PDA

View Full Version : What's Wrong with the Big Bang??



Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-12, 12:20 AM
Here I am starting trouble again. So far I have asked about observational weaknesses in standard cosmology (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2840&forum=1&133) and the redshift distance relationship (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2431&forum=1&246). Most seem to agree that there is a redshift distance relationship, but debate what it looks like (how much "intrinsic" and how much "cosmological" redshifts). The request for observational weaknesses simply drew a blank. There don't appear to be any.

Note that any observation is subject to interpretation; indeed, that's how we make sense of observations. So, any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with more than just one theory. To me, an observational weakness is an observation that cannot be made consistent with the theory, at least not without fundamentally unreasonable assumptions being involved.

There are plenty of alternative theory interpretations of observation, some better than others, and some more serious than others, and they are all hashed out (more or less) in the various threads.

So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?

Cheers.

AstroMike
2002-Dec-12, 12:38 AM
Here is the Crank.net page on the Big Bang.

http://www.crank.net/bigbang.html

D J
2002-Dec-12, 12:47 AM
Lets see what the -Bad guys- have to say about that:
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:LGlrg2nflhwC:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF+galaxy+PG+0052%2B25.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Chip
2002-Dec-12, 02:18 AM
On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:
"....So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on? Cheers.
Run for cover! The John Kierein Cavalry is mustering up their forces, and galloping in!

But seriously, I think the reasons some people (maybe not John Kierein) are irked by Big Bang cosmology begins within the non-scientific realm. (As Tim Thompson implied: philosophical.) I think some folks seem to find the idea of an ultimate origin for all that we see disturbing. Other reasons could be religious, or psychological, or a combination. The point is, a non-scientific origin usually remains in the background as a motivation for the quest to justify scientifically either an alternate theory, or to find fault with, and undermine Big Bang cosmology. This motivation seems to take place before an actual observation of data is seen on face value. The motivation precedes the objection, rather than a more open minded review of data and acceptance of how the cosmos on the grand scale can be understood.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-12-12 13:56 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Dec-12, 02:22 AM
On 2002-12-11 19:47, Orion38 wrote:
Lets see what the -Bad guys- have to say about that:
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:LGlrg2nflhwC:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF+galaxy+PG+0052%2B25.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


JS Princeton addresses those "problems" here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=714&forum=1&start=28)

ToSeek
2002-Dec-12, 02:23 AM
There does seem to be an almost universal disdain among "cranks" for the Big Bang theory. Any of them with "original" ideas in physics seem to start with refuting the Big Bang (relativity seems to run second). I have no idea why.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-12, 02:50 AM
There does seem to be an almost universal disdain among "cranks" for the Big Bang theory. Any of them with "original" ideas in physics seem to start with refuting the Big Bang (relativity seems to run second). I have no idea why.


They have a need to discredit all of the possible proofs for the Big Bang, thereby rendering the Big Bang meaningless to their friends who agree with their position. In order to dislodge the position that the Big Bang has in astrophysics/cosmology, one has to discredit the science underlying the theory.

I do not think that the Big Bang deniers have been very successful, except with the true believers of the alternate theories. Yawn...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-12, 03:21 AM
Orion suggests the "Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang (available as a PDF file from the Aperion archives (http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm); or just setttle for the webpage that enshrines the Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp)).

Well, I hardly have time to exhaustively go over all 30 here and now. So lets just talk about problem number 1.

Number one problem with the Big Bang (at least according to Tom Van Flandern): Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters - the static universe model.

There are only two references given as justification for this paragraph. One is Tom Van Flandern's book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (1999), and his article from Apeiron (1995), "Did the Universe Have a Beginning? (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp).

So, what are the questions that sort of naturally come about, from reading this paragraph? Here are a few I can think of.

1) Is the central thesis correct? Do observations really fit a static universe better?

2) Does the deceleration parameter require mutually exclusive criteria to pass different tests?

3) Does Occam's razor favor the model with fewer adjustable parameters?

And here's my shot at some answers.

Question 1: I don't have the book, so I can only refer to the article. In the article, Van Flandern outlines 7 tests that he says favor a static universe. Tests number 5 (Supernova lightcurves) & 6 (The ages of globular clusters and of superclusters of galaxies) are the easiest to dismiss. Contrary to Van Flandern's outdated critique, supoernova light curves are observed to follow the relativistic expectation of time dilation, which he says is expected in an expanding universe, and not expected in a static universe (Effects of relativistic expansion on late-time supernova light curves, K. Iwamoto, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 54(4): L63-L67, 2002; Time dilation from spectral feature age measurements of Type Ia supernovae, A.G. Riess et al.,, Astronomical Journal 114(2): 722-729, August 1997). The ages of globular clusters once appeared to be marginally inconsistent with a younger age derived for the universe, but that discrepancy has vanished in the presence of better data & better models (Setting new constraints on the age of the Universe, I. Ferreras, A. Melchiorri & J. Silk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 327(4): L47-L51, November 11, 2001; The age of globular clusters in light of hipparcos: Resolving the age problem?, B. Chaboyer et al., Astrophysical Journal 494(1): 96-110, Part 1, February 10, 1998). Van Flandern's criticism based on galactic cluster formation is dismissed because he bases his critique on a model that is not incorporated in Big Bang cosmologies.

Test number 2 is a claim that galaxy number counts are inconsistent with an expanding universe. It is based on a 1986 paper by P.A. LaVoilette, who favors a tired light cosmology, and uses his paper to exclude a static Euclidean universe (Is the universe really expanding?, Astrophysical Journal 301: 544-553, February 15, 1986). But more recent publications, nased on far larger numbers of galaxies, do not support LaViolette's conclusions (Galaxy number counts in the Subaru Deep Field: Multiband analysis in a hierarchical galaxy formation model, M. Nagashima et al., Astrophysal Journal 578(2): 675-688, Part 1, October 20, 2002; Galaxy number counts from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey commissioning data, N. Yasuda et al., Astronomical Journal 122(3): 1104-1124, September 2001).

And tests 3 (Surface brightness versus redshift for galaxies) & 7 (Galaxy evolution) are by Van Flandern's own criteria, consistent with expanding universe cosmologies.

That's 5 of his 7 tests. I don't have time to proceed with the others, but I trust my point is at least made. The content of the statement, claiming that static universe models are a better fit, appears weak at best, and is most likely false.

Question 2: I don't know where the claim for inconsistency in the deceleration parameter comes from, unles perhaps from Van Flandern's article again. My brief review of the literature implies not so much inconsistency as confusion. There are indeed a number of conflicting reports, but the deceleration is harder than most to measure, and is not a fundamental parameter anyway (or so it seems to me), being dependent on the geometry (i.e., you cannot derive from observation a model independent deceleration parameter). This implies to me that the criticism from Van Flandern is weak, and relies on an overestimation of the ability to derive a deceleration parameter directly from observational data.

Question 3: I think it is a mistake to interpret "adjustable parameters" for the unnecessary complications that Occam warns against. Rather, Occam's razor should apply to the extra baggage of unneccesary fundamental assumptions. An "adjustable parameter" is only a numerical tool to scale observation & theory, but is not a fundamental concept. In truth, an expanding universe cosmology is very simple, and requires only one fundamental theoretical assumption (that general relativity is a valid theory of space-time), and one fundamental observational interpretation (that galactic redshifts imply expansion). Everything else derives from these. So the real cosmology is far simpler than implied by counting up relatively meaningless adjustable parameters. I do not accept the criticism offerred on bhalf of Occam.

Of course, I'm out of time. At least I hope i have properly indicated that the number 1 criticism of Big Bang cosmology, in the list of 30, does not amount to much of a criticism.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-12-11 22:23 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-12, 04:20 AM
On 2002-12-11 22:21, Tim Thompson wrote:

Well, I hardly have time to exhaustively go over all 30 here and now. So lets just talk about problem number 1...
....
Of course, I'm out of time. At least I hope i have properly indicated that the number 1 criticism of Big Bang cosmology, in the list of 30, does not amount to much of a criticism.

Cheers.


I dont expect passing through all those 30 problems in one day.I am sure others will also try with another part,but there is surely some problems who will be more difficult to solve.And that will be a pretty good test for the Big Bang theory /Vs other model.Thanks for your time.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:LGlrg2nflhwC:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF+galaxy+PG+0052%2B25.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 01:05 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-12, 11:34 AM
I suppose my answers aren't good enough for you then, Orion? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

D J
2002-Dec-12, 06:23 PM
On 2002-12-12 06:34, JS Princeton wrote:
I suppose my answers aren't good enough for you then, Orion? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Quote you wrote:
9) ""This "fact" is not true. The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at *nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars*. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.""

Your rebuttal about number 9 doesn`t match with observation from Photometric Redshifts in the HDF North -Hubble Deep Field North-

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:27 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-12, 06:25 PM
HDF is a statisically insignificant sampling compared to Sloan and 2DF which really do a consistent survey. Going deep has its uses, but coming up with statistics on distributions is manifestly NOT one of them. Anyone who argues that such is a valid argument clearly doesn't understand or just chooses NOT to understand what statistical astronomy has become in the last 10 years or so.

D J
2002-Dec-12, 06:32 PM
But that survey is at least valid to compare objects in the deep space field isn`t it?I hope you understand that.Why that survey is not valid for you this is what I don`t understand?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:33 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:37 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-12, 06:58 PM
I think this is more appropriate to continuate the discussion here.
JS Princeton wrote:
Quote:
HDF doesn't say a rooster's egg about the distribution of quasar redshifts across the sky.
Isolated incidents of coincidence are just a stupid way to think you have discovered a "fact" about the universe. The "fact" is that sky surveys have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that we live in a uniformly distributed universe in both angular and redshift space. End of story.
__________________________

Maybe this is the heart of the problem that uniformly distributed universe in both angular and "redshift" space.Could difficult be produce by an explosive event.But I know the secret of that uniformity is causing by the Dark matter /or Dark Energie causing the expansion of the universe.What a fayrie tale!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:12 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Dec-13, 12:02 PM
On 2002-12-12 13:32, Orion38 wrote:
But that survey is at least valid to compare objects in the deep space field isn`t it?I hope you understand that.Why that survey is not valid for you this is what I don`t understand?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html


It's not just what data you have, it's also knowing when the data is useful and appropriate and when it's not.

The Hubble Deep Field images only cover a couple of thousand galaxies in very very small areas of the sky. They are like core samples, good for determining what types of galaxies exist at what depths (distances), and giving us a *glimpse* of what's there at the farthest reaches. But they are almost absolutely useless as references for overall statistical use due to their small size, both angularly and numerically.

So, it's ok to compare the morphology and spectrography of individual galaxies with those in other surveys, but it is not proper to use the HDF's in reference to the distribution of galaxies.

BTW, according to the HDF site, photometric redshifts are not very useful overall. You need spectrographic redshifts to do any real comparative work:
http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/grads/gwyn/pz/index.html

_________________
...And that, my leige, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size="-1">(corrected spelling error)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-12-13 07:06 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-Dec-13, 01:40 PM
How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength? Corresponds to millions of degrees black body temperature. Clearly extragalactic.
Many problems of the big bang are found in Bill Mitchell's book "Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality".
How does the big bang explain the cosmic rays of energies exceeding the cutoff? See my website for some links.
My objections to the big bang are not philosophical or religious; in fact, I used to think it was a pretty good speculative theory, but rather it just doesn't match observations.
I'm sure you've looked at my website.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-13, 03:33 PM
On 2002-12-13 08:40, John Kierein wrote:
How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength?
John,
They don't care. They generally don't care to explain whatever doesn't fit into their fairy tale cosmology.
The most likely source of those signals is just plain synchrotron. But then they have to admit existence of huge intergalactic magnetic fields and even greater intensity signals/backrounds at yet lower frequencies. But such deduction promptly leads to inconsistency of all Einsteinian cosmology, since gravity turns out mostly insignificant at cosmological scale; which, in turn, means that universe can't expand without continuous violation of conservation laws.

And, btw, they like to forget that the "cosmological redshift" is easily explained as a gravitational phenomenon.

michael cyrek
2002-Dec-14, 09:57 PM
On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:
Here I am starting trouble again. So far I have asked about observational weaknesses in standard cosmology (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2840&forum=1&133) and the redshift distance relationship (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2431&forum=1&246). Most seem to agree that there is a redshift distance relationship, but debate what it looks like (how much "intrinsic" and how much "cosmological" redshifts). The request for observational weaknesses simply drew a blank. There don't appear to be any.

Note that any observation is subject to interpretation; indeed, that's how we make sense of observations. So, any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with more than just one theory. To me, an observational weakness is an observation that cannot be made consistent with the theory, at least not without fundamentally unreasonable assumptions being involved.

There are plenty of alternative theory interpretations of observation, some better than others, and some more serious than others, and they are all hashed out (more or less) in the various threads.

So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?

Cheers.


The trouble with the big bang is that there are too many unanswered questions. No consensus as to how it all started or the nature of the spark that started it all.
No solution as to the nature of the mysterious dark matter that has enhanced the total gravity of the galaxies that Zwicky discovered.
No reason given for the cosmological dark energy that is supposed to be contributing to the expansion of space.
A confusing 'raisin bread' analogy that sounds unrealistic.
An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North that appears to be similar to our local environment.

SAMU
2002-Dec-15, 06:15 PM
I think that the resistance to the Big Bang is based on the desire to belive that the universe has infinite potential rather than limited (albeit enourmous) potential. Should a breakthrough occur that gives us easy access to all the universe, the infinite universe has more value than the limited universe.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-15, 07:26 PM
I think that the resistance to the Big Bang is based on the desire to belive that the universe has infinite potential rather than limited (albeit enourmous) potential. Should a breakthrough occur that gives us easy access to all the universe, the infinite universe has more value than the limited universe.


However, an incorrect theory about the universe has absolutely no value at all. With the CMBR being recorded at many wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum, it is difficult to select a model which is not consistent with the CMBR. So far, the Big Bang seems to be the sole contender.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

D J
2002-Dec-15, 07:45 PM
On 2002-12-15 14:26, ljbrs wrote:
However, an incorrect theory about the universe has absolutely no value at all. With the CMBR being recorded at many wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum, it is difficult to select a model which is not consistent with the CMBR. So far, the Big Bang seems to be the sole contender.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.
Observation:
The absolute zero in the vaccuum of space is -273° C The background radiation is 2.73 K There is definitively an action caused by the vaccum of space here.
So it could be possible than the CMBR is the residual value of all the energetic activity produce since the universe exist and dissipated trough the "Quantum Medium" of space.See the Dr. Puthoff experiment about the -Quantum Medium- of space here:
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-15 14:51 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-16, 10:54 PM
I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST (http://nextgen.stsci.edu/science/) delivers little evidence of universe evolution...
(They may be preparing some refuges and denials by now as we chat)

Silas
2002-Dec-16, 11:56 PM
On 2002-12-16 17:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST (http://nextgen.stsci.edu/science/) delivers little evidence of universe evolution...
(They may be preparing some refuges and denials by now as we chat)


Why?

Why would we bother? What does the BB do for us that any other theory couldn't do?

If we're all a bunch of dishonest crooks and liars, gathering at night to make up fairy tales to deceive the great unwashed...why? Why would we bother?

Does the Big Bang theory give us a lot of money? Power? Admiration? Do you really think that we want the Nobel Prize so badly that we'd lie, cheat, and steal to get it?

What conceivable reason would we have?

Isn't it enough to seek (hello, To Seek!) for the truth, in the spirit of exploration?

And...is it really necessary for you to make such accusations of immorality? Again, why? What do you gain from being rude? What is your purpose?

Silas

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Dec-17, 12:33 AM
On 2002-12-16 17:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST (http://nextgen.stsci.edu/science/) delivers little evidence of universe evolution...


Your post has no content. You could replace the "BBers" with "creationists" or "Steady Staters" and have said just as much.

Anyway, MAP will be releasing its results far sooner: as early as next January, in fact. What will you say if the results support the Big Bang? I know what astronomers will say if it doesn't; they'll be very excited, as a matter of fact. We'll have to wait and see.

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-17, 01:33 AM
JK: How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength? Corresponds to millions of degrees black body temperature. Clearly extragalactic.

Big Bang cosmology does not directly explain it, nor should it be expected to, since no part of the theory is directly connected to such emission. Surely you don't think that the Big Bang cosmology suggests that only thermal background should be seen at all wavelengths?

The emission at those wavelengths is explained by astrophysics. My guess would be synchrotron emission from charged particles in galactic or extragalactic magnetic fields, but I have not looked into this in any detail.

JK: How does the big bang explain the cosmic rays of energies exceeding the cutoff?

Those cosmic rays create intolerable conflicts only if we stick to the assumption that they must traverse extreme cosmological distances, where we would expect them to scatter off of the CMB (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin or GZK cutoff). However, if they don't have to cross such distances, then they are not such a problem.

Ultra high energy cosmic rays
J.W. Cronin
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 97: 3-9, April 2001
ABSTRACT: The evidence for the existence of cosmic rays with energies in excess of 10(20) eV is now overwhelming. There is so far no indication of the GZK cutoff in the energy spectrum at 5 x 10(19) eV. This conclusion is not firm for lack of statistics. A cutoff would be expected if the sources of the cosmic rays were distributed uniformly throughout the cosmos. The sources of cosmic rays with energy above the GZK cutoff must be at a distance less than or equal to 100 Mpc, and if they are protons they are very likely to point to these sources. There are no easy explanations how known astrophysical objects can accelerate protons (or atomic nuclei) to these energies. The fluxes of these cosmic rays is very low and large instruments are required to observe them even with modest statistics. One such instrument, the Pierre Auger Observatory (http://www.auger.org/), is described. It is designed for all-sky coverage and the construction of its southern site in Argentina has begun.

