackson, I am 93 years old and in good helth for my age. The Vegan diet is the source for my longevity.

Cosmo

A) I have a Dictionary and Thesaurus on my shelves. But it doesn't mean I know every word in the english language. Similarly just because I posses several books by Steven Hawking doesn't make me his scientific equal. Nor do I, nor shall I, ever know exactly what Dodgson or Poe were thinking or intending in their most famous works; despite posessing near original copies of both.
Just because you have a host of books on Sciences, does NOT mean you understand them, fully or at all. This much is evident in your dismissal of a simple equation dozens of scientists, including Nobel winners, have proved time and time again to be near accurate on scales from the minute to gargantuan (Atoms and Binary Star systems). That you consider it and by proxy them wrong is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

B) I do indeed tip my hat to your longevity, and more so to your ability to work a computer so deftly (my own parents, a mere 50, are not so capable) However I do hope you aren't anticipating any blind respect for such a fluke of nature; respect is earned through actions, not existence. (P.S Vegan diets are unlikely the sole contribution, for the simple fact many vegans have shorter lifespans and spend much of it painfully thin; not to mention the other sources blamed for longevity including Olive Oil baths and chain smoking. A good diet is undoubtable beneficial, but your age is primarily down to a fluke of genetics I'm afraid. A slower metabolism than normal I'd wager)



To return to your initial post, I'm going to ignore your personal opinions for the simple fact they can't be false; they are your own opinions, not fact.
Yes, technically BBT is a creation theory, however CT is often synonymous with God and intelligent design; while the BBT is a simple 'this is what the evidence shows probably happened'. Similarly it doesn't go through the "creation from nothing" CT's do. It acknowledges the Bang occured from a singularity containing everything that is, not from total nothingness. It doesn't suggest the creation of forces, more the splitting from a single force (I think...if I remember my school lessons). Finally I would very much like to point out that the BBT only predicts as far back as the end of the Planck Epoch, meaning there is actually no mention of true creation in the theory at all.

I'll take this sentance to point out how you give support to the Conservation laws as credible, while at the same time denouncing Einstein and GR. When GR is the foundation for several of the Conservations

Yes, there isn't an explanation for the expansion, that's why BBT is still a theory and not a Law/Rule/Proof. Just like there is no explanation for how gravity works, yet numerous people and equations have shown gravity does in fact work. In fact, a few suggestions have been made on the topic of expansion, including a correlation to Dark Matter/Energy


Your CMBT theory is just....odd. I'm not even sure where to begin
to start with you've used estimates, I'm not certain but I think the Redshift is 1091, not 1000; and the same for the age. If you intend to disprove a widely accepted theory you need to be more precise than general estimates.
I'm really not sure why you think a redshift of 1 is equivalent to 1,000,000 yrs of age. To begin with redshift determines distance, not age; it also determines distance from US, and we are not in the centre or edge of the universe. Additionally, the whole concept of expansion is that it is speeding up, dividing by 1000 assumes the rate of expansion (and thus redshift) is constant, when it has been proven to be increasing. Which basically makes your arguement here null and void anyway, but I'll finish nevertheless.
AGAIN you have transfered from age to distance, lightyears are DISTANCE, not age; A lightyear is 6 trillion miles. I suspect if you skip the age section of your equation and go from Redshift to lightyears (the distance that Redshift actually predicts) you'll get a more realistic result, it'll still be wrong since you're assuming constant expansion but meh.

Aaaand finally. The red shift anomalies don't refute the BB, they simply show that as a theory, it is imperfect.
Just like the effect of Forces on a Quantum Scale don't line up with General Relativity. They don't prove GR is wrong, they simply prove GR is not perfect, which no one is arguing

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Those confirmations are miniscule corrections. FYI, there is a 'Spiritual universe also. After all, many swallowed his M/E formulaHe admitted to making a 'big' blunder regarding his 'cosmological constant'.
So you see he is not invincible.

NS

And yet, some 80 years later, we find the universe does indeed contain something that fits the description of a cosmological constant - dark energy. So perhaps it was not such a blunder after all.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Those confirmations are miniscule corrections. FYI, there is a 'Spiritual universe also. After all, many swallowed his M/E formulaHe admitted to making a 'big' blunder regarding his 'cosmological constant'.
So you see he is not invincible.

NS

And yet, some 80 years later, we find the universe does indeed contain something that fits the description of a cosmological
constant - dark energy. So perhaps it was not such a blunder after all.

