May 19th, 2012, 07:23 PM
Here are some articles
Eric Lerner - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)
BB top 30 problems
Redshifts and Microwaves
I've recently been reading through these articles and some of them actually seem to make sense.
The big bang has been drilled into my head sense I was born but now I am beginning to doubt the framework itself.
Is it possible that mainstream scientist's interpretations of observations are incorrect?
of courseOriginally Posted by David88
perhaps
invariably
(such is the nature of progress)
However, no alternative hypothesis explains the observations.
It is possible. Scientists are constantly looking for new evidence and theories that can provide a better explanation. That is how science works. Many alternatives to the big bang have been proposed by mainstream scientists. There is the likelihood of a Nobel prize for anyone who can make such a groundbreaking discovery or new interpretation.
If/when the big bang model is overturned it will be done by mainstream science.
Oh, and none of those websites you link to are in the least bit credible.
Eric Lerner is an "indepedent researcher" whose plasma universe model has already been falsified - his alternative to the Hubble law is unstable, his model for the CMBR is falsified by the density of radio galaxies and his stellar nucleosynthesis proposal fails due to the observed ratios of elements being somewhat heavier than he predicts.
The thunderbolts website is the place where all the cranks on the internet meet to discuss their ideas.
The metareseach website was run by the man partly responsible for trying to convince us of the "face on mars".
There may be alternative hypotheses which explain some observations (but are contradicted by others). The reason the big bang model is so successful is that it can explain all observations in a single coherent framework.
One problem with these alternative/independent/fringe/crackpot "researchers" is that they pick random explanations that work for one bit of data and try to string them together, ignoring all the cases where they are contradicted. And that is when they are doing their best work and considering the evidence at all...
Thankyou for all the responses. I wasn't aware that website was connected to the "face on mars bullshit" thankyou.
Is there a website out there that thoroughly explains the Big Bang Theory as well as the other theories like Static Universe and Plasma Cosmology?
The Wikipedia entry is a good general introduction, from what I recall.
This blog seems to have some fairly good articles on the electric/plasma universe nonsense: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
I wouldn't label those theories as nonsense. If anything they would help verify the big bang theory's validity.
I just think their has been so much money and so many peoples careers put into the big bang that even if evidence did challenge the very framework of the big bang, it would be difficult to accept. I don't know, just a thought.
They are nonsense. They can do nothing to verify the big bang as they are not even science.
I don't know where people get this idea. People's names and careers are made by doing new work, by finding new data (e.g. the Nobel prize for finding evidence that suggest expansion may be accelerating), for coming up with new theories, etc. No enthusiastic young scientists is going to worry about his old prof's career if the thinks he has a chance of overthrowing the big bang theory. In fact, researchers at lab A would love to come up with a new theory before researchers at lab B. It is not a cosy old-boys club, it is a cut-throat business full of rivalries.I just think their has been so much money and so many peoples careers put into the big bang that even if evidence did challenge the very framework of the big bang, it would be difficult to accept.
How do you think we got the big bang theory in the first place? By people overthrowing a well-established theory that many people had invested their careers in.
Agree completely with your statement!
I forget how many times I have read, on this forum and in other places, posts that put forward the absurd notion that there is often some kind of conspiracy to maintain the status of certain scientific theories regardless of their value and accuracy.
What makes us think that the big bang theory won't be overthrown as well?
I'm not saying scientist are purposely misleading. I'm simply saying that their are alot of holes with in the theory and they seem to be filled in with Dark matter, Dark energy, theoretical particles, etc. Remember that the sun revolving around the Earth fit the observations/assumptions at the time. Why couldn't the big bang be the same? Not even a century has gone by, are we that conceded?
I'm an atheist so no I'm not looking for a "god did it" answer. I'm just looking for the truth.
Now I'm not saying the very framework of the big bang is wrong(possibly is)but many of its components are. Doesn't 13.5 - 20 billion years seem very young for the Universe? The sun is what 5 billion? Look at those galaxy walls shouldn't they have taken longer to develop?
Again I'm not a scientist but I think that these are some very reasonable arguments.
It seems like the big bang is treated almost like a scientific religion, "if you don't buy into it you are stupid and don't understand anything".
The big bang may very well be correct but when someone who has reasonable challenges to it you can't simply dismiss it as nonsense.
Please enlighten me.
Last edited by David88; May 21st, 2012 at 08:51 AM. Reason: spelling
See, that isn't how science works. You can ask these questions, but you have to take into account that, like you said, you are not a scientist. When you say those "walls" should have taken longer, what are your grounds for thinking so? What do you even mean by "walls"? Why does 13.7 billion years seem like too short a time to you?Doesn't 13.5 - 20 billion years seem very young for the Universe? The sun is what 5 billion? Look at those galaxy walls shouldn't they have taken longer to develop?
Again I'm not a scientist but I think that these are some very reasonable arguments.
.
You know why it seems like that? Because the vast majority of people that oppose the Big Bang theory don't know what they are talking about. That isn't mere trash talk. The big bang theory is not a finished, theory that explain everything, but the the theory that explains what we see the best.It seems like the big bang is treated almost like a scientific religion, "if you don't buy into it you are stupid and don't understand anything".
Some challenges are dismissed as nonsense, because they are nonsense and not reasonable. Like I said, big bang theory is not complete and any problems it faces at the moment do not necessarily mean the whole thing has to be discarded. Until either better explanations arrive or if some new data comes to light that really throws a spanner in the works, it is the best we've got atm. Electric universe, steady state models and such simply don't offer viable alternatives.The big bang may very well be correct but when someone who has reasonable challenges to it you can't simply dismiss it as nonsense
Absolutely nothing. That is the nature of science. It is simple a continuous series of provisionally best explanations.