Note that anything closer than 100,000,000 parsecs (326,000,000 light years) can produce ultra high energy cosmic rays without worrying over the GZK effect. That's a lot of territory. There were suggestions of such possibilities some years ago.

Centaurus A as a source of extragalactic cosmic rays with arrival energies well beyond the GZK cutoff
G.E. Romero, et al.
Astroparticle Physics 5(3-4): 279-283, October 1996
ABSTRACT: The ultra-high energy cosmic rays recently detected by several air shower experiments could have an extragalactic origin. In this case, the nearest active galaxy Centaurus A might be the source of the most energetic particles ever detected on Earth. We have used recent radio observations in order to estimate the arrival energy of the protons accelerated by strong shock fronts in the outer parts of this southern radio source. We expect detections corresponding to particles with energies up to similar to 2.2 x 10(21) eV and an arrival direction of (l approximate to 310 degrees, b approximate to 20 degrees) in galactic coordinates. The future Southern Hemisphere Pierre Auger Observatory might provide a decisive test for extragalactic models of the origin of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

Whether or not there are sources of such ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR (http://www.weizmann.ac.il/physics/heap/Group/uhecr.html)s) within 100 Mpc remains to be determined. However, until some observation or theory rules it out, it is a perfectly reasonable and physical hypothesis.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-12-16 20:34 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-17, 02:01 AM
cyrek: An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html) that appears to be similar to our local environment.

How do you figure that the HDF-N "appears to be similar to our local environment"? Do you just look at the picture and guess by eyeball? It takes a bit more attention to detail. Studies of both HDF images clearly show the effects of galactic evolution, in the images.

The easiest place to see this is in The Hubble Deep Fields (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004319), H.C. Ferguson, M. Dickinson & R. Williams, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 38: 667-715, 2000. The paper discusses all manner of galactic evolution visible in both HDF-N and HDF-S (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfs/index.html). Number counts, morphology, brightness, and more, all vary as a function of redshift, showing clear signs of evolution.

Or consider this.

When did the Hubble sequence appear?: Morphology, color, and number-density evolution of the galaxies in the Hubble deep field north (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105118)
M. Kajisawa & T. Yamada
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 53(5): 833-852, 2001
ABSTRACT: Using the HST WFPC2/NICMOS archival data of the Hubble Deep Field North, we constructed a nearly complete sample of the M-V < -20 (similar to L* + 1) galaxies to z = 2, and investigate when the Hubble sequence appeared, namely, the evolution of the morphology, colors, and the comoving number density of the sample. Even if taking into account the uncertainty of the photometric redshift technique, the number density of relatively bright bulge-dominated galaxies in the HDF-N decreases significantly at z > 1, and their rest-frame U - V color distribution is wide-spread over 0.5 < z < 2. On the other hand, while the number density of both disk-dominated and irregular galaxies does not show a significant change at 0.5 < z < 2, their distribution of the rest-frame U - V color alters at z similar to 1.5; there is no relatively red (rest U - V greater than or similar to 0.3) galaxies at z > 1.5, while a significant fraction of these red disk-dominated or irregular galaxies exist at z < 1.5. These results suggest that the significant evolution of the Hubble sequence, which is seen in the present Universe, occurs at 1 < z < 2.

There is quite a bit of literature available, besides just these two papers, on observational galaxy evolution in general, and specifically in the Hubble Deep Fields. They do not appear to be similar to the local environment. Both HDF images show clear & obvious signs of evolution, but you do need to know enough about astronomy to appreciate the significance of what you see.

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-17, 02:31 AM
cyrek: The trouble with the big bang is that there are too many unanswered questions.

But that is a purely subjective observation. What constitutes "too many"? One? Ten? A hundred? And how do you distinguish between the hundred or so questions that are merely matters of detail, and of little significance, and the questions that are really important? I don't see this as much of an objection, yet.

cyrek: No consensus as to how it all started or the nature of the spark that started it all.

And there never will be any such consensus, no matter the cosmological theory. This is one of those questions which I would say does not matter. Big Bang cosmology is a system designed to explain how the universe behave after the apparent beginning, but classically has nothing to say about how it began.

In recent years, this attitude amongst cosmologists has changed, and there is a considerable interest in pre Big Bang cosmology (http://www.ba.infn.it/~gasperin/), as a result of advances in the theory of quantum gravity & string theory. So, at this point, even if there is no consensus, there certainly are several attractive possibilities open for going beyond the singularity of pure general relativity, to see (perhaps) what happened before the Bang.

cyrek: No solution as to the nature of the mysterious dark matter that has enhanced the total gravity of the galaxies that Zwicky discovered.

No solution, but since when are theories expected to offer definitive solutions on demand for all questions? The real question is whether or not there are reasonable hypotheses, within the confines of the theory, top solve the problem?

In that case, the answer is yes. There are two perfectly good avenues of approach. One is that there is no a-priori restriction on matter that requires it to be baryonic (i.e., coupled to photons). So it is not much of a stretch to simply assume that there is some extra matter out there that we haven't been able to see yet, because we haven't figured out how to look for it. That solution works, even if it lacks the satisfaction of direct observation of the dark matter.

Another, more esoteric possibility, is the multi dimensional approach that comes from string theory. In a universe of say 5 dimensions (as opposed to the typical 4 dimensional GR space-time), gravity from the 5th dimension is detectable in the 4-D universe, and looks much like dark matter. If the universe is 10 or 11 dimensions (as in M-theory), the effect is even more pronounced.

These are both theoretical constructions, of course, but they are self-consistent, and at least so far, consistent with observation (especially the simple non-baryonic dark matter model). This may not satisfy you, but it satisfies a large community of scientists who study cosmology & astrophysics in detail.

cyrek: No reason given for the cosmological dark energy that is supposed to be contributing to the expansion of space.

Sure there is. In qunitessence theory, "dark energy" is simply another guage field hidden inside the stress-energy tensor in Einstein's equations. In standard cosmology, it becomes the cosmological constant, essentially an outward pressure built into space-time.

Both of these are "existential" solutions, in that they explain what is happening, but not "why" in a deeper sense. but, then again, the deeper sense of "why" eventually falls outside the realm of science (as in "the universe expands because Gos want's it to"). All that any scientific theory has to do is explain the working of the mechanism. Both of these approaches, both prevalent in the literature, do exactly that.

cyrek: A confusing 'raisin bread' analogy that sounds unrealistic.

That's because it is unrealistic. That's why it's an analogy. It only goes so far. The strong point of the analogy is that the bread between the raisins expands, but the raisins themselves do not. And so it is in the cosmos, where galaxies & galaxy clusters do not share in the cosmological expansion. Only the space between them expands.

Furthermore, if you went for a ride on one of those raisins, in a large enough loaf, you would see the raisins behave as we see galaxies behave. The more distant raisins would be moving away from you faster than the nearer raisins (because there is more expanding bread in the way).

So, while the analogy may have its weaknesses, it has its strengths too. It is not confusing to me.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-17, 03:07 AM
Tim Thompson:

Your threads are so very interesting. I seldom read the (source) posts which you are challenging (except as you quote them in your threads), because I do not want to get my science wrong. I feel very secure reading the posts of the truly knowledgeable writers, such as you (and, of course, others here on Bad Astronomy). I would like you to realize that you (and the other knowledgeable people who post here) have a loyal AUDIENCE. I spend most of my time trolling around looking for the great posts on Bad Astronomy. I learn from your (and their) clear explanations. Fascinating!

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-17, 11:37 AM
On 2002-12-16 18:56, Silas wrote:
What does the BB do for us that any other theory couldn't do?
The answer is simple - money and recognition. You don't get any funds working against mainstream dogmas, and you get your name tarnished all over - go ask Arp or TVF.

If we're all a bunch of dishonest crooks and liars, gathering at night to make up fairy tales to deceive the great unwashed...why? Why would we bother?
I wouldn't paint all the BB'ers in such nasty epithets, I'd say that they are just selling their product - the BB "science", and they do that for profit.

Does the Big Bang theory give us a lot of money? Power? Admiration?
Not really a lot - just enough to stay in business.

Do you really think that we want the Nobel Prize so badly that we'd lie, cheat, and steal to get it?
Yes.

What conceivable reason would we have?
Just normal humanly reasons, same old stuff...

Isn't it enough to seek (hello, To Seek!) for the truth, in the spirit of exploration?
It would be enough if they spent their own funds. With the third-party financing, all's different.

And...is it really necessary for you to make such accusations of immorality? Again, why? What do you gain from being rude? What is your purpose?
My purpose is public awareness.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-12-17 07:00 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-17, 11:59 AM
On 2002-12-16 19:33, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Your post has no content. You could replace the "BBers" with "creationists" or "Steady Staters" and have said just as much.
BB'ers and Creationists do fit here interchangeably, Steady-Staters don't - that's one part of the content.

Anyway, MAP will be releasing its results far sooner: as early as next January, in fact. What will you say if the results support the Big Bang?
If everyone expects them to support it, they sure will - at first, at least. Then some debunking will happen. We'll see...
Personally, I'm open to truth and impenetrable to brainwashing (ok, not impenetrable - just tough).

I know what astronomers will say if it doesn't; they'll be very excited, as a matter of fact. We'll have to wait and see.
I know (I have a personal impression) that there's enough of underground resenting of BB among astrophysicists. Many of them are ready to wash the BB stuff off on a good occasion. Would you say the same of astronomers?

Prince
2002-Dec-17, 12:11 PM
"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilisation. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable assumptions. Indeed, Big Bang cosmology has
become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth"
(G.Burbidge, Scientific American, 266:96).

Firefox
2002-Dec-17, 05:37 PM
I haven't participated in this discussion, but I did notice a couple of quotes, and wanted some clarification:


The answer is simple - money and recognition. You don't get any funds working against mainstream dogmas, and you get your name tarnished all over - go ask Arp or TVF.

Couldn't the same be said about Steady-State theory before the Big Bang theory reached prominence? Couldn't it be said that SS theory was just as much of a "dogma"?


BB'ers and Creationists do fit here interchangeably, Steady-Staters don't - that's one part of the content.

Could you provide examples as to why Steady-State doesn't fit in with the other two? Or still, how could you compare Big Bang with Creationism?


-Adam

aurorae
2002-Dec-17, 07:19 PM
On 2002-12-17 07:11, Prince wrote:
"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilisation. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable assumptions. Indeed, Big Bang cosmology has
become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth"
(G.Burbidge, Scientific American, 266:96).


What year was that? I did a search on "Burbidge" as the author on the Sci Am archives and it came up empty. I don't have a copy at hand, so don't know what the current edition numbers are.

I'd also like to know more about what the article was really about. I've come to know that Prince tends to take some liberties with his evidence...

SAMU
2002-Dec-17, 07:56 PM
Light coming from long distance is described in the BB cosmology as being red shifted by high speed recesion from us as if from an explosion. However, Doppler shift is a wave phenomenon. Quantum mechanics describes light in as yet incompletely described particle/wave structures. It does describe transformations of particles and waves.

In the steady state cosmology the question can be described as is the red shift due to a transformation in light due to distance, nature of space through which it has traveled, nature of space from which it came, and time it has been traveling etc.

The BB cosmology has not answered where the BB came from. The SS cosmology has not explained how the transformation of light occured.

Both questions are valid and are being studied by science.

The BB is easier to study.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-17, 08:39 PM
On 2002-12-17 12:37, Firefox wrote:
Couldn't the same be said about Steady-State theory before the Big Bang theory reached prominence? Couldn't it be said that SS theory was just as much of a "dogma"?
I've seen no evidence for that. (But I'm not old enough to witness.)
On the contrary, it rather seems that exactly the last two decades were the period of growing dogmatism in cosmology.

Could you provide examples as to why Steady-State doesn't fit in with the other two? Or still, how could you compare Big Bang with Creationism?
I talk about possible new observational data that whether does or doesn't support the BB evolutional model.
Whatever evidence for evolution we have now could possibly be interpreted as a mere "local" inhomogeneity in our corner of the universe. So we need to look deeper into space to see for more clues of whether the universe really evolves or it simply is not exactly the same in other stranger places.
On the matter of BB/Creationism affinity, it's obvious that they both postulate the beginning/creation and a short period of evolution thence. Their only real difference is the question of whether the act of creation is in the past or still happening.

Silas
2002-Dec-17, 11:07 PM
On 2002-12-17 15:39, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote]On the contrary, it rather seems that exactly the last two decades were the period of growing dogmatism in cosmology.


I believe otherwise.

Look at the wonderful rapidity with which Guth's "Expansionary Phase" was accepted.

Look at the willingness with which cosmologists are prepared to accept such things as Dark Matter and a Cosmological Constant.

It took something like forty years for black holes to be accepted *at all,* and only fifteen or so for the idea of supergiant black holes in the center of every galaxy to be a credible idea.

The same is true in other sciences: "Continental Drift" drifted along for a century or so, but Plate Tectonics went from incipience to acceptance in less than five years. A sticky, slightly acidic substance found in the nuclei of cells was discovered some 60 years ago: today, we've printed out the entirety of the human genome.

There are people alive today (e.g. Strom Thurmond) who were born before powered heavier-than-air flight...and who have seen men land on the moon.

I think that the pace of science is accelerating, and that openness to new ideas is far more prevalent today than it was 20 years ago.

The only requirement is that new ideas describe the observed data better than the old ideas do. To date, an Expansionary Big Bang does exactly that.

Silas

tracer
2002-Dec-17, 11:07 PM
On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:
So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?
I think the main reason why Big Bang cosmology is so disliked is pretty obvious. It's emotionally both unsatisfying and unsettling.

According to Big Bang Cosmology, the Universe had a definite beginning and is in the process of expanding. There are 3 possible fates for the Universe if Big Bang Cosmology is true:

1. The universe is "open", meaning that it will keep expanding forever. Such a universe will eventually become so rarefied that nothing familiar to us (stars, planets, life, etc.) will be able to survive.

2. The universe is "flat", meaning that it will asymptotically approach a particular (finite) size. While this avoids the "rarefication death" of scenario 1. above, it does not avoid "heat death." Entropy will continue to increase until the whole universe is one big tepid soup of photons at a few degress Kelvin. Again, nothing familiar will survive.

3. The universe is "closed", meaning that it will eventually slow down, sop, and start collapsing in on itself until The End, which will be marked by the Big Crunch. Nothing will survive the Big Crunch. Even if the Big Crunch turns into a Big Bang that re-creates the universe anew, you won't be able to send any kind of "message" to the next universe, no matter how hard you try.


All three of these outcomes are disheartening. All three basically say that no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you want immortality for yourself or your descendants, eventually, humanity will go extinct and leave no trace of its existence.

It would be far more comforting if the Universe wasn't like this, if there were some way for humanity to continue forever. This is the main appeal of a static universe, or of models of the universe in which humanity was deliberately designed by an outside entity with "plans" for us.

D J
2002-Dec-17, 11:09 PM
Samu wrote,
Quote:
The BB cosmology has not answered where the BB came from. The SS cosmology has not explained how the transformation of light occured.
____________________________
The answer to that question is probably here:
4.5 PLANCK’S CONSTANT AND THE ‘QUANTIZED’ NATURE OF LIGHT

Text at 1/3 of that page.
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/04.htm

ljbrs
2002-Dec-18, 02:34 AM
I suppose my answers aren't good enough for you then, Orion?

JS Princeton: Your answers (and those of other very knowledgeable posters) are very interesting for the rest of us to read. Those who want to get a great science lesson get a real treat by reading your posts.

I am knowledgeable enough to follow your replies, but not knowledgeable enough to produce them myself.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Chip
2002-Dec-18, 06:27 AM
tracer:
"According to Big Bang Cosmology, the Universe had a definite beginning and is in the process of expanding. There are 3 possible fates for the Universe if Big Bang Cosmology is true:"

The universe is "open", "flat", or "closed," (as outlined by tracer.)

Chip:
Those three "fates" are sometimes mentioned in popular books and articles, and on the Nova program, but they need not be ironclad. It is hard to keep in mind how huge the universe is, and how many surprises it continues to have. (If you are now forming a picture of its size, its bigger than that.) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Most recent evidence seems to indicate that it is "flat" though remaining finite-yet-unbounded.

tracer:
"All three of these outcomes are disheartening. All three basically say that no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you want immortality for yourself or your descendants, eventually, humanity will go extinct and leave no trace of its existence."

Chip:
All things on Earth being the same, even if the Steady State Theory were correct, the human race would still be extinct one day. All species go extinct eventually. If we're lucky, a different looking somewhat related ancestor will eventually follow us for a multitude of reasons, but this is getting outside astronomy...

tracer:
"It would be far more comforting if the Universe wasn't like this, if there were some way for humanity to continue forever. This is the main appeal of a static universe, or of models of the universe in which humanity was deliberately designed by an outside entity with "plans" for us."

Chip:
I understand what you're saying with regard to the people who dislike (their conception of) the Big Bang Theory for emotional, philosophical, or religious reasons. But remember, "disheartening outcomes" and being "comforted" by notions of a static Universe don't matter. These are subjective emotions and are not required by Nature. And these feelings are not required within the theories devised to understand the world. At the same time, I personally, am emotionally in awe of the cosmos, and feel without scientific justification that our presence here on Earth at this time has a meaning. After all, from the point of view of the cosmos, we (life) are literally the Earth looking at itself. A small fraction of the Cosmos becoming self-aware.