Dark Energy
I have thought about this 'energy' and find a more realistic other solution for this subject.
It is being portrayed as a 'time dilation', rather than an added space expansion? Why the change?
I saw an illustration of why this was done.
This research was based on observations of Supernova 1a
magnitude wave patterns.
These explosions are based on the white dwarf stars that are presumed to explode after accumulating some added mass equal to 1.44 solar masses.
They are being touted as the best 'long distance' candles even though they have the largest 'error'
margins of 8 different measurements of determining the distance to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.
Since WD's have different mass sizes and more importatly, have very large temperature variations that range from about 3000K to over one hundred thousandK, this seems to me why they have the largest error
margins.
So this 'time dilation' interpretation is derived from some magnitude wave patterns that appeared to be widened while the magnitudes were lower in magnitude relative to the distances.
So I came to the conclusion that this widening was the result of the SN1a's 'local space motions' of direction that created some of these widened wave patterns.
If the SN is movinng towards us or away from us, there would be no wave widening because the source would be standing fixed in location.
So this would be simply an observation of magnitude variance only.
But if the SN is moving 'sideways', then it would
require an additional lateral dimension incuded because the light is spread sideways with the lateral movement.
So the magnitude would be slightly reduced and the wave pattern would be spread sideways or vertically according to the direction of motion of the LSV to cause an elongation of the wave to create the illusion that time was extended. The light would appear to be a short bar type of object.
So, IMO, dark energy does not exist.
The only time dilation here would be the extended exposure time of the observation.

Cosmo

Utter claptrap, as usual. This belongs in pseudoscience.

And I should point out that if you don't even know that cosmological time-dilation is a natural consequence of universal expansion under GR, you are arguing against a theory that you do not fully understand. It would make sense to try to understand the theory properly before coming to the conclusion that it must be wrong and that you, without a full understanding of the concepts involved, can do any better.

There is a big difference between asking questions about a theory you do not understand, and stating it must be wrong because you don't understand it.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

There is a big difference between asking questions about a theory you do not understand, and stating it must be wrong because you don't understand it.

It's an argument from incredulity. It's such a common blunder that there's a name for it.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Warning from the moderator:

I have left your post in this subforum for now just to give you a chance to reply to arguments. As soon as I see that you are still being stubborn as usual, I will kick you out.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

I am a citizen of the USA that allows 'free speech'.

Unfortunately, free speech has no place in science, unless it adheres to the scientific method. If you want to be pseudo-scientific, however, you can say whatever you like.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Warning from the moderator:

I have left your post in this subforum for now just to give you a chance to reply to arguments. As soon as I see that you are still being stubborn as usual, I will kick you out.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

I am a citizen of the USA that allows 'free speech'.

And Dishmaster exercised his right to 'free speech' by moving this thread to pseudoscience. what's the problem?

Unfortunately, I knew this action was inevitable and tried to warn Cosmo. Since this forum is under new management, indicating moderators would be allowed more power to make judgements, IMO based on their convictions, I want you "know it all's" to understand a couple things and I'll join the others, MAYBE making an occasional visit.

1. For many years this forum was a relaxed, laid back and friendly place to visit. We had such educated SCIENTIST as Mega Brain (75), Ophiolite (64 or 65) and others, that were older and understood where folks with many ideas or comments to make, were at one point mainstream, generally with a twist or new idea to exploit. Locking threads or downgrading was almost never used as punishment for honest opinions. I mentioned this previously with the "Trash Can" where this new bread of moderation managed to use for any thread that didn't meet their personal approval or in many cases simply disagreed to. Cosmo was "New Science" prior to "Cosmo" and has been around here more years than most anyone left here and has, to my knowledge never had a thread locked or dropped.....

2. Cosmo and myself, and few other older folks were taught to always question new hypotheses/theory and do so until convinced, which IMO is what science is all about. You might not understand this, but for 40-50 years BBT was NOT the accepted theory or even considered and I guarantee you many folks have questioned the religious nature for the origin of the theory and every aspect some of you accept as gospel. Since the religious cannot scientifically explain "something from nothing" or that anything could pre-exist or always existed, BB was a necessity.


Cosmo, I have also noted your back on "Frost Clouds" and being accepted there better than here, even having gone back over some of our own discussions from 6-7 years ago. While we don't always agree, I sincerely hope you continue to voice your opinions/thoughts, where ever and there are countless young minds out there looking desperately for vindication for their own skepticism's opposing BBT.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I am a citizen of the USA that allows 'free speech'.

'Free speach' and 'the right to store data on a privately owned website' are not the same thing.