If or when new information comes along, or a new theory to replace general relativity, then we may find we were completely mistaken about the big bang. Ooops. There will be, as always, a few die-hards who refuse to accept the new ideas (Einstein was never happy with quantum mechanics even though he laid the groundworks). But everyone else will be really excited about the greater insights the new theory gives us and the opportunities for exciting new research.
Science isn't going to give you that, unfortunately.I'm just looking for the truth.
Are they reasonable, though? The only way of knowing is to look at all the data in great detail and see how well it matches the model. You can't go by "gut feel" in science.Again I'm not a scientist but I think that these are some very reasonable arguments.
That sort of reaction comes from long frustration with non-scientific objections. You won't find that sort of attitude among scientists.It seems like the big bang is treated almost like a scientific religion, "if you don't buy into it you are stupid and don't understand anything".
Those "reasonable challenges" can only come from people who fully understand the theory behind it. And they do, frequently. I am not a cosmologist but I have seen a few papers (by "real" scientists and published in "proper" scientific journals) that challenge various aspects of the big bang. These are not dismissed as nonsense. On the other hand, they are not accepted as "the next big thing" yet because they don't (currently) answer as many questions as the big bang.The big bang may very well be correct but when someone who has reasonable challenges to it you can't simply dismiss it as nonsense.
Thankyou for all of the insight. I know I'll never know the truth but the search for it is, at least to me, the greatest goal in life.
I just get the notion that scientists now days are becoming certain over a theory that has so many holes in it.
The theory of Evolution is different than the big bang theory.
The Theory of Evolution has so much compounding evidence to support it that it could/should be labeled as a law. Same with plate techtonics etc.
All it would take is to find a squirrel in the precambrian layer to refute the theory.
The Big Bang theory on the other hand has more holes than most theories.
Think about how large a galaxy is. Think about how large just our local group is. It just doesn't seem possible for the Universe to be that young.
Again not a scientist but I've read alot about the big bang and its challengers and I agree with alot of what they say.
Also does something coming from nothing make anysense? Philosophically? If you describe what that nothing is then it is something.
Why couldn't the Universe have always existed?
The big bang was actually proposed by a priest(Georges Lemaître) if I've read correctly. The big bang is the last stand for religious people. If the Universe has always existed, God would be out of a job. Holding onto the big bang theory is a last ditch effort to say "god did it".
If the big bang theory had as many holes as you suggest it wouldn't be widely accepted.
I'm afraid "it doesn't seem possible" just doesn't work as a way of falsifying a theory. You need hard data and corresponding theoretical analysis which shows that the universe must be older.
Who knows. But that isn't what the big bang theory says, anyway.Also does something coming from nothing make anysense?
Maybe it did. (But there is a lot of very good evidence that it used to a lot hotter and denser than it is now.)Why couldn't the Universe have always existed?
More importantly, he was an astronomer and professor of physics. Quite good background for someone researching the evolution of the universe. And it doesn't matter who had the idea (it wasn't just him) no one believes scientific theories because "someone said so". It is the scientific evidence and further testing that went into it.The big bang was actually proposed by a priest(Georges Lemaître) if I've read correctly.
Maybe you are too young to remember the debates that went on last century (god, that makes me feel old) while the theory was getting established. It wasn't an easy ride.
Yeah, right. Weird how often it gets attacked by religious people who see it as some sort of atheist plot.The big bang is the last stand for religious people.
A very praiseworthy goal indeed. I feel the same way.
Can you name some of these holes so we can comment on them directly? Because simply feeling as though galaxies etc are too big to fit in the BB model does not as such really have much value as a valid concern. Can you elaborate a bit?The Big Bang theory on the other hand has more holes than most theories.
Think about how large a galaxy is. Think about how large just our local group is. It just doesn't seem possible for the Universe to be that young.
Again not a scientist but I've read alot about the big bang and its challengers and I agree with alot of what they say
The evidence merely suggests that about 13.7 Bya everything was concentrated together, from which the "bang" happened. We don't know where it came from. The universe could have existed for ever. We don't know. Personally, I lean towards it having existed forever, but I don't really have a strong footing for that fealing. According to GR, there is a singularity at T=0, but that does not take QM into account.Also does something coming from nothing make anysense? Philosophically? If you describe what that nothing is then it is something.
Why couldn't the Universe have always existed?
It shouldn't matter where the idea came from, even if it came from the Bible itself. The BB model is favoured because of the strong evidence for it and predictive power of it, nothing else. I would venture most cosmologists are not religious. Neither am I. Don't let that enter into your considerations for a second.The big bang was actually proposed by a priest(Georges Lemaître) if I've read correctly. The big bang is the last stand for religious people. If the Universe has always existed, God would be out of a job. Holding onto the big bang theory is a last ditch effort to say "god did it"
Ok maybe you can help me clear up some misunderstandings of the Big Bang
Here are some disagreements I have
The red shift determines distance and that all objects are accelerating away from a central point correct?
From what I've read is that red shift is caused not by the distance or acceleration, but by the gases and particles inbetween The telescope and the observed object.The particles create that red shift. Could it be that the Universe is not expanding and that it is just an illusion?
Heavier elements according to the big bang theorist couldn't have been created by forces other than the big bang.
Why couldn't these elements be created within the center of galaxies or dense stars?
The cosmic background radiation is seen as proof of the big bang. Why can't that radiation simply be the result of all the other bodies in the Universe?