(If I were a Cosmologist, I would feel the same way, though I would try not to let my feelings get in the way of what I was studying.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-12-18 01:43 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-18, 11:29 PM
Milky Way galactic core redshift

Even more significantly, on page 764 of The Vital Vastness – Volume Two by Richard Pasichnyk, we read the following: High redshift is usually connected with features pointing to the youth of a galaxy. Redshift is also a function of the positions in the systems, which indicates strong intergalactic fields that influence redshifts. Likewise, individual galaxies display redshift gradients from their inner to far limits. [emphasis added] [31] Since we were obviously quite interested in this data point, *Pasichnyk communicated to us that this “galactic redshift gradient” discovery was actually published by astrophysics graduate students, since the mainstream would never allow such work to get through*. Nonetheless, further observational research will undoubtedly only serve to confirm this data ever more concretely than before. This effectively proves the existence of a Parker Spiral-type formation of changing aetheric energy levels in the Galaxy, as can be visualized in Figure 8.2. Pasichnyk then continues by saying that the amount of redshift that is emanating from the core of our own Milky Way Galaxy is of an almost unimaginably massive strength, compared to any conventional explanations: A redshift field is also found in the plane of the Milky Way with what conventional theory would call an “expansion” (Hubble constant) that is ten times higher than the Universe as a whole. [emphasis added] With the Arp / Tifft / Asdpen model in place, this proves that the Galactic Center is by far the greatest source of aetheric / torsion-field energy in the Galaxy, as we have already proposed in our own model, laid out in the previous chapters. text near 1/3 of that page
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/08.htm

Milky Way Galactic Core center:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GC.jpg

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

tracer
2002-Dec-19, 12:07 AM
On 2002-12-18 01:27, Chip wrote:
tracer:
But remember, "disheartening outcomes" and being "comforted" by notions of a static Universe don't matter. These are subjective emotions and are not required by Nature.
True -- but, the OP's main question was, "What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it?"

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-19, 12:58 AM
Orion38: (quoting from weird rag of undetermined ancestry): Since we were obviously quite interested in this data point, *Pasichnyk communicated to us that this "galactic redshift gradient" discovery was actually published by astrophysics graduate students, since the mainstream would never allow such work to get through*.

Whatta Hoot! The "galactic redshift gradient" was first reported in 1914, before anybody even knew for sure that galaxies were galaxies (Wolf, M., Vierteljahresschrift Astron. Gesell., 49, 162, 1914, for M81 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m081.html); Slipher, V.M., The detection of nebular rotation, Lowell Observatory (http://www.lowell.edu) Bulletin #62 (vol. 2, no. 12), 1914, for M104 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m104.html)). The "redshift gradient" was turned into a real rotation curves for M31 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m031.html) & M104 by Francis Pease (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Pease.html) (M31: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.), 2, 517, 1916; M104: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.), 4, 21, 1918). See "The Milky Way as a Galaxy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0935702628/qid%3D1040258952/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-2172377-7463021)", Gilmore, King & van der Kruit, University Science Books, 1990, chapter 10, "Kinematics and mass distributions in spiral galaxies".

Somebody made up that story about graduate students, right out of thin air. The last people who would ever "rock the boat" by publishing something that "the mainstream would never allow" would be grad students. Why would they place their careers in jepordy before they even had careers? In reality, it's the old-timers, the ones who have too much of a name to refuse, who do in fact, publish off-the-wall stuff that the younger folks couldn't & wouldn't touch.

Besides, anybody who has spent 5 minutes observing galaxies knows that rotation curves have been around for a long time, and would immediately recognize the story for the simple hoax that it is.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-19, 01:18 AM
But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.
Observation:
The absolute zero in the vaccuum of space is -273° C The background radiation is 2.73 K There is definitively an action caused by the vaccum of space here.
So it could be possible than the CMBR is the residual value of all the energetic activity produce since the universe exist and dissipated trough the "Quantum Medium" of space.See the Dr. Puthoff experiment about the -Quantum Medium- of space here:

It would be exciting to have a new observation which successfully challenged theories. The accelerating universe discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z SN Search Team was just that kind of finding (although it did not challenge the Big Bang, but probably reinforced it). The discovery seemed to change the Universe from decelerating to accelerating in one fell swoop (Shakespeare). I loved it! However, that did not change the Big Bang, but fortified the theory. I will not hold my breath for success of the challenges...

Whatever...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Chip
2002-Dec-19, 01:38 AM
ljbrs wrote:
"It would be exciting to have a new observation which successfully challenged theories. The accelerating universe discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project..."

Chip:
Yes, the "Supernova Cosmology Project." I think the BA knows some of the people involved with that! PBS's
NOVA Program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/) had an episode we discussed here.

I agree, the crackpots don't seem to realize that actual researchers are fascinated by new and even seemingly contradictory discoveries. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-19, 02:01 AM
Chip:



I agree, the crackpots don't seem to realize that actual researchers are fascinated by new and even seemingly contradictory discoveries.

Crackpots never seem to have any fun with science. It is, to me, very, very sad to see crackpots so unhappy about science. What a waste of valuable time for them...

By the way, I enjoy all of your posts...

If I seem to post without any regularity, it is because my schedule is so very, very tight. I love coming to BABB, but can only do so when I am free. Therefore, you will find me belatedly posting most of the time. It is impossible for me to read everything here and to post with any regularity. I love reading the better posts and leave the answering to the extremely competent folks who post here to give the prevailing scientific side to the great debate. There is one thing that I can thank the anti-BBers for. They bring out such wonderful and fascinating-to-read challenges to their posts.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Atko
2002-Dec-19, 02:04 AM
I must confess to leaning away from Big Bang Theory, but do find it rather insulting to be labelled a crackpot for having a different viewpoint. It's disappointing that those who support Big Bang have more of a tendency to descend into vitriol or sycophancy than those who are prepared to entertain alternative viewpoints. Just my humble observation from the many - admittedly generally informative - posts on this topic, both for and against. Ah well, eggs and omelettes I suppose….

overrated
2002-Dec-19, 03:03 AM
It strikes me that people who oppose the Big Bang are being just as dogmatic as the behaviors they are criticizing. Most of the attacks on Big Bang seem to revolve around the idea that its proponents have been brainwashed or are just trying to "keep the little guy down."

D J
2002-Dec-19, 03:35 AM
On 2002-12-18 19:58, Tim Thompson wrote:
Orion38: (quoting from weird rag of undetermined ancestry): Since we were obviously quite interested in this data point, *Pasichnyk communicated to us that this "galactic redshift gradient" discovery was actually published by astrophysics graduate students, since the mainstream would never allow such work to get through*.

Whatta Hoot! The "galactic redshift gradient" was first reported in 1914, before anybody even knew for sure that galaxies were galaxies (Wolf, M., Vierteljahresschrift Astron. Gesell., 49, 162, 1914, for M81 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m081.html); Slipher, V.M., The detection of nebular rotation, Lowell Observatory (http://www.lowell.edu) Bulletin #62 (vol. 2, no. 12), 1914, for M104 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m104.html)). The "redshift gradient" was turned into a real rotation curves for M31 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m031.html) & M104 by Francis Pease (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Pease.html) (M31: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.), 2, 517, 1916; M104: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.), 4, 21, 1918). See "The Milky Way as a Galaxy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0935702628/qid%3D1040258952/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-2172377-7463021)", Gilmore, King & van der Kruit, University Science Books, 1990, chapter 10, "Kinematics and mass distributions in spiral galaxies".


You totally miss the point here i was looking if this was a Red Shift taken from Saggitarius A .I dont think the galactic core was discovered in 1914???

D J
2002-Dec-19, 03:43 AM
On 2002-12-18 21:04, Atko wrote:
I must confess to leaning away from Big Bang Theory, but do find it rather insulting to be labelled a crackpot for having a different viewpoint. It's disappointing that those who support Big Bang have more of a tendency to descend into vitriol or sycophancy than those who are prepared to entertain alternative viewpoints. Just my humble observation from the many - admittedly generally informative - posts on this topic, both for and against. Ah well, eggs and omelettes I suppose….

You are exactly right and this gives to this board a *Very Poor and Bad reputation*!!!

D J
2002-Dec-19, 03:47 AM
On 2002-12-18 20:18, ljbrs wrote:

But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.
Observation:
The absolute zero in the vaccuum of space is -273° C The background radiation is 2.73 K There is definitively an action caused by the vaccum of space here.
So it could be possible than the CMBR is the residual value of all the energetic activity produce since the universe exist and dissipated trough the "Quantum Medium" of space.See the Dr. Puthoff experiment about the -Quantum Medium- of space here:

It would be exciting to have a new observation which successfully challenged theories. The accelerating universe discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z SN Search Team was just that kind of finding (although it did not challenge the Big Bang, but probably reinforced it). The discovery seemed to change the Universe from decelerating to accelerating in one fell swoop (Shakespeare). I loved it! However, that did not change the Big Bang, but fortified the theory. I will not hold my breath for success of the challenges...

Whatever...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


And what this have to do with my presentation about the CMBR? .*IDIOT* OOOPS!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-18 22:56 ]</font>

Chip
2002-Dec-19, 07:45 AM
Atko wrote:
"I must confess to leaning away from Big Bang Theory, but do find it rather insulting to be labelled a crackpot for having a different viewpoint..."

Chip:
I think you missed the point of my statement. I was referring to real crackpots, (who offer often ulterior motive based - for profit - unsupported concepts, designed to sway naive people.) Leaning away or toward any established theory, or offering an alternative view in and of itself doesn't make someone a crackpot. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Chip
2002-Dec-19, 05:38 PM
ljbrs wrote:

"By the way, I enjoy all of your posts..."

Chip: (blushing)
Thanks. I hope even the wrong ones are fun. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ljbrs:
"If I seem to post without any regularity, it is because my schedule is so very, very tight. I love coming to BABB, but can only do so when I am free..."

Chip:
Me too. I suspect a lot of us: peak - can't resist a topic - post - (hope we can say it clearly without much time to ponder) - run off - and, check back later.

I sometimes envy some of the retired folks who can relax and read the internet. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-20, 02:09 AM
Orion38: You totally miss the point here i was looking if this was a Red Shift taken from Saggitarius A . I dont think the galactic core was discovered in 1914???

Well, if all you do is cut & paste, and don't bother to tell anybody what your point is, how are we supposed to know?? After all, the passage you pasted in did say: "Likewise, individual galaxies display redshift gradients from their inner to far limits." It certainly appears that this is what they were talking about, so that's what I responded to.

The center of the Milky Way (http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html) is hidden from optical view behind intervening dust clouds. The fact that the center of the Galaxy was at that location was known before 1914 to be sure, based on measurements of "star streams" later identified as the arms of the spiral Milky Way (http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/mw/milkyway.html). However, the dust clouds were not penetrated until 1931, when Karl Jansky (http://www.physics.gmu.edu/classinfo/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/Bios/jansky.htm) invented radio astronomy (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/radioastronomy/) by accident, and Sagittarius A (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cycle1/0204flare/) was the first identified radio source (we now put the dynamic center of the Milky Way (http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/MW.html) at the nearby radio source Sagittarius A* (http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld5.html), part of the Sagittarius A complex (http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/publications/preprints/1995/beckert_duschl1_abs.html)).

Infrared astronomers (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/) can penetrate the dust with their long wavelength vision and see the stars at the center of our Galaxy (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_milky.html). We can now observe and track the stars, as they orbit the center of the Galaxy (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/milky_way.html). Once the orbits are observed, then celestial mechanics (http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pbrosche/hist_astr/ha_items_celmech.html) returns the mass at the center of the Galaxy, and that is what essentially confirms the existence of a supermassive black hole (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html) at the center of our Galaxy (see "Surfing a Black Hole (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-17-02.html)", a detailed report from the European Southern Observatory (http://www.eso.org/), with images & descriptions of the observations of stars at the center of the Galaxy).

Now, I can tell you that the paragraph you pasted is incomprehensible, almost every assertion of fact found in it is absurd. For instance, it says of the redshifts in the Milky Way: "A redshift field is also found in the plane of the Milky Way with what conventional theory would call an "expansion" (Hubble constant) that is ten times higher than the Universe as a whole."

Conventional theory would say that only in the dreams of the author of this paragraph. Conventional theory recognizes that any observed spectral shift, red or blue, represent Doppler shifts that are associated with the resultant velocity of an object. On a cosmological scale, that's expansion of the universe. On a local scale, it's some other velocity. In this case, it's the rotation of the Galaxy. The author of that paragraph is claiming that conventional astronomers are so stupid that they can't figure out the difference between rotating or a Hubble expansion (either that or the author himself suffers from that condition). In any case, it's an absurd thing to say.

As long as you keep pasting that kind of nonsense, you will have a hard time getting anyone to pay serious attention to any serious ideas that you may have.

D J
2002-Dec-20, 03:31 AM
On 2002-12-19 21:09, Tim Thompson wrote:
As long as you keep pasting that kind of nonsense, you will have a hard time getting anyone to pay serious attention to any serious ideas that you may have.

But I don`t want to be taken seriously the only thing I want is gathering information.
Where i can find the papers published by astrophysics graduate students?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Dec-20, 05:07 AM
On 2002-12-18 22:47, Orion38 wrote:
And what this have to do with my presentation about the CMBR? .*IDIOT* OOOPS!


Calling somebody an idiot on this board is cause for banning. Care to explain to whom this epithet is directed?

D J
2002-Dec-20, 05:44 AM
Get a clue? So if i read well anti- BBErs are C.P.


On 2002-12-18 21:01, ljbrs wrote:
Chip:



I agree, the crackpots don't seem to realize that actual researchers are fascinated by new and even seemingly contradictory discoveries.

Crackpots never seem to have any fun with science. It is, to me, very, very sad to see crackpots so unhappy about science. What a waste of valuable time for them...

By the way, I enjoy all of your posts...

I love reading the better posts and leave the answering to the extremely competent folks who post here to give the prevailing scientific side to the great debate. **There is one thing that I can thank the anti-BBers for.** They bring out such wonderful and fascinating-to-read challenges to their posts.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Silas
2002-Dec-20, 04:35 PM
[quote]
On 2002-12-20 00:44, Orion38 wrote:
Get a clue? So if i read well anti- BBErs are C.P.
[quote]

Colitically Porrect? (Grin!)

Silas

D J
2002-Dec-20, 07:02 PM
On 2002-12-20 11:35, Silas wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-12-20 00:44, Orion38 wrote:
Get a clue? So if i read well anti- BBErs are C.P.
[quote]

Colitically Porrect? (Grin!)

Silas


Collectively Perfect!!!!

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-20, 08:50 PM
Orion38: But I don`t want to be taken seriously ...

Well, that's useful information.

Orion38: Where i can find the papers published by astrophysics graduate students?

There is no distinction of authorship. All papers are published in the same places, and unless you know the people, or are familiar with the field, you will be unable to tell if any author is a graduate student or not.

There are places to find papers online & search on topics & author names. The easiest place to start, although it may be incomplere, is what we in the business call the "preprint server". It used to be run by Los Alamos National Laboratory, but is now run out of the library at Cornell University. There is a "main" site at Cornell, and a number of mirror sites, all featuring the same content, and very similar interfaces. Includes preprints (pre-publication papers) on mathematics and physics, but not everyone submits their papers to this archive. Here is a list of the main & mirror pages that I know of.


Cornell site (http://cul.arXiv.org/)
Los Alamos mirror site (http://xxx.lanl.gov/)
University of Augsberg (Germany) mirror site (http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/)
Sissa (Italian) mirror site (http://babbage.sissa.it/)
Soton (England) mirror site (http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/)
Korean mirror site (http://kr.arxiv.org/)


I know you can access those server from anywhere. But I always access from work, so I don't know if the following are access restricted or not. You'll just have to try and see what happens.

The NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) (ADS) is, I think, not restricted access. It is a much larger database of papers, includes astronomy, astrophysics, and also geophysics and instrumentation. Also extends much farther back in time, though the older papers may be abstracts only, and some not even that much. Still incomplete, I have tried to find some older papers that are not listed in the archive at all. I always access through the "search references (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html)" page.

Another place to try is the Physical Review Online Archive (http://prola.aps.org/) (PROLA). I think this archive is restricted access to subscribers or to members of an American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/) society. If not, it's a real goldmine. A lot more than just astrophysics, the archive has been expanded to include everything ever published in Physical Review, or the other journals of the American Physical Society (http://www.aps.org/). If you can access the archive, it will be valuable for papers on all aspects of physics.

Those are the only places I know of, where one can access astronomy & astrophysics papers or preprints online. There are also databases for papers in geology & geophysics (GEOREFS (http://www.oclc.org/firstsearch/databases/details/dbinformation_GeoRefS.html)) and medicine (PUBMED (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi)), and undoubtedly several others that I am unaware of.

Of course, as a last ditch effort, one can go to the library and drag the paper journals off the shelf. Their webpages all restrict access to the papers to subscribers, but might allow access to abstracts, I don't know. In the astronomy & astrophysics business, the premiere (i.e., most highly repsected) journal is probably The Astrophysical Journal (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/home.html). However, there are several other strongly respected & widely read journals, such as The Astronomical Journal (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/home.html), Astronomy and Astrophysics (http://www.edpsciences-usa.org/aa/), and the Publications of tthe Astronomical Society of the Pacific (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PASP/home.html). Astrophysics and Space Science (http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0004-640X/contents) is well known, but refereeing standards are more relaxed, so its a more likely place to find "alternative" viewpoints. This is where most of Hoyle's steady state cosmology papers are to be found (also Narlikar & Wickramasinghe).