But from my perspective, the Big-Bang has been accepted for pretty much my whole life. I too was taught to question new hypotheses/theory until convinced, and have been convinced the universe is expanding, for a long time. There is simply too much evidence that the universe has expanded from a dense, hot state to a much cooler, less dense state, for there to be a complete paradigm change away from an expanding universe.

Whether there was a singular beginning or not is a different question.

Now perhaps I have been too harsh in my replies, and that is something I am trying to address, so Cosmo, I apologise for my tone.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Big Bang Fallacy

The BBT seems to be a ‘creation theory’.
Since it goes back to time zero and than through the creation of forces, matter and etc.

This is a violation of the Laws of Conservation of Matter, energy, momentum and charge.
These are the basic and totally credible laws in science.

My opinion regarding matter is that it cannot be created, or destroyed, so there was no beginning and there will be no end.

Aside from the idea that the theory actually says nothing about time=0, except that it reaches a singularity there (which is commonly taken to mean that the theory "breaks down" there - the conditions are outside of the domain of applicability of the theory), perhaps it might be worth considering the notion that the laws of physics, which include the laws of conservation, may only apply inside our universe.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

2 – They say that the expansion was not an explosion.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

So what is driving the expansion? No answer given.

Alan Guth came up with an answer in the 1980's, known as Inflationary theory.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

3 – They say that the CMBR is a remnant of the BBT.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It is supposed to have a red shift of 1000.
!3.7 billion years is the age given for the BBT.
Divide that by 1000 and you should have a red shift of one for every million years of its age.

Only if you fail to use general relativity, which we have proved works locally, so why should it not work across the universe?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

4 – And the most important evidence that refutes the BBT is the Halton Arp Cosmological Red Shift Anomalies.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The following objects are at the same distance but have different Red Shifts.

NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210, AM 0328-222.

So this convinces me that the Expansion of Space cannot be the space itself.

Cosmo

We have no evidence that those galaxies are at the same distance, except for Halton Arp's assertion that the dim arm extending from one definitely links it to the other. By all other methods of determination, the galaxies are at different distances. Now, it sure does look like the arm could connect the galaxies, but the observational evidence is by no means conclusive. There are often other indications of interaction that are not present here.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Warning from the moderator:

I have left your post in this subforum for now just to give you a chance to reply to arguments. As soon as I see that you are still being stubborn as usual, I will kick you out.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

I am a citizen of the USA that allows 'free speech'.

Then shout your ideas from a street corner in New York. This is a privately-owned forum with conditions put upon its usage. You have no greater right to free speech here than you have in a shop, bar or library. You are admitted there under certain conditions and may be ejected for violating those conditions. If you don't agree with the conditions, you are free to go elsewhere. Same deal on an internet forum.

To Speedfreaki #33

How about AM 0328-222 that looks like it took a bite out of the larger galaxy?

Do you consider that to be just a coincident?

Cosmo

I don't think small galaxies take small galaxy sized bites out of larger galaxies, leaving a nice hole the shape of the smaller galaxy, no.

When galaxies interact, they tend to disturb a far larger area..

Originally Posted by Cosmo

How about AM 0328-222 that looks like it took a bite out of the larger galaxy?

You used the magic words "looks like". Do you have any further evidence that might support this interpretation? Because "looks like" is a rather weak argument to build anything on.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

I don't think small galaxies take small galaxy sized bites out of larger galaxies, leaving a nice hole the shape of the smaller galaxy, no.

When galaxies interact, they tend to disturb a far larger area..

Yes, indeed. When two so massive objects are near, they perturb the common gravitational field and lead to tidal interactions. This should be reflected in the shapes of the neighbouring galaxies. Even the relatively small magellanic clouds perturb the Milky Way. The galactic disc is warped. When you see nothing like this, you can be sure that the two galaxies are only seemingly close due to a projection effect. A second result would be a strong burst in star formation activity caused by induced density waves. Do the spectra indicate this? Are the two galaxies particularly active? The idea of "biting out the edge" is - well - very inventive, but contradicts everything we know about galactic dynamics.

One should know that both the Arp and AM catalogues are just a summary of visual pairs (or more) of galaxies or just peculiarly shaped galaxies. This does not indicate any physical relation whatsoever. They are used as a starting point for subsequent investigation to figure out the real nature of the galaxy pairs. You just cannot say anything from a single picture.

I am currently working on a publication of Herschel observations of interacting galaxies, where some are taken from the AM catalogue. Although the targets were already selected for real galactic mergers, at least one turned out to be a pair of by chance coincidence.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Warning from the moderator:

I have left your post in this subforum for now just to give you a chance to reply to arguments. As soon as I see that you are still being stubborn as usual, I will kick you out.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

I am a citizen of the USA that allows 'free speech'.