Heres a response to the wall of galaxies
Walls of galaxies would be more accurate. They are from what I understand the largest structures in the observable universe. If a star takes 5 billion years to form, how do such large consentrations of galaxies occur in 13.7? I think that it takes alot longer, I think the Universe is alot bigger than what the big bang says it is, I think Dark matter make 95% of the universe is false, I think that the Universe is infinite, and I don't think the Universe had a beginning. Unfortunately I don't have access to Observatories, I'm not a physicist, I'm working towards a degree in biology(because that is my greatest interest), but I find Cosmology almost as exciting.
What I think is and what is are obviously two different things.
I disagree I think that someone who has a deep faith like a priest is more likely to interpret their observations differently. Obviously just a thought. May not be true.
Last edited by David88; May 21st, 2012 at 12:53 PM.
Redshift determines the change in the scale factor of the universe, rather than distance. You need another measurement (surface brightness for instance) in order to determine distance. The theory does NOT say all objects are accelerating from a central point, it says that all (distant) galaxies are accelerating away from other distant galaxies. The whole universe scales up, and nowhere can consider itself to be at the central point, or rather any point can consider itself to be at the centre as, wherever you are, all distant galaxies are receding directly away from you.
This is incorrect. Any gases or particles would cause light to scatter, meaning our view of distant galaxies would be blurred (research term - Compton scattering). But our view isn't blurred - the light remains coherent. There is no known mechanism where light can interact with gas or particles across such great distances and remain coherent. So no, this proposal does not mean that the expansion could be an illusion.
Also, you need a mechanism to explain the cosmological time-dilation that is a predicted effect of the expansion, and that we have measured in supernova light curves. Basically, if a supernova local to us burns bright for 20 days, then with a redshift of z=1 that same type of supernova is seen to burn for 40 days, due to the light being "stretched" by the expansion of the universe. There is no known mechanism that might account for this if the universe were not expanding and the light were interacting with something during its journey - you need a mechanism where the "back" of the wave is delayed by a lot more than the front of the wave!
Not sure where you are getting this from - all the heavy elements were created in supernovae, not in the Big Bang. After the BB we only had hydrogen, helium and some deuterium if I remember correctly.
Because no star, or galaxy or combination of them has a blackbody spectrum as pure as the blackbody of the CMB. There is no combination of objects that could give us the spectum seen in the CMB.
Why on Earth do you think stars take 5 billion years to form? We have seen star formation from far less than 1 billion years after the Big-Bang. We even have galaxy formation less than 1 billion years after the Big Bang.
When everything in the universe was still very hot and close together, stars form easily, no?
You give some very good explanations. I agree with most of them but I will still remain skeptical.
If galaxies are moving away from one another why couldn't electomagnetism/gravity or some other force cause them to move rather than an expanding Universe?
If the Universe is indeed infinite why couldn't that create a uniform background? Maybe the CMB is perhaps from extremely distant bodies.
Here's something I found on the Red Shift that seems interesting.
Reading the article would better help understand it much better than I could describe it.
http://www.ldolphin.org/gentry1.pdf
And reading the article below would help you understand the main problems with Gentry's New Redshift Interpretation in a much better way than I could possibly do in this post.
Debunking Gentry's "New Redshift Interpretation" Cosmology
Note that Gentry has creationism and is proposing a steady state universe; so much for the idea that the big bang is some sort of religious idea.
Thankyou I will give it a read.
Science in alot of ways is really a court case for truth. Correct? All sides provide evidence and then it is interpreted and explained.
There is only one truth, that is one thing I do know. But whether anyone in the room can provide proper evidence for it is and should always be questionable/doubted.
There is only one truth about Universe(It was either created or it has always been, or parts of it(matter,energy) are finite but the Universe itself(all that is) could have existed forever. Whether or not we will ever truly find the answer is questionable. The truth might be thousands of years away.
Remember we are smart pieces of meat, floating on a big rock. (essentially)
I don't think Gentry realizes that him trying to disprove the big bang is not doing any favor in his argument for God. If the Universe is Steady and there was no big bang, then there is no observable creation story period.
Just like my argument against the Priest. I'm saying if the Big Bang didn't happen or we can explain how it happened in greater detail, religion will have no were to hide (at least for reasonable people). Bible thumpers won't care.
I understand alot of people here clearly have a better understanding than I do so I'm trying to get helpful insight and push towards were to find credible sources both for and against the big bang. Explaining why some proposals are wrong helps me better understand.
Last edited by David88; May 21st, 2012 at 03:02 PM.
I'm not sure (but we are getting into philosophy - not my favourite subject). I would describe it more as a search for the best model(s). Whether these models just happen to work or whether they actually describe reality is probably outside the scope of science.
There is certainly a pretty brutal testing process.All sides provide evidence and then it is interpreted and explained.
I'll definitely leave that one to the philosophers!There is only one truth
Has anyone read The Big Bang Never Happened ? by Eric J. Lerner. You can't honestly say that these aren't reasonable challenges to the big bang.
If you have read it and know what challenges are false then please elaborate.
I have not read it, but you might want to read some of the 1-star reviews on Amazon to get a flavor for the objections to it. Speedfreek also listed some above.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe
I'm not saying I agree with the Plasma Cosmology model, even though it does provide good reanson to at least question the big bang. What I like most about the book is his view on how societal factors can shape how science is conducted.
Plasma Cosmology aside, the evidence provides as to how old some objects in space as opposed to the age of the current big bang model doesn't false. It may be.
How can some objects be estimated at 100billion year old when the BB Model says its 13.7?
Because the estimates are wrong and have been thoroughly refuted?