Happy reading.

Aldrin
2002-Dec-24, 08:39 PM
On 2002-12-16 21:01, Tim Thompson wrote:
cyrek: An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html) that appears to be similar to our local environment.

How do you figure that the HDF-N "appears to be similar to our local environment"? Do you just look at the picture and guess by eyeball? It takes a bit more attention to detail. Studies of both HDF images clearly show the effects of galactic evolution, in the images.

The easiest place to see this is in The Hubble Deep Fields (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004319), H.C. Ferguson, M. Dickinson & R. Williams, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 38: 667-715, 2000. The paper discusses all manner of galactic evolution visible in both HDF-N and HDF-S (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfs/index.html). Number counts, morphology, brightness, and more, all vary as a function of redshift, showing clear signs of evolution.

Why both HDF don`t show Quasars redshift?This should be interesting to compare the redshift of far Quasars.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-24, 11:25 PM
Tim Thompson:

Thanks for the list of websites (above) and for other useful information in your many posts on BABB.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 18:29 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Dec-24, 11:46 PM
Aldrin:

Thank you for the site which shows the redshifts of the objects in the Hubble Deep Field. Skeptics of the Big Bang should look at that picture and click on the various objects to get their redshifts. Then again, so many of the Big Bang critics disallow redshift as a cosmological tool, so showing redshifts of quasars would have no effect upon the critics' reasoning.

Also, are there any quasars shown in the Hubble Deep Field? If not, there would be no quasar redshifts. The Hubble Deep Fields (both North and South) were tiny spots of the sky and there might just be a possibility of their being devoid of quasars.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 12:52 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-18 22:47, Orion38 wrote:
And what this have to do with my presentation about the CMBR? .*IDIOT* OOOPS!


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



Calling somebody an idiot on this board is cause for banning. Care to explain to whom this epithet is directed?



Bad Astronomer: Orion directed that to me. I was answering the part of his post, which was difficult to comprehend, which began:


But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.

His post was rather difficult to comprehend, in the first place. His subsequent rude reply did not bother me. Orion was quite right. For some inexplicable reason, I failed to pay attention to most of what he was trying to get across. I must have fallen asleep...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 20:03 ]</font>

Dunash
2002-Dec-25, 06:41 AM
According to Wal, the Big Bang is beyond science fiction!

http://www.holoscience.com/preface/img/wal3.jpg



THE REMARKABLE SLOWNESS OF LIGHT
By Wal Thornhill

?The more one reflects on the nature of light, matter and
gravitation, the more he realizes that there are problems
connected with them that are quite insoluble in terms of our
current notions. But we no longer reflect intelligently on
these things.? ~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following report comes from the BBC, 8 August, 2002:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm ]

EINSTEIN'S THEORY 'MAY BE WRONG'

The theory that the speed of light is always constant has come
under fire. Australian physicists propose that it may have slowed
over the course of billions of years. It's entirely possible that
the speed of light would have got greater and greater as you go
back towards the Big Bang. Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist
said: ?If true, it would mean a rethink of Einstein's theory of
relativity.?

The idea is floated in a brief communication in the journal
Nature.

It is based on astronomical data involving light from a quasar, a
very distant star-like object. Observations suggest the light has
taken about 10 billion years to reach the Earth. What is more, a
key constant involving the interaction of light photons and
electron particles seems to have changed. It appears to have been
smaller 10 billion years ago.

According to Paul Davies, a physicist at Macquarie University,
Sydney, this can be explained only if the speed of light or
electron charge has changed since then. "But two of the cherished
laws of the Universe are the law that electron charge shall not
change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever
way you look at it we're in trouble," he says.

Star Trek hope
Studies on black holes suggest that the second option is more
likely, according to Davies' team. The theoretical physicist
believes the speed of light was faster six to 10 billion years ago
than its current value - 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.
"It's entirely possible that the speed of light would have got
greater and greater as you go back (through time) towards the Big
Bang and if so it could explain some of the great mysteries of
cosmology," he says. He admits that further work on light from
quasars is needed to firm up the theory. In addition, the physics
of black holes are known to be extremely shaky. But there are
startling implications if the law that nothing can go faster than
light is overturned.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case
it would enthral Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the
speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy,"
says Davies. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light
limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

HERBERT DINGLE writes:
"It is usually taken for granted that the processes of
mathematics are identical with the processes of reasoning,
whereas they are quite different. The mathematician is more
akin to a spider than to a civil engineer, to a chess player
than to one endowed with exceptional critical power. The
faculty by which a chess expert intuitively sees the
possibilities that lie in a particular configuration of pieces
on the board is paralleled by that which shows the
mathematician the much more general possibilities latent in an
array of symbols. He proceeds automatically and faultlessly to
bring them to light, but his subsequent correlation of his
symbols with facts of experience, which has nothing to do with
his special gift, is anything but faultless, and is only too
often of the same nature as Lewis Carroll's correlation of his
pieces with the Red Knight and the White Queen - with the
difference whereas Dodgson recognised the products of his
imagination to be wholly fanciful, the modern mathematician
imagines, and persuades others, that he is discovering the
secrets of nature.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, (1972) pp.
127-8.

WAL THORNHILL COMMENTS: For many years Prof. Dingle wrote the
entry for special relativity in the Encyclopedia Brittannica --
until he notoriously recanted. The nonsensical responses to his
simple argument against Einstein led him to publish the book from
which the quotes are taken. Einstein?s legacy lives on. There are
so many assumptions hidden beneath the thinking in the above
report that it should have been published in the Star Trek Manual,
not the science journal, Nature. It is the second ?scientific?
report to refer to Star Trek in recent months. The other, also
from Australia, raised the future possibility of teleportation
(?Beam me up Scottie?).

Both reports exhibit the malaise in physics brought about by its
disconnection from reality and the modern need to indulge in show
business to gain recognition and funding.

We still have no idea what light is. Our confusion is evident when
we talk about a photon in one experiment and an electromagnetic
wave in another. Maxwell is supposed to have mathematically
described the electromagnetic wave, but he required a medium --
the ether -- for its transmission. Einstein ?thought? the ether
away but no one is quite sure how he did that, even though the
Michelson-Morley experiment was supposed to have clinched it.

HERBERT DINGLE:
?... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation
equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect
of interaction between moving matter and ether, to give the
mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over
mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about
abolishing the ether and still retaining light waves whose
properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless
without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether
and propose a wholly mathematical theory.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, pp. 165-6.

THORNHILL:
The fact remains that everything we know about electric and
magnetic fields requires electric charges, in other words, a
medium, as a focus for the fields. If there is to be a wave, there
must be something to wave!

We know that the ?vacuum? of space is teeming with neutrinos.
Countless trillions of the ghostly particles pass through each
square centimetre every second. Maybe neutrinos constitute the
medium of ?empty? space? It makes sense if, as I suggest elsewhere
on this site, all particles are composed of orbiting massless
electric charges. And neutrinos are the most collapsed form of
particle.

ETIENNE KLEIN AND MARC LACHIEZE-REY:
?All hope to restore some unity is not lost, though. To start
with, even in the absence of any theoretical or experimental
proof, it is not unreasonable to assume that the particles
known today are actually composites, and that their eventual
description (which remains to be discovered) will involve a
smaller number of new and truly elementary constituents.?
~Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY --
The Adventure of Physics.

THORNHILL:
This brings us to the speed of light, ?c.? We know from experiment
that ?c? varies depending on the medium. More particularly, ?c?
varies depending on the electrical characteristics of the medium.
The speed of light in a vacuum cannot then be simply declared a
universal constant, because a vacuum is not empty space -- it is
filled with vast but varying numbers of neutrinos and some other
particles.

It seems more reasonable to suggest that the speed of light is the
speed with which an oscillating electrical disturbance is
transmitted through a dielectric medium. The speed of light is
highest in a medium where the rate of charge polarization in the
particles of that medium is greatest. Neutrinos, having the lowest
mass, or inertia, of any particle, have the fastest rate of
internal charge polarization and response to an electric field.
Therefore ?c? is a maximum in a vacuum, paradoxically full of
neutrinos.

The notion that c was considerably faster in the past has appeal
to both cosmologists and creationists. Both camps have severe
difficulties in explaining the observed universe, even with their
vastly different time frames, unless things happened much faster
initially. Cosmologists would like to see a near infinite speed of
light immediately following the big bang and creationists about
10^11 times ?c.? Both are misled by their misunderstanding of the
creation myths. It was no accident that a Belgian priest, Georges
LeMaitre, proposed the big bang theory, as it came to be known.
Science is as much driven by culture and religion as any other
human activity.

Proof that the cosmologists are mistaken both in their
speculations about light-speed and the big bang hypothesis comes
from the very source referred to in the above report -- the light
from a quasar. The above-quoted article says that the quasar is 10
billion light years distant. That is based on the most peculiar
big bang theory that the volume of the universe is increasing. It
follows the observation that faint objects have their spectrum
shifted towards the red. The discoverer of this phenomenon, Edwin
Hubble, was careful to not attribute this ?redshift? to the
Doppler effect of the velocity of recession of the object, but
theorists were not so circumspect. The redshift -- velocity -
distance equation quickly became another of the many dogmatic
assumptions of cosmology.

The astronomer, Halton Arp, plays the role of a modern Galileo in
this story. He discovered that redshift is largely intrinsic to a
quasar and is a measure of its youth, not its distance. The faint,
unresolved star-like quality of a quasar is because it is a baby
galaxy, recently born with high-redshift and low brightness from a
nearby low-redshift active galaxy. The quasar referred to by
Davies is nearby and faint, not 10 billion light years distant. He
is not looking at 10 billion-years-old light. Such a discovery
lays waste to big bang cosmology. The response of the cardinals of
astronomy, now as in Galileo?s time, was to refuse to see what Arp
had discovered and, in effect, to take his telescope away from
him.

HALTON ARP:
?The greatest part of the progress independent researchers
have made in the past decades, in my opinion, is to break free
of the observationally disproved dogma of curved space time,
dark matter, Big Bang, no primary reference frame and no
faster than light information.?
~Halton Arp, The Observational Impetus For Le Sage Gravity.

THORNHILL:
The picture of the universe given to us by Arp makes far more
sense than the big bang. We see only a small part of an immensity
of unknown extent and origin. The objects around us are almost
static and form discernible families with parent active galaxies
giving birth to quasars in the jets from their cores. The quasars
grow more massive with time and slow down to become companion
galaxies. Their redshift decreases as they age.

The plasma cosmologists further show us that the entire process is
driven electrically, the power being delivered by a vast cosmic
web of power lines originating from beyond the visible universe.
The galaxies are strung like beads on a string along those power
lines.

Full text with photos available at:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/slow_light.html

Be aware that this image (see website) is highly distorted because
the galaxies have been placed by the computer at their redshift
distances. It has been responsible for the ?fingers of God,?
illusion, where echelons of galaxies appear to point toward us.
Commonsense should have sounded the alarm bells immediately for
theorists, instead of reverential awe. Nonetheless galaxies do
form linear chains. Such structure is not expected from a gravity-
driven formation of the Universe. However, it is expected from
plasma cosmology, where galaxies form at the intersection of two
intergalactic Birkeland current filaments.

Something else that is never mentioned in polite scientific
company is the astounding discovery by Arp and William Tifft that
the redshift of quasars and galaxies is quantized! It has led to
the false impression of ?great walls? of galaxies at various
distances from us. That too, should have set off another loud
alarm. It spotlights the inadequacy of a purely mathematical
quantum theory, divorced from any classical physics underpinning,
and the nonsense that it only applies to the subatomic realm. If
Einstein got anything right, it was his suggestion that quantum
theory pointed to some lower level of complexity in particle
physics, instead of requiring the removal of the foundation stone
of physics -- causality. His god was not a gambler.

I agree with Davies that the charge on the electron has not
changed. But neither has the speed of light. Unlike Davies, it
seems to me that the basis of the physical universe is electric
charge, governed by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force. All
forms of matter and its interactions spring from that simple
basis. Every particle and collection of particles is a resonant
system of orbiting charges, from which comes resonant quantum
effects and the manifestation of inertial mass. Resonance explains
the puzzling non-radiating ground-state of an atom. Gravity,
magnetism and nuclear forces can all be understood in terms of
electric dipole forces between distorted systems of orbiting
charge. Einstein is not required. Space cannot be warped or
expand. Time is effectively universal and has nothing to do with
space. Black holes do not exist. It is an Electric Universe.

There is no crisis of theory in an Electric Universe. The speed of
light in a vacuum depends only upon the nature of the vacuum. A
vacuum is not empty space. However, ?c? is unlikely to vary
significantly in space. ?c? has no connection with the size or age
of the universe. Size and age are meaningless concepts anyway,
given Arp?s clear-sighted view of the cosmos. But can the Electric
Universe offer any explanation for the redshifts?

I think so. We know from Arp?s careful observations that quasars
are episodically ejected in pairs in opposite directions along the
spin axis of an active galaxy. The brightness of the quasars is
higher and their redshift lower the further away we find them from
their parent active galaxy, and therefore the older they are.
Their mass seems to increase with age and they slow down to
eventually go into orbit about the parent as a companion galaxy.

Plasma cosmology provides the insights into what is going on in
the centers of active galaxies. It does not require a mythical
black hole, merely a plasma focus effect. A plasma focus effect is
the result of a cylindrically symmetrical electrical discharge. It
provides the most concentrated form of electrical energy known. It
takes the shape of a tiny plasma donut, or plasmoid, lying in the
plane of the spiral galaxy and at its center. The plasmoid
accumulates electrical energy from along the spiral arms until it
suddenly begins to break down, forming an intense jet of neutrons,
particles and radiation along its axis. Electrons, being much
lighter, are trapped in the focus for a longer time. The neutrons
in the jet begin to decay into protons and electrons, forming
hydrogen atoms and some heavier elements, by neutron capture.
(Given the extreme electromagnetic environment, we should not
expect the neutron decay characteristics to mimic those seen on
Earth). The material in the jet forms a ?knot? and becomes an
electron deficient (positively charged) quasar.

Meanwhile, electrons are being slowly released by the decaying
galactic plasmoid and they stream in a thin beam after the quasar.
They form the great radio jets seen emanating from the nuclei of
active galaxies.

It seems that as the quasar attracts electrons its matter becomes
progressively more polarized, or massive, as Arp found. It is
similar to what we observe in particle accelerators -- the more a
particle is distorted, or polarized, in an electric field, the
more massive it appears to become. If an electron orbiting a
nucleus becomes progressively more massive in a globally changing
electrical environment, it will require to compensate at intervals
by executing small quantum jumps to new resonant orbits closer to
the nucleus. The energy of those orbits will be higher and the
result is a quantized shift away from the red end of the spectrum.
The quasar becomes brighter and less redshifted. It is not closer.

DINGLE:
?The idea then arose that it [the electron] was a sort of mist
of electricity, and Eddington probably gave it the most candid
description as ?something unknown doing we don't know what.?
We are no wiser today; nevertheless, we speak of the mass of
an electron as though it were equivalent to the mass of a lump
of lead.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, pp. 141-2.

THORNHILL:
It is the lower energy electron orbits in new quasar atoms that
may give rise to the effect remarked upon by Davies and his co-
workers. If so, it is due to a different inertial mass of an
electron in a quasar atom, not a different speed of light 10
billion years ago. The result is simply that Planck's constant and
consequently the fine structure constant will differ by a very
small amount from that measured on Earth. Once again we see the
trouble caused by arbitrarily assuming universality of physical
constants measured on Earth.

Another serious problem faced by conventional thinking is that the
quantum shifts seem to occur galaxy-wide without delay. No object
has been found with two different redshifts. Yet a change
propagating at the speed of light would take something like
100,000 years to traverse a galaxy. It seems that the kind of
particle dipole distortions that create inertial mass and gravity
propagate at the near infinite speed of the electrostatic force.
So, once begun, the quantum shift in atomic orbitals could spread
across a galaxy in less than a second. I suppose it could be
termed ?galactic quantum entanglement.?

So, the good news for Star Trek fans is that Einstein?s speed
limit is repealed. But the Warp Drive and Teleporter are out, I?m
sorry. They are illogical. Space cannot be warped. And matter can
neither be destroyed nor created, despite the widespread
misconception that the ?m? in E = mc^2 means matter, and that
antimatter annihilates matter. [The only possibility that I can
imagine for a Teleporter would be to create an identical physical
copy from materials already to hand at the receiver. But there is
far more to biology than meets the scientific reductionist eye.
Would the copy be alive? And if so, who, if anyone, would it be?
And what do you do with the original -- kill it and dispose of the
body in the process?]

Despite all of these absurdities, gravitational big bang cosmology
still comes out the clear winner in the science fiction category.

As for Prof. Davies recent book, How to Build a Time Machine --
save your money, space fans, and put it into antigravity research!
As taxpayers we pay dearly for this fiction anyway.

It is incredible that we entered the 21st century with an advanced
technology that is crucially dependent upon electricity and yet a
cosmology where the powerful electrical force has no role, when we
know that electric charge is the foundation of all the matter in
the universe.

Davies? bewilderment is understandable, ?If what we?re seeing is
the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened
100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it
is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.?

Precisely. The revolution in thinking will not come from the
present generation of theoretical cosmologists. It must come from
the next generation of practical electrical engineers, plasma
physicists and observational astronomers.