Yeah, I know the concept. It applies, when several opinions have the same justification. It usually does not apply in science, where we are looking for evidence and not for opinions. Otherwise, you can just make things up as you like them to be. However, interpretation of results is another thing. Here, opinions can play a role, but they still have to fit to already established facts and results. As soon as you choose to ignore arguments, you are loosing this foundation, and your opinions are useless.

Originally Posted by test_pig

Originally Posted by Cosmo

How about AM 0328-222 that looks like it took a bite out of the larger galaxy?

You used the magic words "looks like". Do you have any further evidence that might support this interpretation? Because "looks like" is a rather weak argument to build anything on.

It sure does convince me!

Also, those other two examples.

See S&T, April 1983 pages 307-309. These are positive prints rather than the negative prints Arp used in his book.

Who uses negative prints when using photagraphy prints?

A large library should have an archive of these magazines. The other two examples that show the 'bridges between the objects are much heavier 'between' the objects and is much weaker outside the quasars.

Cosmo

I must admit that NGC 7603 seems peculiar. However, there is a broad number of possible explanations. Here are some professional publications:
ADS Results on NGC 7603

There is no AM 2054-2210 listed in the Arp/Madore catalogue:
A Catalogue of Southern Peculiar Galaxies and Associations

Originally Posted by jackson33

1. For many years this forum was a relaxed, laid back and friendly place to visit. We had such educated SCIENTIST as Mega Brain (75), Ophiolite (64 or 65) and others, that were older and understood where folks with many ideas or comments to make, were at one point mainstream, generally with a twist or new idea to exploit. Locking threads or downgrading was almost never used as punishment for honest opinions. I mentioned this previously with the "Trash Can" where this new bread of moderation managed to use for any thread that didn't meet their personal approval or in many cases simply disagreed to. Cosmo was "New Science" prior to "Cosmo" and has been around here more years than most anyone left here and has, to my knowledge never had a thread locked or dropped.....

I think a lot of scientists just get too emotionally invested in BBT research, and don't like to hear anyone say that it might all be for nothing, because the theory might not be true.

I've always liked Janus' signature:

"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone

The BBT is still too speculative to be considered "fact". Of course it's subject to question. When people get angry over seeing it questioned (yes, even ignorantly questioned) I want to tell them to do what any real scientist would do: take their emotions out of the equation. Be objective.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

But from my perspective, the Big-Bang has been accepted for pretty much my whole life. I too was taught to question new hypotheses/theory until convinced, and have been convinced the universe is expanding, for a long time. There is simply too much evidence that the universe has expanded from a dense, hot state to a much cooler, less dense state, for there to be a complete paradigm change away from an expanding universe.

There is a lot of evidence, but none of it locks anything into a certainty. The "cumulative effect" rationale is no different from "cumulative effect" arguments made by conspiracy theorists about 911. Just because there are a lot of separate strains of evidence doesn't mean it all comes together to prove anything.

If you want to go into detail about that, be my guest. Most people who disagree know about Hubble Redshift, CMBR, Elemental Abundances, and Galactic Evolution. They're just not convinced that those things are guaranteed to be related. Or, like Cosmo, maybe they even go so far as to question one of those things being true at all.

Originally Posted by MigL

Ok kojax I'll explain.

One could argue that the universe began as a vacuum fluctuation. Since time and energy are related by the uncertainty principle, an exactly zero energy means that the uncertainty in time is infinite, ie the universe could last for ever. It has also been argued effectively that the vacuum energy is negative, to account for the expansion of the universe, and it exactly balances out the mass/energy content of the universe.

The t=0 argument has nothing to do with creation. Noether's theorem states that the law of conservation of mass/energy follows from the invariance of continuous symmetry transformations in time, ie the laws of the universe work the same at any time and direction of time, ie. there is no preferred time. I would think that at time t=0 there is an explicit asymmetry since there is no before, only an after, and this implies mass/energy conservation laws do not apply.

So, what you're saying is....the theory violates the conservation of energy theory so badly, that it's beating a dead horse to even bring it up.

Or are you suggesting that it's a special exception because it represents a break in the continuity of those "symmetry transformations in time" that lead to conservation of energy? If so then I might wonder what mechanism is supposed to have lead to that symmetry becoming established after the event, if it wasn't in place before hand.

If our plan is to simply throw that symmetry out, then "tired light" is just as attractive an option. Let's just willy nilly change the rules whenever we want.