Why is it then, that whenever something has been brought up that challenged the big bang, the model had to invent dark matter, theoretical particles etc? It just seems like the theory is constantly trying to be saved by plugging in new factors. Making the math work, without any actual observations.
Why does reality have to fit the math? Shouldn't it be the other way around.
Is there any side by side comparison somewhere that has the BBM and all of its rivalries?
I'm not the only one that sees this? there are alot of people who think along the same lines as I do.
The big bang seems to be sciences version of creationism
The big bang: Well astronomer Brent Tully found this supercluster of galaxies that is 100 billion+ years old, well thats fine but the Universe is still 13.7byo your evidence doesn't fit the already established model.
Creation: The evidence points toward the earth being about 4.5byo, well that's fine but the Earth is
only 6000yo, it doesn't fit what the bible says it can't possibly be true.
Last edited by David88; May 21st, 2012 at 08:06 PM.
Got a link for Tully's claim that you stated? I can't find it.
Strike 2, you have now revealed yourself as a bible thumping creationist. Not good.Creation: The evidence points toward the earth being about 4.5byo, well that's fine but the Earth is
only 6000yo, it doesn't fit what the bible says it can't possibly be true.
This no loonger belongs in Astronomy and Cosmology
Ok for one I wasn't say I was supporting the creationists point of view. At all actually.
No matter what evidence is presented to either, to dismiss the evidence because it doesn't fit the predetermined model they both either ignore it or add some theoretical untested/not observed element.
Maybe accepting the big bang as fact and dismissing all challenging theories that have reasonable evidence to refute the big bang model should be in a different forum.
I was stating similarities I see with the mind frame of big bang supporters and creationists.
Here's two articles
Massive Clusters of Galaxies Defy Concepts of the Universe - New York Times
Superclusters (again from Lerner)
Ok Tully discovered those bodies
Here is an article that proposes the age of these clusters
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-big-bang.html
Last edited by David88; May 21st, 2012 at 09:39 PM.
Moved to pseudo. It seems you are more interested in promoting a conspiracy theory than learning about the big bang theory.
Ha that is exactly what I'm not trying to do. I go and I find possible contradictions and no one can explain to me why they are wrong?
Anything that challenges the big bang is pseudoscience? wow
You moved me hear to shut me up so that a true dialogue couldn't be discussed. That is not how you dismiss a claim. Dismiss a claim by providing evidence to silence it.
I was waiting for actual responses and I only received decent responses from two people.
Oh hell, you found us out. This entire site is dedicated to a conspiracy to shut you up, so that the TRUTH will not be found out.You moved me hear to shut me up so that a true dialogue couldn't be discussed.
David, you seem to be dwelling in the forests of confusion on the status of these alternate viewpoints. They are NOT simply dismissed, but are found wanting in terms of sufficient evidence and often scientific correctness. But this has been explained to you before, hasn't it?
You do not appear to be interested in discussing the answers those two people gave you. The business about superclusters doesn't have anything to do with the plasma universe. You are not defending any alternative theory. You are just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.
You are making unsupported assertions and accusations about people's mind set. Until you have a better understanding of the subject matter, you have no business criticizing someone else's reasons for the scientific opinions they hold.
There is often a lot more activity in the pseudo section, so far from shutting you up this move is actually giving you a wider audience. I would think that is welcome.
You have had objective responses with detailed explanations from more than two people.
No, only pseudoscience that challenges the big bang is pseudoscience.
There are, obviously, a number of open questions in big bang cosmology. And there are "real" scientists researching these problems.
I am puzzled by your attitude. You admit you are not an expert and yet you seem more willing to accept the unsupported opinions of a few non-experts published in books and on blogs rather than the many thousands of papers with data and analysis written by experts and reviewed by other experts. All of which has been duplicated many times by many independent teams.
This does not sound like open-minded sceptical enquiry. It sounds more like a desperate search for anything that might prove the big bang theory wrong.
You might find some answers to your questions here: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
or here: FAQs about the origin of the universe - The Astronomy Cafe - Ask the Astronomer
I apologize from diving in headfirst. Ill come back when I have a.better understanding
the foregoing kinda reminds me of an anecdotal episode from long ago and far away
I had been invited to a party at the "tower of power" where the deans, university president, etc etc had their offices, conference rooms and...
an aged emeritus was finally moving on and had thrown the party as a farewell to some of his past students
one of the fellow grad students had been working(for many long years and sleepless nights) on a theory initially proposed by one of the honored guest who was now a professor at a different university, and finally had a chance to meet his "hero"
so he began a conversation as re the theory and his progesss -------whereupon, the professor/originator said: ..(paraphrased for brevity)...
"Oh, that silly thing? I don't know what i was thinking of at the time, but I gave up on that nonsense long ago------I was wrong."
as you can well imagine
my fellow student was crushed
he didn't burst into tears, and run from the building screaming and crying and tearing out his hair
but had a hollow sad look while re-evaluating his years of research
the wine soured in his glass
and we all wondered how he could cope with this crushing blow(one of my favorite professors worried that he might commit suicide)
.....................
before i left the academy, our hapless fellow had found a way to put his research to another vector in the dance of finding a workable hypothesis, and then offering it up to be evaluated by strangers
................
am i convinced that BB will one day go the way of the dodo bird?
no
but it wouldn't surprise me
and if it does
that doesn't mean that the research and measurements it has generated will be worthless
we develope research tools and instrumentation to see what we think we can identify,
and ofttimes the information gathered can lead us to new conclusions
which, may be overshadowed in their turn
................
research that gathers just one more building block in our greater understanding is never a waste
I never said that the big bang didn't happen. I just don't like the idea that any evidence that is brought to the table is dismissed.