ARTHUR LYNCH:
??I have no doubt that there will arise a new generation who
will look with a wonder and amazement, deeper than now
accompany Einstein, at our galaxy of thinkers, men of science,
popular critics, authoritative professors, and witty
dramatists, who have been satisfied to waive their common
sense in view of Einstein's absurdities. Then to these will
succeed another generation, whose interest will be that of a
detached and half-amused contemplation; and in the limbo of
forgotten philosophies they may search for the cenotaph of
Relativity.?
~Arthur Lynch, The Case Against Einstein, Dodd, Mead & Co.,
New York, 1933.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-12-25 01:57 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-25, 01:52 PM
On 2002-12-24 19:52, ljbrs wrote:
...I am hardly an idiot by definition ...
ljbrs,

Merry Xmas! (Futurama kind)

Let me propose that you pick an online toyish IQ evaluator, and we then exchange our results in shape of screenshots sent over email. Orion is welcome to join. OK?

mutineer
2002-Dec-27, 07:52 PM
I come to your Bulletin Board not as an astronomer or a physicist, but as a psychologist. (I note there seems to be some psychology going on already.)

My feeling about the Big Bang is that it is a Cult. It is so exactly what a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century should look like. I have heard the opinion expressed that interest in the Big Bang is evidence for a real public interest in Science. But actually the reverse is the case. Science (most of it) is actually pretty hard work. Religion is a lot easier. The Big Bang represents just about as much as Joe Public is prepared to take in. The Universe is expanding (Hubble as hero; red shift as explanation; clever graphics showing Doppler effect for the inqusitive). Ergo, it used to be smaller. Ergo, it was once very small. Hey, if you go back far enough there was just this speck that contained the Whole Universe. Wow! Say, I can follow that!

So if you are a competent particle physicist you can get real clever figuring how to jam the Whole Universe into that speck, and then have it explode. You can calculate just how it needed to happen so as to get a Universe that turned out like this one. You can become a High Priest - an Initiate into the Higher Realms beyond the understanding of the masses who constitute the Faithful - and you can get Research Grants (which have replaced Tithes). Gee, you practically deserve the credit for the whole thing, squeezing it all in like that!

But the Big Bang is nothing like Real Science. It is speculative Spoof Science. (We have that in Psychology too.) It provides interesting intellectual exercises for Initiates who wish to test each other's skills. You try to break the laws of physics the least number of times (and in the sneakiest ways so no one notices). I suspect that the best particle physicists look upon the whole thing as just good fun. (Something not quite right? I'll fix that in a jiffy with a new parameter.) They relish their soaring mental agility in playing the game. But they are not True Believers. Trouble is: a lot of the Devout Faithful do really believe all this stuff. They take it far too seriously - and they are going to discover they were misled.

I don't understand half the stuff that the Doubters put up against the Big Bang. And quite a lot of what I do understand I think they've got wrong. But when it comes to the Age of the Universe, the evidence that 14 billion years just ain't long enough seems overwhelming. (Adjust your mindset to a cosmic timescale ... the lifecycle of stars, the evolution of galaxies. 14 billion years is like yesterday.) Thing is: as we get reliable images from ever more remote sources, the Age Crisis is going to grow and grow.

For me, it was Press Release 23-02 of the European Southern Observatory
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-23-02.html
issued on 11 December 2002 that finally sealed matters.

They have looked at the Universe less than two billion years after the alleged Big Bang. They have looked at it in infrared (much better than the HST). And what do they say? "Well, fellas, it looks just like home!" Primordial protogalaxies? "Big spiral jobs, just like the ones next door."

OK - those were not actual word-for-word quotes. This is:
"A few [of these most distant galaxies] are clearly rather large and show spiral structure similar to that seen in very nearby galaxies ... It is not obvious that current theoretical models can easily account for such galaxies having evolved to this stage so early in the life of the Universe. Most ... show relatively little visible star-forming activity. They appear in fact to have already formed most of their stars and in quantities sufficient to account for at least half the total luminous mass of the Universe at that time."

When these guys say: "It is not obvious that current theoretical models," etc ... they are academics being formal and polite. That is actually one sizzler of a sentence for an academic! They sure know their results are pretty dramatic.

I'm guessing it won't be long before we discover that those distant galaxies are so very much like nearby ones that they contain stars much more than two billion years old. Wiggle your parameters out of that, O Ye Faithful!

_________________
Dick Lloyd Thomas
Cheltenham, England

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2002-12-28 12:40 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Dec-28, 02:46 AM
mutineer:

The Big Bang is about the only game still in play in cosmology these days. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the balloon experiments MAXIMA and BOOMERANG, etc., continued the confirming data; the accelerating universe of the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z SN Search Team put more data to the subject, showing an accelerated expansion of the universe where a deceleration had been expected. The name, *Big Bang* was created by Fred Hoyle, a life-long enemy of the Big Bang. The name stuck, even though it was neither Big nor a Bang. The Hubble Deep Fields (North and South) show early galaxy formation after the CMBR became transparent (having been opaque). The only people challenging the Big Bang seriously are those who have theories that have not measured up. The more recent CMBR images of the black body radiation (all coinciding with similar black body curves at multiple electromagnetic wavelengths have put the finishing touches on the Big Bang.

What is the psychology behind the enemies of the Big Bang? Beats me. Perhaps you know. Perhaps the enemies of the Big Bang have failed to study the real scientific information thoroughly enough to have an opinion.

Whatever...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-01-01 15:46 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-28, 02:54 AM
On 2002-12-27 14:52, mutineer wrote:
I come to your Bulletin Board not as an astronomer or a physicist, but as a psychologist. (I note there seems to be some psychology going on already.)


The psychology of belief is an interesting adjunct to science.



My feeling about the Big Bang is that it is a Cult.


You are wonderfully incorrect.



It is so exactly what a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century should look like.


Does that, in itself, mean that it is false?



I have heard the opinion expressed that interest in the Big Bang is evidence for a real public interest in Science. But actually the reverse is the case.


I would agree. The Big Bang has sparked some interest in the general public in science. The same has been true in times past. For instance, many of today's astronomers were inspired by the pictures of the cosmos that came from the first radio telescopes.



Science (most of it) is actually pretty hard work.


Actually *doing* science is mighty hard work. Understanding it at a basic level is actually fairly easy. Subscribe to Scientific American, or Science, or Discover.



Religion is a lot easier.


So are astrology, alternative medicine, and conspiracy fantasies: i.e., true "cults."



The Big Bang represents just about as much as Joe Public is prepared to take in. The Universe is expanding (Hubble as hero; red shift as explanation; clever graphics showing Doppler effect for the inqusitive). Ergo, it used to be smaller. Hey, if you go back far enough there was just this speck that contained the Whole Universe. Aint that just sumthin! Say, I can follow that!


Good for you. Good for me. Good for Joe America. It's a theory of the cosmos that can be grasped by just about anyone.



So if you are a competent particle physicist you can get real clever figuring how to jam the Whole Universe into that speck, and then have it explode. You can calculate just how it needed to happen so as to get a Universe that turned out like this one.


Yep.



You can become a High Priest . . .


Nope.



But the Big Bang is nothing like Real Science.


Why? Because it is comprehensible? Do you believe that real science must be incomprehensible?



It is speculative Spoof Science.


Why? What makes you say this? You have made a gigantic leap from the accepted to the debatable. Where is the spoof? Where is the error?



I don't understand half the stuff that the Doubters put up against the Big Bang.


Do you understand any of the stuff that the mainstream astronomers put up in its favor? Do you understand anisotropy? Do you understand the background microwave radiation? Do you understand the "expansionary phase" refinement? Do you understand the fallacy of "tired light?"



. . . But when it come to the Age of the Universe, the evidence that 14 billion years just ain't long enough seems overwhelming.


Why? Show your work. Explain your reasoning. 14 gy seems long enough to me. What particular task do you feel has been accomplished that this time is too short to accomodate?



(Adjust your mindset to a cosmic timescale ... the lifecycle of stars, events on a galactic scale. 14 billion years is like YESTERDAY.)


It's enough for several generations of stars, as we comprehend their lifetimes. Have you explored the HR diagram, and the mass-luminosity relationship?

And...how are these failings which you perceive related to psychology? You started out claiming that your psychological expertise shows a "cult like" dependence on the theory, and yet your arguments have been based on cosmology, not on psychology.

Let's take a long pause...

The evidence in favor of the Big Bang is fairly strong. We have ways of measuring the distance to far galaxies (based on observing certain kinds of variable stars.) We find that the faintness of those stars is strongly correlated with the red-shift of the light from those stars.

The explanation of "tired light" would be *preferred* by nearly anyone. The idea that distant galaxies are actually receding is *not* intuitive. The notion that space itself is expanding, and carrying the galaxies along with it is even *more* counter-intuitive.

Astronomers don't believe in the expansion of space because they want to. They would far, far rather *not* accept it, as it is a remarkable and shocking concept.

But they have been compelled to accept it, because every *other* explanation fails to explain the observed data as well.

I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

I think we all agree that psychology has some relevance to science. I hope you are familiar with the case of Rene Blondlot and "N-Rays." But I also hope that your studies will show you how Blondlot's failure is not applicable to the Big Bang.

Silas

ljbrs
2002-Dec-28, 03:10 AM
Silas:

Your posts are wonderful to read. Just marvelous! I love reading them whenever I come across them.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Zathras
2002-Dec-28, 10:21 PM
In fairness to mutineer, he does a better job of pointing out specific examples of real present issue with the BB than other doubters. He referenced an article written by several professional astronomers that express doubts of how to reconcile their observations with the BB, i.e., how could spiral structure have developed so soon after the BB? Any thoughts or references regarding how this issu could be resolved?

Zathras
2002-Dec-28, 10:34 PM
On 2002-12-27 21:54, Silas wrote:

. . .

I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

. . .
Silas


I don't know if these two set up a favorable dichotomy. Specific events in the past (dinosaur extinction, Big Bang) are subject to a different class of empirically verifiabile expiriments than general laws of natures (cold fusion). For cold fusion, we can set up all sorts of expiriments to prove that it was false. For the specific events in the past, you can't run any experiments; the possible "experiments" have already run, and we are left to scour the earth/universe for the data.

I think a better comparison would be between evolution and Lamarckism (sp?). This would set up a proper historical dichotomy between two theories of past speciation. For evolution, the evidence keeps running in its favor, while for Lamarckism, serious scientists have stopped keeping track, because too much evidence does not fit it. After a while it becomes impossible to "tweak" a theory, even a historical one, to account for the accumulating mountain of evidence.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-29, 12:55 AM
I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

. . .
Silas


Zathras:

Although I am certain that Silas can defend his statement much better than I, from what I understand, he was attempting to show the difference between real science, on the one hand, and bogus science (hardly *science*) on the other. The Alvarez theory has become solid science. The Fleischman and Pons work ended up as a scientific embarrassment - a blatantly *crank* joke which originally made a lot of headlines and had some members of the United States Congress enthralled at first. Of course, now there are some people who are still laughing...

Then again, Silas probably has a much better explanation of what he has written. That was the way I understood it when I read it.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-29, 02:41 AM
On 2002-12-27 21:54, Silas wrote:
Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?
Both theories have their detractors, but in the second case, the detractors also have experiments that prove their point--or at least, don't provide evidence that the cold fusion theory says they should. The impact theory has been as roundly criticized, but no one has come up with convincing evidence that it's wrong.

Silas
2002-Dec-29, 03:59 AM
On 2002-12-27 22:10, ljbrs wrote:
Silas:

Your posts are wonderful to read. Just marvelous! I love reading them whenever I come across them.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



You are too kind! (The check is in the mail...) (Grin!) (Alas, if I'm so smart, why ain't I rich?)

Zathras: as lbjrs noted, my point wasn't exactly to present a dichotomy, but just to compare a success story with a failure story.

You're right, in that "cold fusion" failed immediately, as no one could duplicate the experiment, whereas the Alvarez theory of the comet-impact cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs is based on indirect evidence and is (we hope!) not going to be duplicated.

But consider this, please, in the context of the post by mutineer, in which he suggested that the psychological context of science might be overpowering the objective context. His thesis has validity: there *is* a danger in science in the psychological desire to believe. He merely chose a very, very poor example for his target. Thus, I proposed two examples in which the psychological "will to believe" played very different roles.

The Alvarez theory was ridiculed...at first. But, little by little, as evidence accumulated, it was grudgingly accepted.

Fleishmann and Pons' announcement of cold fusion was initially received with great joy and complete acceptance....at first. But, little by little, as evidence accumulated, it was grudgingly rejected.

From the psychological perspective, the two cases are about as opposite as can be.

(Heck, I *still* want cold fusion to be true! But the universe doesn't seem to care about what I want!)

Zathras
2002-Dec-29, 04:37 AM
I see your very valid point regarding the psychology of people being contradicted by experiment. I'm just saying that cold fusion, as a falisfiable theory, is not really comparable to the Big Bang, because of the ability to set up and repeat experiments to test them. A better example (IMHO) is one such as Lamarckism, which was another theory of the past, and despite our incomplete knoweldge and data-gathering, we have been pretty much able to rule out.

The use of the word "accepted," as applied to a scientific theory, is interesting. What does it mean for a theory to be "accepted?" Does it mean that the body of scientists as a whole believe that the theory is substantially more likely than not to be true, or does it simply have to be the best theory we got? As applied to the meteor/dinosaur extinction theory, I believe only the second definition holds, and not the first (but I could be wrong about this). This is in opposition to the status of the Big Bang, which fits both definitions of being accepted.

old_skeptic
2002-Dec-29, 05:50 PM
The latest “The American Scientist” has an article (“The Hubble Constant and The Expanding Universe” by Wendy Freedman) that presents pretty good arguments that the Hubble constant is 72 +/- 8. This is based on a variety “standard candles” and their red shifts. I can accept it as a good measurement, but of what? I am not convinced that it has to be a Doppler shift.

I always thought that the Big Bang proponents swallowed the theory with undue haste, and every flaw that has appeared in Hubble’s original observations has had to be answered with another rabbit pulled out of a hat. This to me is the mark of a theory that is not necessarily wrong, but troubled.

With the Hubble constant of around 72 combined with other observations, it seems that dark matter and a vacuum energy density greater than one have to be pulled out of the hat to keep the big bang creation running on time.

I have a silly question regarding observation. The deep field studies using the Hubble Telescope show galaxies that were supposedly created within the first or second billion years after the big bang. This should mean that their maximum distance from each other should be less than around a billion light years, because the universe was a lot smaller then. Ordinary “flat universe” thinking might suppose that from our viewpoint, twelve to thirteen billion light years away, their little universe should subtend no more than about four and a half degrees.
Is there a possibility to be entertained that there is a grand gravitational lensing in effect such that we would see the same configuration of galaxies at the same range in any other arbitrary direction?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-29, 06:29 PM
On 2002-12-29 12:50, old_skeptic wrote:
Is there a possibility to be entertained that there is a grand gravitational lensing in effect such that we would see the same configuration of galaxies at the same range in any other arbitrary direction?

Welcome to the BABB old_skeptic.

Check out this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=219&forum=1) from last year, where I think much the same question was asked. I posted a response, with a quote from Max Born.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-29, 06:54 PM
On 2002-12-29 13:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Check out this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=219&forum=1) from last year, where I think much the same question was asked. I posted a response, with a quote from Max Born.If such an argument is valid, then the observed angular size of distant features should grow with distance.
If you consider a two-dimensional analogy, the angular size of every object should appear more like the full horizon with certain angular dependence in luminosity within the spread-out image. The most distant objects should look evenly spread-out, i.e. much like the "highly isotropic CMB".

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-29, 07:28 PM
On 2002-12-29 13:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
If such an argument is valid, then the observed angular size of distant features should grow with distance.
Why? Because space has expanded? Is that it?

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-29, 09:45 PM
On 2002-12-29 14:28, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Why? Because space has expanded? Is that it?Nope. Sphericity and closedness would be quite sufficient.

David Hall
2002-Dec-29, 10:01 PM
On 2002-12-29 12:50, old_skeptic wrote:

I always thought that the Big Bang proponents swallowed the theory with undue haste, and every flaw that has appeared in Hubble’s original observations has had to be answered with another rabbit pulled out of a hat. This to me is the mark of a theory that is not necessarily wrong, but troubled.


I disagree a bit here. I don't think the BB was accepted "hastily". Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was expanding in 1929. The idea of a "big bang" arose fairly naturally after that. It's true I think that it caught on fairly easily, but there were two reasons for that: 1. It explained the Hubble expansion, and 2. The basic structure of the theory was already cconsistentwith Einstein's theories, once he took out the cosmological constant mistake.

But the Big Bang was by no means freely accepted. Almost immediately there arose naysayers. Fred Hoyle developed his steady state model in 1948, and debate ran back and forth well into the 60's and beyond. I don't think the BB was considered on truly solid ground until the 70's, some 40 years after the observations that spawned it. That doesn't seem like hasty acceptance to me.

Now, as for your second point, it's true that the BB has had a lot of modifications, but then again so has every other theory to be put up in it's place. Heck every theory goes through this modification pprocess Do you really think the Steady State theory has remained basically unchanged from when it was first conceived? No. Theories usually undergo a kind of evolution. Any time there's a new set of observations, theories need to be modified. Nobody ever throws out a theory just because a few observations don't seem to fit. First you try to see if you can modify the existing theory to account for the discrepancy. Perhaps you have to wait a while for more accurate readings to clarify things. But as long as you can keep your model stable and comprehensive, there's no problem. It's when you absolutely can't fit observation into your theory at all without breaking it that you are forced to abandon it.

The only other reason to abandon a theory is when you find that a competing theory is also able to explain observations, and is simpler and more complete in doing so. Then you'll usually find that it's the more efficient and "cleaner" of the competing theories that gets accepted.