I agree that even if it is eventially falsified the research is never a waste.
The first of your links involves Plasma Cosmology (PC). Eric Lerner wrote the book "The Big Bang Never Happened" published in the early 90's. I think it is a good critique of the Big Bang (BB) model. He endorses Plasma Cosmology, which was proposed by the Nobel laureate Hannes alfven. Its basis is that the plasma in galaxies have high-speed flows akin to electric currents, and/or actual electric currents are induced within flowing plasmas by magnetic influences. Magnetism and electricity accordingly can influence the position of stars within a galaxy, and thereby the form of the galaxy, and the rotation rate of spiral galaxies. Gravity is the controlling and exclusive influence based upon the standard BB model.
Electric Universe (EU) proponents endorse Plasma Cosmology but go further in their assertions. Both PC and EU proponents assert that intergalactic space is not always electrically neutral, an idea largely denied in conventional astronomy. EU has a number of factions, some of which are thought to be radical since they relate to human psychological and physical influences supposedly relating to magnetic cosmic influences, and generally considered to be a psuedo-science by the science community. Such factions are disavowed by Plasma Cosmology and other EU factions thinking they give them a bad name.
I think the "Big Bang 30 problems" is a good read. But there are only 10 problems shown on that link. I believe that most of the 10 mentioned are real problems. Mainstream theorists do not consider most of these as problems with the BB model.
Above mentioned are only two models of Cosmology with only one central theme. It may be important to mention that there are a great many other cosmological models not mentioned, even though most mainstream theorists think that some or most of the other more well-known models have been disproved.
Here's a listing of some of the other more well-known alternative models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology
Of course it's possible, and I think most would agree. The difference of opinion I think would mostly be in the possible extent and likelihood of the misinterpretation.Is it possible that mainstream scientist's interpretations of observations are incorrect?
Last edited by forrest noble; May 22nd, 2012 at 08:27 PM.
John is right. This is a better venue since those that might agree can also tell you their opinion without withholding punches, as long as personal theories are not promoted excepting in their own threadThere is often a lot more activity in the pseudo section, so far from shutting you up this move is actually giving you a wider audience. I would think that is welcome.
You have had objective responses with detailed explanations from more than two people.
Yes, this is where unfounded nonsense should be posted.
This is where unfounded nonsence might be found as well as ideas looking for varying opinions and possible agreement, not just standard-model opinions and explanations.
Science is not a popularity contest. It deals with experiment, observation, confirmation and falsification. If ideas do not conform to the real universe, they are nonsense, no matter how many woo-woos agree.well as ideas looking for varying opinions and possible agreement
I'd consider the big bang more pseudoscience than many of the other theories
The large holes in the theory were filled with factors such as dark matter and ignoring observational evidence.
You really should read "the big bang never happened" I am currently reading it. Even though I don't completely agree with the plasma cosmology model it does distinguish what real science is and what the science that created the big bang theory is.
The difference is the empirical evidence should alway come before mathematical models.
Math should explain the evidence not the other way around.
You can't have an already set framework. then whenever something challenges it simply pull new theoretical factors out and add them to make the model work. That isn't science
Read the book you'll understand what I'm talking about. It does make you raise some questions and in know way can it trully be dismissed as bull.
I've read the book in its entirety and agree that it is the most complete critique of the BB model that I know of. It was written in the early 90's and some of it is dated. But most of it remains a valid criticism, in my opinion.
I agree that the Big Bang model will be replaced. I will give it 20 more years or less. When the James Webb goes up I expect they will be observing the most distant galaxies possible and that collectively they will have the same variety as local galaxies, indicating a far older universe. The BB model now has the ability via dark energy and Inflation, to adjust its age far beyond 13.7 billion years. When they start proposing hypothesis to greatly increase the proposed universe age, I believe that time will be the harbinger of doom for the model.
Within the last few months or so there have been a number of studies and reports published contradicting the BB model. Below are two in the last couple of weeks.
The Ancient Massive Galaxy Mystery -- 80 percent Appear Extremely Active and Growing (Today's Most Popular)....There are fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago; which would make them older than the Big Bang. Then there is the problem of the oldest globular clusters so far discovered, whose ages are in excess of 16 billion years. The Milky Way and other galaxies are also so old that they must have formed before the so called "Dark Ages" and thus almost immediately after the Big Bang, which is not consistent with theory.....
quote from the Royal Astronomical SocietyOur model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in galaxies, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...or-dark-matter
Last edited by forrest noble; May 22nd, 2012 at 11:21 PM.
It is dangerous for the masses to accept what the "experts" say and not question it.
If you don't doubt everything, you will be a slave to something. I stand by that for most things in life.
Perhaps you should learn physics. Doubting everything while knowing nothing is not productive. If you don't know what you're doubting, how can you know what you're doubting?It is dangerous for the masses to accept what the "experts" say and not question it.
True. It is probably even more dangerous to accept what non-experts say without question.
Assertions that something is wrong are easy to make and easy to believe.
Looking for evidence (some of which can be quite subtle and indirect) and understanding what that evidence means can require some intellectual effort.
They are complementary. Science has always progressed by an alternation of theoretical predictions and experimental evidence.
For example, Newton's universal law of gravitation was based on (among other things) Kepler's observations of the motion of planets.
When Newton's law was used to model the behaviour of the planets more accurately certain anomalies were seen. From the theory (i.e. mathematics) a new planet was predicted. This was obviously a Big Mistake according to you and should never have been done. But when they looked in the predicted location: Neptune!
But that can't be right. Obviously Neptune doesn't really exist. It was just invented by astronomers to prop up a dying theory.