That's where the BB has it over the others. It's not that it has needed modifications, it's that it continues to explain observation better than any other theory out there, even after (and because of) them. Steady State died out, for example, not because people didn't like it, but because it didn't work. The same with every other competitor to the Big Bang. They all fail in some way. Only the BB is able to explain observations and remain cconsistentwith itself.

Now, that doesn't mean that the BB will always be on top, or that we should simply abandon all the rest. There may still be some hope for competing theories and the best of them should continue to be "refined". And maybe one day the BB will come across something that it can't handle, and we may have to abandon it anyway. But for now the truth is, the Big Bang cosmology is the one to beat.

Heck, one of the reasons the BB is so strong now is because the competition has helped smoke out potential weaknesses in the theory. I say, bring on the competition, and may the best model win.

BTW, some other poster here (is it JSPrincton?) likes to point out that the Big Bang is not a theory, but a metatheory. In other words, it's a blanket term for a group of different theories all sharing a common base concept. That's one reason why the BB has a cobbled-together look. What you often see are bits and pieces of different theories that fit side-by-side, making the whole thing look messier than it really is.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-29, 11:31 PM
On 2002-12-29 17:01, David Hall wrote:
It's true I think that it caught on fairly easily, but there were two reasons for that: 1. It explained the Hubble expansion, and 2. The basic structure of the theory was already cconsistentwith Einstein's theories, once he took out the cosmological constant mistake.3. It dearly resembles Creation!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 12:29 AM
On 2002-12-29 16:45, AgoraBasta wrote:
Nope. Sphericity and closedness would be quite sufficient.
Why would you need closure if you have sphericity?

But I digress. That would only be (apparent angular size growing with distance) after a certain point, wouldn't it, if I understand your analogy.

David Hall
2002-Dec-30, 02:52 AM
On 2002-12-29 18:31, AgoraBasta wrote:

3. It dearly resembles Creation!


Well, no. Not for scientists anyway. Most cosmologists couldn't care one fig whether or not the Big Bang or any other theory resembles some creationist myth. While there may be some scientists who would let such personal bias affect them, in the aggregate such influences are negligible.

Now OTOH, many laymen and religious types do find some comfort in the idea that there was a definite start to the universe. It gives them a point at which to insert a creator, and a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. Then again, judging from some of the posters here, others don't see things that way. In any case, the "court of popular opinion" is not much of a factor in which cosmology model is deemed the most creditable.

And don't forget, the creation myth is primarily western Christian. But there are people all over the world who accept the Big Bang cosmology, and they don't have this creation idea influencing them to accept it.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-30, 03:15 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-29 18:31, AgoraBasta wrote:

3. It dearly resembles Creation!


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



Well, no. Not for scientists anyway. Most cosmologists couldn't care one fig whether or not the Big Bang or any other theory resembles some creationist myth. While there may be some scientists who would let such personal bias affect them, in the aggregate such influences are negligible.

Now OTOH, many laymen and religious types do find some comfort in the idea that there was a definite start to the universe. It gives them a point at which to insert a creator, and a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. Then again, judging from some of the posters here, others don't see things that way. In any case, the "court of popular opinion" is not much of a factor in which cosmology model is deemed the most creditable.

And don't forget, the creation myth is primarily western Christian. But there are people all over the world who accept the Big Bang cosmology, and they don't have this creation idea influencing them to accept it.


Beautifully stated.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

D J
2002-Dec-30, 04:50 AM
The Origin of the 3 K Radiation.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
Quote:
Abstract.
It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required.
See link for details:
..... It is well known in basic physics and chemistry that atomic hydrogen H is quite unstable. Spectroscopy reveals that when one has a given quantity of atomic hydrogen in a given volume, these atoms react between themselves to form molecular hydrogen (H2). This is unlike helium and other inert gases that remain mono-atomic. Atomic hydrogen reacts so readily, that it is impossible to buy or keep any quantity of stable atomic hydrogen, because atoms of atomic hydrogen combine in pairs, to produce very stable bound H2 molecules. Molecular H2 is extremely stable at normal pressure down to the most extreme vacuum. One can expect that, after billions of years, an important fraction of atomic hydrogen H in the universe is already combined to form the extremely stable molecular hydrogen (H2).
Conclusion:
Since we have seen that the normal chemical reaction in space strongly favors the recombination of H into H2(and not the reverse), we must conclude that there has to be a large amount of H2 in space.
The high homogeneity of the 3 K radiation, the absolute need of having H2 in space and the absence of the hypothetical anisotropic radiation expected from the Big Bang, showing the non primeval origin of the background radiation observed from space, constitute an experimental proof that the Big Bang never happened. More complete arguments in favor of the Planck's radiation as the ultimate source of the 3 K radiation in the Universe were recently presented in an international meetings (Marmet 1994).

D J
2002-Dec-30, 05:03 AM
See also:
stellar aberration".
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Aberration/Aberration.html#Note_on_Relativity

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Aberration/Aberration.html

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 03:15 PM
On 2002-12-29 19:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
That would only be (apparent angular size growing with distance) after a certain point, wouldn't it, if I understand your analogy.You're quite right if only the 2D spherical analogue is considered. In case of 3D spherical "hypersurface", the observer can see the source along all circumferences of radius of curvature connecting source/observer.
That's all just my opinion, I'm not too great in visualizing non-realistic geometries...

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 03:48 PM
On 2002-12-30 10:15, AgoraBasta wrote:
You're quite right if only the 2D spherical analogue is considered. In case of 3D spherical "hypersurface", the observer can see the source along all circumferences of radius of curvature connecting source/observer.
That's all just my opinion, I'm not too great in visualizing non-realistic geometries...

I think I can see what you're trying to do, but the 2D and 3D cases sometimes work differently. However, in this case, I think the 2D case might point out some weaknesses in your argument.

On a sphere, there is more than one way to connect two points. However, that is true in ordinary 3D Euclidean space. How does light "pick out" the straight line to travel? There are all sorts of explanations of how this is accomplished, but applying any of them to curved spacetime shows that the image would arrive at our eyes along a null geodesic. Not along all possible paths.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 03:55 PM
On 2002-12-30 10:48, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Not along all possible paths.Sure, but no source object is exactly a point. So all the paths of equal "lenghts" get a chance.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 04:58 PM
On 2002-12-30 10:55, AgoraBasta wrote:
Sure, but no source object is exactly a point. So all the paths of equal "lenghts" get a chance.

Lengths. But I still don't follow. Why does that make the 2D case so different from the 3D?

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 05:27 PM
On 2002-12-30 11:58, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Why does that make the 2D case so different from the 3D?In 3D the equivalent paths form a 2D surface. In 2D they form a 1D "surface", i.e. a line.

mutineer
2002-Dec-30, 06:18 PM
<HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY>
(First of all, Silas, I must apologise for the slight editing of my piece after you had taken your quotes. Style and grammar, basically; nothing of substance. Still, I didn't mean for folks to have to aim at a moving target.)

mutineer: My feeling about the Big Bang is that it is a Cult.
Silas: You are wonderfully incorrect.
mutineer: It is so exactly what a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century should look like.
Silas: Does that, in itself, mean that it is false? ***

I detect a greater objection to the Big Bang being thought of as a Cult than as a Creation Myth. This is not the place to go too deeply into the Psychology of Cults, but there is one cultish aspect I would comment upon (again). I do believe that the Faithful are more convinced believers than the High Priests. This is based upon my experience of the academic environment. The most learned are also the greatest skeptics - they advance ideas for their coherence, their promise of further development, their challenge to received wisdom - but regard themselves as taking part in a speculative quest for knowledge. The very best people never believe they have discovered the Holy Grail. My instinct is to believe this is almost certainly true of astrophysicists who have contributed to Big Bang theory.

*** Answer: No; your point is quite justified.

<HR>

Silas objects to my calling the Big Bang nothing like Real Science but Spoof Science.

Well, I am not unacquainted with some aspects of geophysics, genetics,
chemistry, economics, etc - but I have never come across anything so speculative as the Big Bang theory. You begin with the premise that, because you reckon the universe used to be smaller, it started off as a 'speck'. (I use the word 'speck' because someone said to me: "When you use the word 'speck' I stop believing it any more.") Then you do your best to figure out how to squeeze the universe into a smaller and smaller space. (Does one think these things out backwards or forwards, I wonder.)

Even if it worked within the framework of a totally regular expansion and without violating the laws of physics, I should see no reason to believe such a theory. The Big Bang's parameters are arbitrary, hypothetical values that exist just to make things come out right for the theorists. This is just a clever indirect way of playing, "And God said, let there be ...". Do you not see that it neither proves nor adequately explains anything? Of course, believing on the basis of the evidence that the universe IS expanding, and taking a dim view of some of the arguments that it is not, is an entirely respectable scientific position, ca va sans dire.

Could it be because physicists were so impressed by the unimaginable densities and different states of matter observable in the universe, that they became overexcited and took things to their illogical conclusion? Our new understanding of the sheer wierdness of the universe has primed us to accept something like the Big Bang theory. This is what made it, specifically, a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century. In any earlier century, such a theory would have been unbelievable outside the nursury or the asylum. (You are quite right, Silas! That does not, in itself, mean that it is false.)

Constructing a Big Bang theory is an amusing game for imaginative physicists on amphetamine, but this is not how proper science works. Give me an example of something similar from some other branch of science! Pondering the history of the planet Earth involves speculating about the past on the evidence of the present, but it never involves a singularity or 'inflation'. (I figure that a theory with the Earth starting off the size of a pea could be quite a hit. "Earth formed much sooner after Big Bang than hitherto realised," claims Professor.)

<HR>

Silas: Do you understand any of the stuff that the mainstream
astronomers put up in its favor? Do you understand anisotropy? Do you understand the background microwave radiation? ... etc.

There is a problem of how much one needs to understand to have a valid opinion. Democracy and the vox pop encourage the idea that anyone is entitled to have an opinion. Political correctness discourages people from speaking their minds. Opinions that are 'the right thing to say', or which reflect uncritical received opinion, can actually less valuable than 'gut reaction' - which at least draws on psychological instincts which have supported survival. But when we are considering issues far removed from everyday life, our instincts are of limited value; we need to become experts, and to take a rational intellectual approach.

However, what tends to be forgotten is that even if one seeks all available knowledge, that may not be enough. For example, was any opinion about the origins of the universe valid before the invention of the telescope? Or before the Twentieth Century? Or before the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope in 2010? History teaches us to be skeptical about our conceit for our own wisdom.

When one realises that ones knowledge is limited, one generally needs to focus on one of two or three core aspects, setting aside peripheral concerns. If one can discredit one basic tenet of a model, the structure collapses (though some of it may be reusable). Clearly, many who are skeptical of the Big Bang focus on finding some none-Doppler explanation for the red shift. That is the obvious thing to 'go for'.

Silas: Astronomers don't believe in the expansion of space because they want to. They would far, far rather *not* accept it.

I agree with you - and how interesting that Edwin Hubble himself did not accept it, noting that It is not at all certain that the large red shifts in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect, but for convenience they are expressed in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities. I mention this because most of the High Priests are aware of Hubble's preference for a static universe, whereas he is presented to the Faithful as a spotless hero.

Silas: Do you understand the fallacy of "tired light?"

When I wrote, I don't understand half the stuff that the Doubters put up against the Big Bang. And quite a lot of what I do understand I think they've got wrong, I was actually thinking about 'tired light' as one of the things I reckoned they had got wrong.

Ijbrs: What is the psychology behind the enemies of the Big Bang? Beats me.

Don't get upset, old chap! There is undoubtedly a keen desire on the part of many to believe in the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This is very natural. The same sense of order that makes us wish to derive unchanging physical laws makes people want an unchanging universe for those laws to operate in. When they get too keen on PCP, they resort to Bad Astronomy - which, of course, only encourages supporters of the Big Bang to feel (with some justification) that they know better.

Ijbrs: The Big Bang is about the only game still in play.

I am not of the opinion that because I cannot present a coherent cosmology of my own that I have to believe anyone else's. I feel the same way about the problem of consciousness; because I do not know the answer, I do not have to choose one of the inadequate answers on offer. [By the way, doesn't understanding the nature of the universe include the problem of consciousness? Did I hear someone say: "Not on this Bulletin Board it doesn't."] I believe there is a big jump between observing receding galaxies and packing the whole darned universe it into a 'speck'. At any time in the history of science, there are ideas that have yet to be conceived, possibilities that have yet to be perceived. Don't jump to conclusions!

To a psychologist, the guy who talks about something being "the only game still in play" alerts a certain suspicion, which one seeks further evidence to corroborate. You do not have to choose to believe in one thing because you have ruled out other possibilities. Here is a guy who feels compelled to believe in something - and then feels a need to defend it. This is a familiar behaviour pattern. Being a devotee of the received wisdom is usually a good and safe policy. Conversely, in practical everyday life - which is what the human brain has evolved to cope with *** - straight skepticism makes a poor survival strategy. It does not create opportunities; it represents a void. (Though a degree of 'wariness' - a rather different thing - tends to be useful.)

*** Arguably we are best evolved to cope with everyday neolithic life.

Ijbrs: Silas: Your posts are wonderful to read. Just marvelous! I love reading them whenever I come across them.

Ijbrs, I am sure you have the psychological profile of one of those who comprise the Faithful. Your scorn of opponents, and your devotion to the words of Silas, who speaketh with the voice of Authority, are evidence for it. There is a high probability that you are a Thoroughly Good Fellow.

As I was saying, one needs to select a core aspect, and to try to comprehend it. I am generally unconvinced by non-Doppler explanations of the red shift, but for the present, this is not MY core aspect. For me, it is in matters relating to the Age of the universe that I most distrust the Big Bang theory. For one thing, when one attunes ones mindset to cosmic timescales, 14 billion years seems a pretty short period of time. (Am I the only person to feel this way?)

It may be in regard to explaining the Great Wall and other large scale structures that Big Bang faces its biggest Age Crisis (not to mention other problems), but rather than reiterate the views that others have put forward (to which I can add no special insights of my own), I present the aspect of the matter which most greatly arouses my own suspicions. Its attraction is its (scientific) simplicity, and hence its accessibility (to others than psychologists, I hope). See below.

<HR>

Silas: 14 gy seems long enough to me.

I have some understanding of the physics of stellar evolution (though I am prepared to leave the mathematics to others - given that there is a fair element of agreement). The maximum duration of the lifecycle of a star is in the order of 14 billion years - with the oldest red giants being of this age. Current Big Bang models indicate an age for the universe of 14 billion years or so. (Maybe we should be talking 15 billion all round ... n'importe.)

I remember when Friedman et al published their paper in Nature in 1994, announcing their estimate for the Hubble constant, based on HST observations of 20 Cepheid variables in the M100 galaxy. Applied to the then standard Big Bang model it indicated an age for the universe of 8 billion years. Here in England, this made the front pages of our national newspapers. "Hubble sees universe only half as old as its stars" ran a headline in the Times. [old_skeptic refers to a later Friedman estimate, not grossly different.]

The eminent US astronomer George H. Jacoby did a commentary piece for Nature. Under the heading The Universe in crisis he wrote, either "stellar ages are too high, an accelerating force exists, or the ... Big Bang model is incorrect." Well, wouldn't you know? Turns out there IS an accelerating force ... the Big Bang model can be manipulated a bit ... and with a bit of luck, you can just about stretch the age of the universe to the age of its oldest stars (see, among many, Lineweaver's estimates in 1999, etc.)

Suppose that all one knew about the age of the universe was derived from the physics of stellar evolution. One would know that the minimum possible age of the universe was 14 billion years, and that the maximum was infinity. That's quite a big range. So: the universe might be 30 billion? 100 billion? 500 billion years old?

However, when the Big Bang model comes into play we discover that the age of the universe is more or less the minimum it could possibly be. And even that took a bit of fixing! A theory that led us to believe that the universe was say 130 +/- 10 billion years old ... that would sound fair enough. But it is proposed that, by chance, we are living at more or less exactly that point of cosmic history where the age of the universe coincides with the maximum stellar lifetime. What's the chances of that? Think about it! The logical impossibility of a universe younger than it stars has been resolved, but merely in favour of a coincidence that is a logical improbability.

Psychologists, as you may know, often assist the police these days in the assessment of evidence. Much evidence is of a circumstantial nature. The likelihood of a suspect's story has to be judged against the known facts. What this comes down to, as often as not, is whether the suspect is asking us to believe a coincidence that is beyond the bounds of likelihood.

In the case of the Big Bang ... first, there are questions about the suspect's truthfulness. ("Well, sir, there was that business over the Hubble constant not really being constant - but it's a lot more than that really. Basically, he keeps on changing the details of his story, and when we have him in a tight corner, he changes things over again.") And second, his story contains a rather odd coincidence. ("It's one of those things you have to think about, sir, but when you do ... well, it's suspicious.")

I concede: my evidence is circumstantial. But how do you reckon the DA will see the case?

<HR>

Zathras: mutineer ... referenced an article written by several professional astronomers that express doubts of how to reconcile their observations with the BB, i.e., how could spiral structure have developed so soon after the BB? Any thoughts or references regarding how this issue could be resolved?

Thank you, Zathras. As you say, any thoughts ... ?

</BODY></HTML>






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2002-12-30 15:26 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 07:58 PM
mutineer,

Here on this forum, the case is far graver than you seem to perceive it. The local "Faithful" are quite prepared to defy even the most straightforward physics if it challenges their "sacred truths".
It's been quite a few times that I mentioned to them that there is a perfectly valid gravitational mechanism for the cosmological redshift. They wrathfully (sorry, Grapes) refuse to even think of it positively.

Just so that nobody accuses me of blatant slander, I will present a rather concise derivation here - it's very simple and straightforward; and I propose that you "stopwatch" their reactions.

Consider the photons emitted by a star during a short time interval. Obviously, the mass of the star is reduced by hf<sup>0</sup>/c^2 per photon emitted. The front of photons propagates away from the star, so all the masses that the front leaves behind should feel that the mass of the star approriately reduces. Gravitational potential for the area inside the front changes by Ghf<sup>0</sup>/rc^2. Assuming uniformity of matter distribution and front's sphericity, we can integrate 4G rho pi r^2(hf<sup>0</sup>/rc^2) dr to get the total change of gravitational potential energy for the masses inside the front as 2pi(hf<sup>0</sup>/c^2)G rho r^2 which we must equate to the energy loss of the photon h(f<sup>0</sup>-f<sup>1</sup>). Thus, for the redshift we get z=2 pi rho G r^2/c^2.
(rho - density, pi - "pi", f<sup>0</sup> - initial photon frequency, f<sup>1</sup> - downshifted frequency).
For the matter density of about 1 proton per cubic metre, we get z = 1 at r about 10^26 metres.
Those are very realistic figures, btw...

[edit to correct grammar]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-12-30 16:18 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-30, 08:14 PM
I detect a greater objection to the Big Bang being thought of as a Cult than as a Creation Myth.


Well, by today's connotations, a "myth" can be a pretty thing, understood as only associatively true. The Santa Claus myth, for instance: we watch tv and grin as NORAD (armed with nuclear-tipped missiles!) talks about "tracking Santa Claus" as he goes about his business.

A "cult," on the other hand, is generally thought to be a group that uses thought-control techniques and coercive behavior modification to compel its members to believe.

So, by those connotations, yeh! I don't mind participating in a few societal myths, but I deeply resent being called a cultist.

Um... Your definitions may differ...



Well, I am not unacquainted with some aspects of geophysics, genetics,
chemistry, economics, etc - but I have never come across anything so speculative as the Big Bang theory.


You haven't been following quantum physics then! (Grin!)



You begin with the premise that, because you reckon the universe used to be smaller, it started off as a 'speck'.


No... That isn't correct. We start off with the observation that the universe seems to be expanding and cooling. We then deduce that, in the past, it was denser and hotter. We use math and physics to predict (so to speak) what a hot, dense universe might be like.

What's interesting is that we have used high-energy particle accelerators to reproduce such a situation, and the results seem to jibe.



(I use the word 'speck' because someone said to me: "When you use the word 'speck' I stop believing it any more.")


With all due respect, isn't that a bit manipulative? I tend not to use the word "monobloc" as I find it pretentious. Is there a word that we can agree on that is not emotionally laden?



Then you do your best to figure out how to squeeze the universe into a smaller and smaller space.* (Does one think these things out backwards or forwards, I wonder.)


A bit of both. The nice thing about most physics is that it is time-independent. i.e., the universe, falling together, would probably behave very much the same way (in reverse!) as the universe, expanding.

(I'm sure you know the classic argument regarding billiard-ball physics: given nothing more than a film of some billiard balls bouncing around, you can't know if the film is running forward or backward.)



Even if it worked within the framework of a totally regular expansion and without violating the laws of physics, I should see no reason to believe such a theory.


Scientists don't believe in their theories. They believe in the data.



The Big Bang's parameters are arbitrary, hypothetical values that exist just to make things come out right for the theorists.*


That is a very specific charge, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to support it. As far as I know, the original Big Bang theory fell out solely from observation of distant galaxies, and no "parameters" were hypothesized at all.

Yes, Guth's "expansionary phase" modification is questioned by many, for exactly the reason you note. And yet the strength of his idea is that it is very powerfully explanatory. It *resolves* many riddles, without necessarily *solving* them.

There is nothing wrong, in science, in putting forward ideas that are useful in explaining the evidence.

For instance, in subatomic particle theory, we speak of "spin." We don't believe that the particles are actually spinning, like little tops. The word "spin" is simply a useful descriptor. Like "charge" or "strange" or "top," it doesn't mean what you might think it means...but it works to describe what we actually observe atoms doing.

The history of the discovery of polarized light is another case in point. We use the language of electrical charge -- polarity -- to describe light that is collimated such that the waves are all in one direction. Polarity is, in fact, a fairly bad term for the idea. We should have said "aligned" light. But it just didn't work out that way.



This is just a clever indirect way of playing, "And God said, let there be ...". Do you not see that it neither proves nor adequately explains anything?


It doesn't prove anything...but it explains much!



Of course, believing on the basis of the evidence that the universe IS expanding, and taking a dim view of some of the arguments that it is not, is an entirely respectable scientific position, ca va sans dire.


That's all that I would ask anyone to accept. (Could you please translate the Latin for this ignoramus?)



Could it be because physicists were so impressed by the unimaginable densities and different states of matter observable in the universe, that they became overexcited and took things to their illogical conclusion?


It might be. It might not be. What is your evidence? And why do you suddenly introduce the word "illogical" when you have presented no foundation for it to date?



Our new understanding of the sheer wierdness of the universe has primed us to accept something like the Big Bang theory.


In large part, yes, this is true: previous ages would have rejected the evidence, or, more likely, interpreted it differently. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for (among other things) suggesting that there might be life out yonder.

Consider, however, that there may be weirder things yet which we aren't comprehending!

(Have you seen the really eerie things they're doing with liquid helium?)



This is what made it, specifically, a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century.* In any earlier century, such a theory would have been unbelievable outside the nursury or the asylum.


One of my bad habits is to compose responses as I read them; this is why my previous paragraph so fatuously parallels this paragraph of yours: I hadn't read that far yet!

We seem to be somewhat in agreement.

I just need to ask: why do you consider it a "myth," simply because it is consonant with the zeit-geist? We have so many other 20th (and 21st) century myths -- astrology, UFOs, crop-circles, bigfoot, esp, and so on -- which are equally mythical, and yet which science has very little interest in.



(You are quite right, Silas!* That does not, in itself, mean that it is false.)


We're on the same wavelength!



Constructing a Big Bang theory is an amusing game for imaginative physicists on amphetamine, but this is not how proper science works.


Oops, no, we're not. Again, you come up with this sort of accusation out of the blue; what is your foundation?

Have you ever had the joy to explore http://www.crank.net? There, you will see thinkers on amphetamines (grin!) coming up with ideas -- but their ideas are completely disconnected from the evidence.

The Big Bang theory follows from the evidence; it does not lead it. The horse is well and truly in front of the cart. (Which makes for a really unpleasant view for the driver, let me tell you!) (Grin!)



Give me an example of something similar from some other branch of science!


Are you familiar with the history of the theories of Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics?



Ijbrs, I am sure you have the psychological profile of one of those who comprise the Faithful.* Your scorn of opponents, and your devotion to the words of Silas, who speaketh with the voice of Authority, are evidence for it.


Um...at what point, ever, did I claim to be an authority?



For one thing, when one attunes ones mindset to cosmic timescales, 14 billion years seems a pretty short period of time.* (Am I the only person to feel this way?)


Are you basing your opinions of issues of scientific theory on how you feel? Are your feelings the discriminant between good science and bad?

When I first read Freud, back in the 1970's, I fell quite in love with him. I bought into everything he said. I was the most dedicated Freudian you'd ever seen. I received The Word of Freud with the fervor that others reserve for the Bible or Ayn Rand. I was young -- just in high school -- and I'm sure you know that that is an age at which "true beliefs" form.

What "felt" true to me then still "feels" good today. I simply have learned otherwise by use of reason and evidence.

Silas

John Kierein
2002-Dec-30, 08:43 PM
On 2002-12-29 17:01, David Hall wrote:


On 2002-12-29 12:50, old_skeptic wrote:

I always thought that the Big Bang proponents swallowed the theory with undue haste, and every flaw that has appeared in Hubble’s original observations has had to be answered with another rabbit pulled out of a hat. This to me is the mark of a theory that is not necessarily wrong, but troubled.


I disagree a bit here. I don't think the BB was accepted "hastily". Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was expanding in 1929. The idea of a "big bang" arose fairly naturally after that.



You are totally wrong when you say Hubble deuced that the universe was expanding. Actually Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was NOT expanding after discovering the red shift-distance relationship. He recognized that the red shift is in much better agreement with the idea that light was losing energy by what he termed "a new principle of nature" (Which Reber and I believe is the Compton effect). This was because there should be a correction to the brightness of objects moving away from the observer if the red shift is doppler caused by an eqivalent stretching of the space between photons which should cause a reduction in the number of photons received per second. Hubble did NOT see such a reduction and deduced that the red shift was not doppler. He opposed the big bang and the doppler interpretation until he died many years later. Look at my website for some second hand Alan Sandage links to this or read Hubble's book "An Observational Approach to Cosmology". He insisted that a footnote be put on his and Humason's paper that said it was not all certain that the red shift was doppler.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 08:59 PM
On 2002-12-30 12:27, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-12-30 11:58, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Why does that make the 2D case so different from the 3D?In 3D the equivalent paths form a 2D surface. In 2D they form a 1D "surface", i.e. a line.

A path is 2D? What is your definition of path, then? And what exactly is it that is following this 2D path?

I've started my stopwatch, by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 09:12 PM
On 2002-12-30 15:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
A path is 2D? What is your definition of path, then? And what exactly is it that is following this 2D path?Surely the path is not 2D. But the totality of equivalent paths form a 2D surface in such a 3D space.

I've started my stopwatch, by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gifLet's hope I haven't spooked them overly...
[/quote]

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 09:30 PM
On 2002-12-30 16:12, AgoraBasta wrote:
Surely the path is not 2D. But the totality of equivalent paths form a 2D surface in such a 3D space.
Maybe I should understand what you mean by equivalent paths? What makes them equivalent? I mean, I could see instances where the "totality of equivalent paths" in a 2D space is also 2D. Except I'm not sure what you mean by equivalence, here.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 09:34 PM
On 2002-12-30 16:30, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Maybe I should understand what you mean by equivalent paths? Think of all the circumferences of equal radius that pass through two points in 3D.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 09:36 PM
On 2002-12-30 16:34, AgoraBasta wrote:
Think of all the circumferences of equal radius that pass through two points in 3D.

And these are all the shortest paths?

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 09:38 PM
On 2002-12-30 15:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I've started my stopwatch, by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gifMaybe I should start a new thread? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 09:40 PM
On 2002-12-30 16:36, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
And these are all the shortest paths?I guess so they appear from a flat background...

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-30, 09:59 PM
Are you sure that the set of shortest equivalent paths isn't just a single path, even in 3D? It would seem probable.

AgoraBasta
2002-Dec-30, 10:06 PM
On 2002-12-30 16:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Are you sure that the set of shortest equivalent paths isn't just a single path, even in 3D? It would seem probable.
If that were true, there would be a preferred plane defined by that sole circumference. And that path's a circumference, for sure.

David Hall
2002-Dec-30, 10:38 PM
On 2002-12-30 15:43, John Kierein wrote:

You are totally wrong when you say Hubble deuced that the universe was expanding. Actually Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was NOT expanding after discovering the red shift-distance relationship.

Ok, I'll accept that. I had not heard before that Hubble did not accept the doppler shift explanation. But for the purpose of my posts, his interpretation is immaterial. It was still his initial observations that led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. He announced his findings, others verified them, and the vast majority accepted expansion as the conclusion. And from that and the predictions of relativity, the Big Bang theories were born.

Silas
2002-Dec-31, 12:23 AM
On 2002-12-30 15:43, John Kierein wrote:
You are totally wrong when you say Hubble deuced that the universe was expanding. Actually Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was NOT expanding after discovering the red shift-distance relationship. He recognized that the red shift is in much better agreement with the idea that light was losing energy . . .


I may be wrong, but as I understood it, the entire envelope of light was shifted redward by the exact same amount, which wouldn't happen in a "tired light" scenario. In a "tired light" model, photons should lose energy in proportion to the amount of energy they possess (as in Newton's law of cooling.) I don't understand the Compton Effect well enough to sustain this objection, but, again, as I see it, only a Doppler shift can account for the precise redward translation of the entire emission envelope.

Silas

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-31, 01:05 AM
On 2002-12-30 17:06, AgoraBasta wrote:
If that were true, there would be a preferred plane defined by that sole circumference. And that path's a circumference, for sure.

A closed path, completely encircling? What is it that is following such a path? Light? Why does it close back on itself?

D J
2002-Dec-31, 01:59 AM
On 2002-12-30 19:23, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-30 15:43, John Kierein wrote:
You are totally wrong when you say Hubble deuced that the universe was expanding. Actually Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was NOT expanding after discovering the red shift-distance relationship. He recognized that the red shift is in much better agreement with the idea that light was losing energy . . .


I may be wrong, but as I understood it, the entire envelope of light was shifted redward by the exact same amount, which wouldn't happen in a "tired light" scenario. In a "tired light" model, photons should lose energy in proportion to the amount of energy they possess (as in Newton's law of cooling.) I don't understand the Compton Effect well enough to sustain this objection, but, again, as I see it, only a Doppler shift can account for the precise redward translation of the entire emission envelope.

Silas


I found something who I hope will clarified this.I have not finishing translating the whole article(english is not my first language)but that seem a good case for explaining the Non-Doppler Redshift.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

D J
2002-Dec-31, 03:54 AM
The myth of the expansion of the Universe based on the Redshift Interpretation NEAR IS END!

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2molecules is much larger. Because atomic and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created 15 billion years ago with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe.
More details:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

John Kierein
2002-Dec-31, 01:22 PM
On 2002-12-30 19:23, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-30 15:43, John Kierein wrote:
You are totally wrong when you say Hubble deduced that the universe was expanding. Actually Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was NOT expanding after discovering the red shift-distance relationship. He recognized that the red shift is in much better agreement with the idea that light was losing energy . . .


I may be wrong, but as I understood it, the entire envelope of light was shifted redward by the exact same amount, which wouldn't happen in a "tired light" scenario. In a "tired light" model, photons should lose energy in proportion to the amount of energy they possess (as in Newton's law of cooling.) I don't understand the Compton Effect well enough to sustain this objection, but, again, as I see it, only a Doppler shift can account for the precise redward translation of the entire emission envelope.

Silas


Well, Silas you don't understand the doppler effect. The light is shifted by an amount inversely proportional to the energy of the photon. The longer wavelengths are shifted more than the shorter wavelengths. In fact, the red shift is defined as the change in wavelength divided by the original wavelength. You can easily come up with the doppler effect law using the equations of motion as follows:
A photon 0f wavelength L is generated during a time t equal to the time it takes for the photon to travel the distance L with velocity c (the speeed of light in a vacuum). If you are an observer moving at a velocity v with respect to the source, then the light has stretched a distance, delta L, equal to vt, Thus the new wavelength is L + delta L = ct + vt Then dividing by L we get 1 + (delta L)/L = 1 + vt/L = 1 + vt/ct =1 + v/c subtracting 1 from each side we get (Delta L)/L = v/c which is the familiar non-relativistic doppler formula. Note that delta L = (v/c)L. For a constant velocity v, the change is proportional to the wavelength unlike your statement.

You should also note that during the doppler process the distance between photons is similarly stretched. So if you are observing a doppler effect you should get a dimming due to the lesser frequency of photon reception from a source moving away from you. Hubble couldn't find this in his data and so he believed that the doppler effect was NOT causing the red shift.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-12-31 16:59 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-31, 10:18 PM
On 2002-12-31 08:22, John Kierein wrote:
Well, Silas you don't understand the doppler effect. The light is shifted by an amount inversely proportional to the energy of the photon. The longer wavelengths are shifted more than the shorter wavelengths. In fact, the red shift is defined as the change in wavelength divided by the original wavelength.

Does this mean that the original distribution of light can -- or can't? -- be reconstructed? And is the same true for the challenging theories?

I confess, I've just floundered into depths I'm not prepared for: I had thought that Doppler shifts were linear (oops!)

Silas

traztx
2002-Dec-31, 10:56 PM
On 2002-12-31 17:18, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-31 08:22, John Kierein wrote:
Well, Silas you don't understand the doppler effect. The light is shifted by an amount inversely proportional to the energy of the photon. The longer wavelengths are shifted more than the shorter wavelengths. In fact, the red shift is defined as the change in wavelength divided by the original wavelength.

Does this mean that the original distribution of light can -- or can't? -- be reconstructed? And is the same true for the challenging theories?

I confess, I've just floundered into depths I'm not prepared for: I had thought that Doppler shifts were linear (oops!)

Silas



Me too. Maybe the confusion comes from familiarity with the doppler effect in sound waves.

An illustration of this: Imagine 2 pipes on a train, exactly 1 octave apart in pitch. No matter how fast the train is going, they are still an octave apart. An octave means one is double the frequency of the other. This intuitively implies that the higher pitch is shifting twice as much as the lower pitch.

Maybe light is different?

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-01, 01:30 AM
BTW, boys, ever heard that the BB expansion is not exactly Doppler?
What's the use of discussing things that aren't basically understood?
What is the basis for the further discussion, and where exactly would you prefer to stick the overwhelming gravitational component of the cosmological redshift???

mutineer
2003-Jan-01, 03:06 AM
<HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY>
Silas: A "cult" is generally thought to be a group that uses thought-control techniques and coercive behavior modification to compel its members to believe. I deeply resent being called a cultist.

Silas - Sincere good wishes for a Happy New Year!