Similarly, Einstein's theory of relativity was based on experimental evidence (ultimately, Faraday's experiments). It has since made a number of predictions. Every single one of those that has been tested has been confirmed.
One of those predictions was an expanding universe. But we should ignore the evidence that confirms that theoretical prediction because you don't like it.
Got any more brilliant insights like that?
Yes the two can be complimentary if done correctly.
But when a model simply can't be wrong because the new evidence doesn't fit the already established mathematical model(The Big Bang) then that is wrong.
You can't have a preset model of what the Universe must be. Empirical data should come first.
The observable objects in the Universe are moving. But why does that have to be caused by a big bang that created the "whole" Universe? Why can't other forces be at work?
The trouble is all the evidence does fit the model, with some modifications (to the model). If there was evidence that flat-out contradicted the model (e.g. a large number of blue-shifted galaxies at some distance) then the theory would not have survived.
Just because you have some built-in prejudice against the current best theory, you might consider that adapting a theory to fit the facts is just "propping up a failed theory" but I would remind you that:
If you have some evidence that contradicts the theory, or evidence that data has been hidden/modified to avoid falsifying the theory, then lets see it.You can't have a preset model of what the Universe must be.
Objects in the observable Universe are older than the Big Bang model
Which ones?
Here's an example that forrest noble provided.
The Ancient Massive Galaxy Mystery -- 80 percent Appear Extremely Active and Growing (Today's Most Popular)
Objects in the observable Universe are older than the Big Bang model
I have a problems with the big bang because of how it was acquired, the model doesn't work without the presence of dark matter. Where is the dark matter? Most of the Universe is comprised of dark matter yet it hasn't been observed? It is one of the fudge factor that has kept the model up for so long.
Taking the skeptical view of the "best theory"(widely accepted) is the best way of confirming it if it is indeed true. How can one trully understand a model if one can't compare and dismiss the other models?
The majority is not infallable. It is easy for science to become dogmatic. Its human nature.
I just think that a Universe that has always existed and is continuosly evolving makes more sense than a Universe that came from nothing and simply freezes. It's similar to the bible creation story.
What makes sense to me doesn't mean its true.
Which ones?That articles says "We found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old."
How is that "older than the Big Bang model"?
Or did you mean, older than predicted by our current models of galaxy formation? We know there are a lot of problems and unknowns in our understanding of how galaxies form. These observations should help improve that.
from that linkpost 58)
"There are fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago; which would make them older than the Big Bang. Then there is the problem of the oldest globular clusters so far discovered, whose ages are in excess of 16 billion years. The Milky Way and other galaxies are also so old that they must have formed before the so called "Dark Ages" and thus almost immediately after the Big Bang, which is not consistent with theory."
whither hence?
I'm not sure about that. The big bang model existed, and worked, before the discovery of dark matter. Dark matter is was originally hypothesized to account for the unexpected effects of gravity within and between galaxies.
Obviously the big bang model had to be updated to cope with this new data. The good news is that it solved some of the problems the model had.
Well, it's effects have been observed. There only seem to be two good possibilities.Where is the dark matter? Most of the Universe is comprised of dark matter yet it hasn't been observed?
- Either dark matter is "stuff" that we can't currently detect. That model works well with other observations so is pretty popular. It also fits with the big bang.
- The other is that we need a modified theory of gravity (MOND and the like). These wouldn't seem to explain all observations. I don't know if anyone has worked through all the implications for the big bang model if you use one of these gravity models (I'm not even sure if they are worked out in enough detail to do that yet). But I have never seen anything to suggest they would be the death knell for the big bang.
It could be a combination of these. Or some other idea we haven't thought of yet.
Well, I have no idea how my car works. I don't go to my dentist or plumber (or that crazy guy on the corner who keeps telling me the frobulator is broken). I go to the relevant expert. I might check out a few knowing some of them are only in it for the money. And some may be lying about how much they know.How can one trully understand a model if one can't compare and dismiss the other models?
It is easy for scientists to become dogmatic. There are lots of examples of this historically. Like all those people who refused to accept the big bang theory initiallyThe majority is not infallable. It is easy for science to become dogmatic. Its human nature.
Is there a theory that says this?a Universe that came from nothing and simply freezes.
Isn't the whole premise of the Big Bang Model that the Universe expanded from a singularity, that expanded froma state of "perfect" energy and is now decaying and will eventually freeze basically. Order to disorder.
Why ignore other forces? Gravity is a relatively weak force. What about Electro Magnetism? There are other processes that explain what we see today that do not require a big bang.
I am studying quantum mechanics now and it is absolutely amazing.
If I could actually find anything beyond vague claims, I might be able to answer that ....
I have seen lots of claims that there are "things older than the universe". I haven't been able to find a refutation of that. But then I haven't been able to find any specific data to support it either....
No. It is a model of the evolution of the early universe from a hot dense state to what we see today. With, of course, the possibility of extrapolating at least some way into the future.
No one ignores other forces.Why ignore other forces? Gravity is a relatively weak force. What about Electro Magnetism?
Such as?There are other processes that explain what we see today that do not require a big bang.
It is, isn't it. (But I hope you are not going to start saying we have got that all wrong as well!I am studying quantum mechanics now and it is absolutely amazing.
I think time is a human creation. The Universe is infinite we are only observing an interval within eternity. Time didn't begin with the big bang. The big bang if it happened exists within eternity. Speculation
Maybe. We don't know.
From what I'm reading. Electric flowing throw plasma creates long filament(which has been observed in labs). This process occurs no matter how large the objects in question are. Those superclusters where formed(according to this theory) in the same way.
n
o because alot of quantum mechanics has observable, testable, confirmed properties. Many of the technologies we have today are proof of that. Unlike the big bang
The best I have found is this: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
So it looks like it may have been a claim based on inaccurate (and out of date) information. Although I am a bit frustrated that it doesn't say exactly which stars are referred to.Thus the discrepancy between the age of the oldest things in the Universe and the age inferred from the expansion rate was always within the margin of error. In fact, in 1997 improved distances from the HIPPARCOS satellite suggested that the oldest stars were younger, and the WMAP results in 2003 suggest that the Universe is older, so the discrepancy has disappeared.
I don't know much about plasma physics (it seems pretty complex) but wouldn't a current flowing through a plasma generate specific frequencies of electromagnetic radiation which would identify this as the cause?
I really wish I had a panel of experts to talk to with opposing theories
The most accurate statement would be that some astronomers claim that by using presently accepted age dated methods, that a few globular clusters in and surrounding our galaxy appear to be a minimum of 16 billion years old. Others have given various criticisms of such claims, pointing out possible errors of measurement/ calculations, stating how the age-dating method(s) can sometimes give inaccurate results, and why these clusters are probably much younger.The best I have found is this: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
So it looks like it may have been a claim based on inaccurate (and out of date) information. Although I am a bit frustrated that it doesn't say exactly which stars are referred to.Thus the discrepancy between the age of the oldest things in the Universe and the age inferred from the expansion rate was always within the margin of error. In fact, in 1997 improved distances from the HIPPARCOS satellite suggested that the oldest stars were younger, and the WMAP results in 2003 suggest that the Universe is older, so the discrepancy has disappeared.
Of course if an assertion goes against the accepted mainstream model all should expect a barrage of criticism if the assertion is thought to be well documented, otherwise such papers can easily be ignored.
I was hoping someone might come up with some data rather than just repeating "some people say they are older others don't". We know that.
Strange,
(quote from link)The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster). Another source of uncertainty in this estimate lies in our ignorance of some of the finer details of stellar evolution. Presumably, the universe itself is at least as old as the oldest globular clusters that reside in it.
This is the consensus opinion on the subject today.
WMAP- Age of the Universe
Thanks. That confirms Ned Wright's FAQ that there is no inconsistency (yet).
Imagine there's no big bang
It isn't hard to do
Imagine all the people seeing that its not true
You may say I'm puedoscience supporter, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us and the science community can live as one.
Sry i've been to serious the past few days, I need to take a day off
[QUOTE=Strange;326422]I don't know much about plasma physics (it seems pretty complex) but wouldn't a current flowing through a plasma generate specific frequencies of electromagnetic radiation which would identify this as the cause?[/QUOTE
I've read that that is what the Background radiation might be and that the galaxies absorb a lot of it. It's possible I guess
The trouble with that (and most other explanations for the cosmic background) is that it has an almost perfect black body spectrum. There are very few mechanisms that can reproduce that.
I think both Einstein and Hubble would have been skeptical of the present standard model if they could have had knowledge of all modern observations, but myself and many others can give you a pretty accurate understanding of what Hawking and Lerner think since they both have published both recently and extensively.I really wish I had a panel of experts to talk to with opposing theories
Did Lerner and Hawking make new books recently? If so I want to buy them.
I think not but both are being published online on a regular basis. Hawing's last book 2010 was The Grand Design with coauthor Leonard Mlodinow. This is where he said:
“The universe can create itself out of nothing,”which was the subject of another thread in this forum.
A review by Dr. William Craig explains that the phrase “creation out of nothing” as used by Hawking is very different from the concept of creation ex nihilo, as in the Bible
--------------------------------
In recent years Lerner has concentrated on Plasma physics, his specialty, receiving accolades for his achievements this past March. Lerner explained his "Focus Fusion" approach in a 2007 Google Tech Talk. On November 14, 2008, Lerner received funding for for his continued research to test the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion. On October 15, 2009, the DPF device "Focus Fusion-1" achieved its first pinch. On January 28th, 2011, LPP and Lerner published initial results including experimental shots with considerably higher fusion yields than the historical DPF trend.In March 2012 the company announced that it had achieved temperatures of 1.8 billion degrees, beating the old record of 1.1 billion that had survived since 1978, but still well below temperatures needed for sustained fusion. The company is following the Lazar focus beam approach on a plasma, to produce nuclear fusion for renewable energy.
Last edited by forrest noble; May 24th, 2012 at 10:51 PM.
Thankyou for the info.
If the big bang didn't happen. Is it still possible for matter/energy to be created by "quantum fluctuations"? Or has the matter/energy in the Universe always existed?
I don't think so; this just "borrows" energy (from nowhere) under the rules of the uncertainty principle.
One of Hoyle's last ideas to try and save the steady state theory was that new matter could be created slowly enough that it wouldn't be directly detectable (but would allow the universe to expand while maintaining its overall density/appearance). At the time, I remember thinking it was a really cool idea (with a side order of desperation
I don't think the human mind is naturally comfortable with some concepts
The idea of infinity makes me dizzy sometimes. I think has to do with the nature of life. We are born and then we die. It is drilled into us from all that we see around us. But the Universe doesn't have to be that way. The harsh reality of our mortality is (in my opinion) what created gods/God and what keeps people clinging to it.
The inability to explain the world around them had a big part as if not the biggest
The idea that something can exist in more than one place at the same time. Electrons/matter is hard the fathom and yet it happens (supposedly).
The idea that something can come from nothing. It poses the question what was before that?
If space is finite then what's outside that?
The fact that I'm here typing this ramble is really humbling if you think about it. Life itself seems strange to me no matter how I look at it.
I have to say I never thought it was a "cool" idea, but I do agree with your description "a side order of desperation".I don't think so; this just "borrows" energy (from nowhere) under the rules of the uncertainty principle.
One of Hoyle's last ideas to try and save the steady state theory was that new matter could be created slowly enough that it wouldn't be directly detectable (but would allow the universe to expand while maintaining its overall density/appearance). At the time, I remember thinking it was a really cool idea (with a side order of desperation
If the BB didn't happen and the BB model is wrong, then another theory would explain the universe. If it is a finite but much older universe model then like the BB model it would probably explain the ZPF formation at the beginning of the universe. This field would not accordingly precede the universe, nothing would. As to what mechanism reality went from the ZPF to matter and energy as we know it, would depend on the particular model. In my own model, the Pan Theory, the universe went from field particles creating small black holes, eventually resulting in bigger black holes that slowly create matter from ZPF particulates, eventually resulting in the universe we now live in.
In the many infinite universe models, matter, time, and the ZPF always existed and for most of these models one aspect of reality does not create another part/ aspect.
Hawking uses General Relativity for the mathematical basis of his cosmology and considers his cosmology to be a version of the BB model.
I did like Hoyle's ideas and believe we will revisit many of these ideas if/ when the BB model is on the ropes. He proposed matter being created from the ZPF in a similar way that Hawing proposes universes/ multiverses being created. A better idea, I think, originated from Paul Dirac regarding the creation of new matter from the ZPF within galaxies. My own model proposes a similar type of creation of new matter surrounding black holes, which might be thought of as having some similarity to Hawking's ideas of Hawking radiation only the extent of this creation was accordingly much greater resulting in the whole universe we live in (no BB needed for creation).
Very interesting I am excited to see how all of this unfolds and hope that I'm still alive to see it or even be a part of it.
Maybe in about 10 years or less, I expect that we will witness the beginning of a paradigm shift in cosmology. This change I think will be caused by the observations by the James Webb telescope which I expect will greatly contradict the BB model. Right now the focus is on such details as dark matter and the validity of General Relativity. Both of these models I expect will fall.
How do the other models explain the decay of matter?
How is it renewed? so to speak.
Last edited by David88; May 24th, 2012 at 03:05 PM.
do any current findings preclude
infinite space
with billions(an infinite #?)of universes
we havent seen all of this universe yet?
multiverse---each unique? each evolving?
whither hence?
I agree there is really no way of knowing yet whether there are other Universes, if there are any as far as I know. (we may never know)
I see the Universe as a collection of all that is.
This may be it; The Universe we are in now could be all that there is and I think it is infinite.
There is no mainstream models that I can think of that address the decay of matter other than the Big Rip idea. If this is what you are referring to then there are numerous models that assert that the universe is not expanding, having another explanation for galactic redshifts. In these models the observable universe may have cycles but accordingly will forever generally remain the same. All of the infinite universe models that I know of like Hoyle's models, also do not propose a "decaying" universe in the future.
There are no findings or observations that preclude that possibility. Hawking likes the idea since he can get away from the singularity idea concerning the BB model. Other than that I see no reason to believe in such an idea since it solves no other theoretical problems that I know of. In infinite universe models galaxies keep going on forever with no reason to suggest that there might be any vast spacial separation such as in the multi-verse ideas.
Would you show us some of the critical equations in this process please.
John Galt,
Hey John, you remember me from the BAUT forum don't you?Would you show us some of the critical equations in this process please.
For the critical equations needed for this transition, I expect to see another theory of gravity replacing General Relativity and the dark matter idea. I expect such equations will look like MOND but ones that can work in all venues and scales unlike MOND. The second equational replacement I think will be the Hubble formula/law whereby I think it is incomplete and needs to be revised which I think would explain away dark energy. Thirdly I think there is an unknown but required equation related to brightness of galaxies at a distance. It would be a modification of the inverse square law of galactic light. These are the equational changes that I expect to see in the coming years.
I have my own versions of these equations. If you or anyone else is interested PM me since even in this forum (pseudo-science) one cannot push his own model, excepting in his own thread.
Last edited by forrest noble; May 24th, 2012 at 07:41 PM.
What exactly is a black hole? I always thought a black hole was simply an extremely dense object that prevents light from escaping.
How did scientists calculate that the laws of physics breakdown? What do they mean by that exactly? I have a good idea but I want someone who knows more to explain it to me.
There are a number of black hole theoretical models. Originally black holes were predicted form Einstein's field equations based upon General Relativity. The idea is that when mass is large enough and dense enough it can collapse beyond the particle limit down to a single point, called a singularity. In time problems developed with the theory and other models of black holes were proposed not involving a singularity. Some of these ideas relate to your quote concerning "an extremely dense object that prevents light from escaping."
Here's a link to some of these models, all known mathematical models are thought to have problems. In my own model back holes are simply compressed fundamental particles something like dark matter only vastly smaller.
(quote from link)....the existence of a stable model of a nonsingular black hole is still an open question.
Nonsingular black hole models - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What if black holes are simply large objects like a star, but is so dense that light cannot escape(the density of an entire galaxy or more) that goes through the same process as a super nova(or something similar)? Could that give us a "big bang"?
Just a thought
Could there be different sized black holes?
Last edited by David88; May 24th, 2012 at 07:20 PM.
| « Two possible sources for global warming: Greenhouse gases and the Earth's core. Both could be caused by man. | Changing the behavior of genes and neurons by a non chemical,non surgical process » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
16Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