What am I, coming from the perspective of psychology, doing on this Bulletin Board?* Well, the Big Bang is a psychological issue (unlike, say, the study of quasars or galactic evolution) because it is about people’s beliefs.* Now I regard myself as an open-minded skeptic, so I cannot help but be struck by how fervently some people hold their beliefs, and how they resent and resist attempts to upset those beliefs.

I get surprised by the strength (the unbreakable certainty) of people’s belief in the Big Bang.* A thesaurus might suggest the old phrase "a belief of religious intensity".* But here in agnostic England, where religion is about as intense as a zephyr on a summer’s day, one would have to make the comparison with cults rather than with traditional Christianity - and so one does start making that comparison.* For me, the Big Bang resembles most cults in having at its centre a belief (in this case, the universe as a ‘speck’) which I find it difficult to believe any rational human being could swallow.* Also, I observe the willingness of the Faithful, who for the most part have a simple faith, to put their trust in the Enlightened Ones (people like yourself) who alone have an understanding of the Greater Mysteries.* I could pursue this further, but I do not wish to take it too far.

I certainly don’t want to offend anyone by calling him a cultist, or by anything else I write, in which the provocation in always intended to be light-hearted.* (Actually, if you study most cults, you are more likely to be impressed by the degree of willing participation and cooperation of the Faithful, than by ‘coercive behavior modification’ - but that is stuff for a psychology discussion group.)

<HR>

mutineer: I use the word 'speck' because someone said to me: "When you use the word 'speck' I stop believing it any more."
Silas: Isn't that a bit manipulative?

In the sense of being 'calculated', yes it is.* It seems reasonable to try to select a word that best makes people reflect upon what they are being asked to believe.* If one studies cults, one realises that people are capable of believing almost anything.* One wants to say to them: reflect! reflect! take a grip on reality!

The problem is that much of our understanding of the physical world does come from our willingness to literally 'take leave of our senses'.* This, after all, is what it is necessary to do to believe that the Earth is round.* We take leave of the sense that we would fall off!* Physicists are required to 'take leave of their senses' more than anyone else.* I rather think that even some of those who do not believe in the Big Bang would be capable of imagining the universe as a speck.* Oh dear!

<HR>

mutineer: Could it be because physicists were so impressed by the unimaginable densities and different states of matter observable in the universe, that they became overexcited and took things to their illogical conclusion?
Silas: It might be.* It might not be.* What is your evidence?* And why do you suddenly introduce the word "illogical" when you have presented no foundation for it to date?

My use of the word "illogical" was provocative; so was the word "overexcited".* I will readdress the point I was steering towards in a less vigorous manner.* First: physicists, like other scientists, operate within a paradigm (in Kuhn's sense) that influences the structure of theory and set bounds to what can be proposed.* As space-time was better understood, there was an absorption within the physics/cosmological paradigm of its sheer wierdness.* Second: following a theory to its 'extreme conclusion' (which is what we really mean) is part of both ancient and everyday philosopy.* It is a route that instinctively occurs to us; one which we want to explore.* Thus, there seemed to be a certain inevitability that physicists would serve up 'extreme wierdness' - and the Big Bang theory seems to fit the bill.* (That is no kind of refutation of it, but it gives pause for thought.)* There is an allied piece of everyday philosphy about conclusions: not to jump to them.

A propos of the above, a parable:
Silas and Jacob [not the actual Biblical ones] have visited the Temple and, following custom, seek a subject upon which to dispute as they return home.* [This could be very nearly a true story!]

Jacob: Have you never considered, Silas, that the stories of our creation are myths, and that the world has always existed as it is now?* Do you really believe that, once, none but Adam and Eve dwelt upon the Earth, and that they are the ancestors of all now living?* Has not the world always held many peoples and many tribes?

Silas: No, Jacob.* We are many more than in past times.* Observe!* Those dwellings across the valley were not there in the days of our forefathers.* There are new settlements in many places where before there were none.* In the north and in the east, new land is coming under the plough.* What has not changed is the multiplication of our numbers.

Jacob: But to the south, there is land which has been lost to the desert.* And consider the ravages of war, pestilence and disease; they have claimed numbers that have taken generations to recover.

Silas: Such losses have always been made good, and the previous numbers surpassed.* And far to the north, they say that men are clearing great forests, and settling new lands.* There are one hundred men alive now for each that dwelt on Earth in the time of the ancients, as our scriptures testify.

As the dispute continues, the strength of Silas’s argument that the population of the world was smaller in the past, and still smaller in ancient times, proves unassailable.

Silas: And so, in the beginning, there must once have been but one man and one woman, whom our scriptures call Adam and Eve.* For how else can it have been?

I think the case I am making is clear.* There was no other route of thought available for our Israelite Silas to follow.* It was impossible to anticipate any other explanation.* We are captives of our times, and their paradigms.

And so to our living Silas ... as he espies in the heavens (as he believes) the evidence for the smaller, hotter, denser universe of ancient gigayears ... what does he do but adopt the Adam-and-Eve solution?* For what else is the Big Bang theory but precisely the equivalent of the Adam-and-Eve solution?* It is the backward projection of an observed pattern to the ultimate imaginary beginning.

Well, there is a lesson against doing that any more!* (Unless you believe in Adam and Eve.) You never know what unimagined explanation the future may hold.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2002-12-31 22:11 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2002-12-31 22:27 ]</font>

ljbrs
2003-Jan-01, 06:09 AM
mutineer:

The Big Bang was not about psychology (except where the frustration and anger of the anti-Big-Bang people were concerned). The Theory of the Big Bang has been the result of experiments and observations (such as the many measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and the BOOMERANG and the MAXIMA balloon experiments, etc. The comparatively recent discovery (Perlmutter, et al. research paper in *Letters* in NATURE on January 1, 1998, concerning the research using Type 1a supernovae as standard candles) showed that the universe is not only expanding, but is ACCELERATING in its expansion. That research by The Supernova Cosmology Project scientists and the High Z SN Search Team scientists was designated the *Discovery of the Year* by the journal SCIENCE on 18 December 1998. It has met all of the hurdles it has encountered since then (except with its detractors).

The Big Bang has continuously been the result of observations, each one adding to the authenticity of the theory. Only the Creationists and the Steady State theorists and others would be against it. The Big Bang ruins their pet theories and beliefs. For them, that is a big no no...

The name *Big Bang* was derisively made by the late Fred Hoyle, a Big Bang detractor. It is considered by many scientists to have been neither big (being tiny at the beginning) nor a bang (no atmosphere early on in which sound could travel). The Big Bang is solid science theory and is based upon many observations and with particle physics experiments at installations such as FERMILAB and CERN. The detractors are furious about it.

If anybody came along and proved that everything you had believed all of your life was wrong, wouldn't you get pretty angry? I loved it, but I was in the minority, at first. Whee!

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ToSeek
2003-Jan-01, 07:43 PM
On 2003-01-01 01:09, ljbrs wrote:
The name *Big Bang* was derisively made by the late Fred Hoyle, a Big Bang detractor.


Hoyle claimed that he was not being derogatory, simply trying to come up with a short, memorable name for the theory for (I think) an astronomy radio program he was narrating. He was as surprised as anyone that the name caught on.

ljbrs
2003-Jan-01, 09:35 PM
To Seek posted:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2003-01-01 01:09, ljbrs wrote:
The name *Big Bang* was derisively made by the late Fred Hoyle, a Big Bang detractor.


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



Hoyle claimed that he was not being derogatory, simply trying to come up with a short, memorable name for the theory for (I think) an astronomy radio program he was narrating. He was as surprised as anyone that the name caught on.

I am not so certain that Hoyle, altogether, was telling the truth. After all, he was looking for a short, memorable name for a theory he was strongly against. I do think that he was surprised at the outcome, because the name he suggested (the Big Bang) has had the opposite effect from what he may have (truthfully) desired -- to kill the Big Bang quickly and permanently. He was, more likely, only covering for himself after the fact when he purportedly was
simply trying to come up with a short, memorable name for the theory.

Whatever... Fred Hoyle is no longer with us. May he, and his interesting theory, rest in peace. Life would be dull without interesting people and their theories.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-01-01 21:56 ]</font>

Silas
2003-Jan-01, 11:05 PM
On 2002-12-31 22:06, mutineer wrote:
For what else is the Big Bang theory but precisely the equivalent of the Adam-and-Eve solution?* It is the backward projection of an observed pattern to the ultimate imaginary beginning.

But the "Adam and Eve" explanation is *more* correct than the theory that "humans have always been here." It's wrong, but it is wrong in far fewer specifics.

The Big Bang theory may be wrong. In fact, it's already been largely replaced by the "expansionary phase" refinement. This latter version is *less* wrong. It will likely have to be scrapped in the future for some further refinement.

This isn't a guessing game. This isn't philosophical self-gratification. We actually have evidence before us, which we attempt to comprehend.

In psychology: was Freud *totally* wrong? No! He had some key insights that survive to this day. He allowed himself to wander down certain blind alleys. Science, many believe, is a series of successive approximations to the truth.

Again, I've given you half a dozen other science stories that have "mythic" value; you haven't answered my question. If scientific theories are accepted or rejected on the basis of their mythic fit to the psychological zeit-geist, why have some very "sexy" theories been rejected, and other "ugly" theories been accepted?

Silas

mutineer
2003-Jan-02, 02:20 AM
Ijbrs: The Big Bang was not about psychology (except where the frustration and anger of the anti-Big-Bang people were concerned).

Hi, Ijbrs.* A Happy New Year!

All science is governed by the way people think about things - and individual sciences pursue knowledge within particular cultures (frames of reference, if you like), a phenomenon for which Kuhn stole the word 'paradigm'.* (Check out Kuhn on Google.)

I am not the only psychologist on the BABB.* We all of us operate with an intuitive insight into the way other people think.* (People who do not have this insight are called 'autistic'.)* YOU become a psychologist when you look at the mindsets and motives of anti-Big-Bang people.* I have recognised by earlier remarks on BABB that some people want this to be a PCP universe.* Be charitable to them!* It would be philosophically appealing to 'solve' the universe within a credible PCP framework.* A singularity is singularly unappealing!* You know, I am with them on that.* But I, better than anyone (if that is not immodest) know that wishful thinking must not blind me to the evidence.

I am retired, and have not seriously studied physics for many years, so I find it difficult to evaluate the evidence.* But in any case, it is abundantly clear that there are people, who know much more than I could ever hope to learn, who have different views of the evidence.*

I am honestly undecided as to whom to believe in regard to the PCP-ness of the universe.* But suppose that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerating rate; I still would not believe in the Big Bang.* This may put me in a unique position among BABBers - and I make the claim that my psychological insights enable me to spot something that others are missing.* (Which may slightly compensate for my ignorance elsewhere!)

It is the point that I made in my parable, that the Big Bang is an Adam-and-Eve solution.* To infer that, because the universe gets smaller and smaller as we go back in time, it becomes a speck *** is to jump to the same conclusion that, because the human population gets smaller and smaller as we go back in time, we began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden [names and address irrelevant].

It seems just so impossibly difficult for people who believe in the Big Bang to accept this - when they feel that it provides just so perfect an explanation.* Human psychology rebels at the irrefutable logic of my claim!* There is not the least evidence for a Big Bang - merely, one crafts the theory so that it fits the evidence.* This is by no means a negligible intellectual feat; very much the reverse.* It is a great deal more difficult than making refinements to Genesis must have been.* "If the Israelites of Old had known of the Chinese, Noah would have needed four sons" - not a difficult change to make.

*** I am finding this a useful term.* Not being purposely annoying.

Sometimes new evidence comes along and 'confirms' the Big Bang theory, it is claimed.* But this is not really so.* Merely, it confirms the current ideas about the laws of physics that are embedded in the theory.* I could be sold the idea that it sometimes does a little more than that, and I would credit the insightfulness of its constructors; but equally the theory has needed many revisions, as all admit.* (Not least that the Hubble constant stopped being constant.)* It is a fair point to make that Big Bang theories are not infinitely flexible - and have not yet come unstuck, but that does not refute my case.

It was unkind of me to refer to the Big Bang theory as Spoof Science; it was the sort of provocative expression I would use among friends* Rather it has a particular status of its own - which ought to have a Health Warning attached, that it is a 'speculative conjecture'.* As long as people understand that - fine! One physicist I asked about the Big Bang replied: "On balance, I think I accept the theory* But that is not for a moment to say I believe it ever happened." That seemed to show the right spirit.

This is the thing about the Big Bang theory.* We are not, as so often in science, addressing how something works.* We are talking about whether something happened, and about people's beliefs ... important stuff! Here in England, schoolkids are being told the Big Bang happened.* And here, Ijbrs, we come to something that arouses MY own passions.

Another parable:
Megan is nine years old, and her class has been taken to the Museum of Science and Natural History, where they have seen the dinosaurs (skeleton; mock-up; pictures) and the Big Bang (video; pictures).* She has had a good time.

"So how big was the universe at the start?* As small as an orange?"
She thinks for a moment, "Smaller."
"As small as a pea?"
"Smaller."
I look doubtful.* "As small as a speck of dust?"
She smiles and nods her head, as if not entirely sure.
"You don't think they've been having you on, do you?"
But now I wish I hadn't spoken, because I see a flicker of distress.

You would not ordinarily say that she had been subjected to "thought-control techniques" [to use Silas's words about cults] but: [1] She has a relationship of trust with her teachers, and believes what they tell her.* [2] She has not the least reason to differentiate between the dinosaurs and the Big Bang, as regards the veracity of each story.* And these are precisely the techniques used by cults.

I don't know what happens in the US.* But the beliefs we instill in children are important.* "Give me a child to the age of seven, and I will show you the man," said the Jesuits.* When what should be properly be treated as a 'speculative conjecture' is presented as epitomising scientific discovery, something has gone badly awry.* Stick to eclipses and occultations - or tell them that "The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong" [Marcus Chown], and let them understand the implications.

IS THERE ANYONE READING BABB WHO IS SO SURE ABOUT THE BIG BANG THAT HE WANTS SCHOOLKIDS BRAINWASHED WITH IT?

<HR>

By the way, sometimes I stop being a psychologist and try to get down to the physics.* One way of dishing the Big Bang would be to create an Age Crisis it cannot deal with.* I was originally prompted to come to BABB because I had just read ESO's Press Release 23-02.
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-23-02.html

One thing that HST is not good at, is observing the most distant parts of the universe (though the temptation to do so is irresistable).* It is so far redshifted that it needs observing at infrared wavelengths rather than optically.* ESO have the best equipment for this (in Chile) and they have the best images of the most distant galaxies.* I have quoted 23-02 before: "A few are clearly rather large and show spiral structure similar to that seen in very nearby galaxies ..*It is not obvious that current theoretical models can easily account for such galaxies having evolved to this stage so early in the life of the Universe."

Well, I was inclined to believe them in the first place, but the more I read up on galaxy evolution, the more 23-02 looks like the biggest news for cosmology so far this century.

I sure would like to hear the opinions of others.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2003-01-02 09:15 ]</font>

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Jan-02, 03:31 AM
While I am an astronomer, this isn't my field of research. Never the less, I can comment.

First, note that even though these galaxies were imaged out to 2.2 microns, none of those "distant" galaxies in the two sets of close-ups ESO PR Photos 28c/02 and 28d/02 - looks like a mature spiral galaxy like those found in the universe out to lookback times of a few billion years. They contain spiral structures, sure (barely), but nobody would mistake one of these for M31, M81 or the Milky Way. Note that at 2.2 microns, the redshifts of these galaxies could be 3 or so (the universe would be 2 billion years old at that epoch, in accordance with the estimates given for the most distant galaxies in the image), and we'd still be observing restframe wavelengths near 5000 Angstroms.

Next, note that they find that these distant large galaxies are found in dense clusters. In general this is in agreement with what is expected in the "standard models" of galaxy formation in big bang universes. The densest regions should collapse and form structures first. In fact, we would not be surprised to find recently forming galaxies in low density regions of the universe (like those near voids; for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/12/20/hubble.tiny.galaxy.reut/index.html).

Next, the Hubble Deep Fields have been imaged with NICMOS, which operates in the same infrared bands of the VLT instrument, and so these weren't earth shattering results. The VLT has (8.3/2.4)^2 times the
light gathering power of the HST, and that's where the VLT comes out on top. The spatial resolution of the NICMOS images is lower than that of the optical WFPC-2 images, and probably not much better than the superb VLT images. So the ability of spatial resolution to pull out faint extended light from the background probably favors neither scope (but maybe a VLT/ISAAC-MMI or HST/NICMOS expert might correct me).

We are just beginning to get a census of galaxies at high redshift. We need to sample much larger areas of the sky and go even deeper to finally travel down the path of understanding the history of galaxy building. No question that such studies *might* not only challenge models of galaxy formation but perhaps certain cosmogonies associated with the big bang, and even the big bang itself (though if I were a gambling man, I wouldn't bet too heavily on the last of these).

And unlike the attitudes of certain posters on this BB whose purposes in life are seemingly wrapped up in the belief of some idea, astronomers would hardly shed a tear if observational evidence forced us to tear down the Big Bang theory. Scientists by nature are "skeptics", rather than "believers" (and I am speaking in regards to scientific ideas). I don't know any astronomer who "believes" in any scientific theory or model. I would not be going out on a limb to say that eventually what we "know" about the history of our universe will undergo significant revision, as data continue to come in. Whether some version of a Big Bang theory survives, only time and observational data will tell.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2003-01-01 23:07 ]</font>

ljbrs
2003-Jan-02, 03:39 AM
All scientific theories are subject to many refinements. If they do not, they would not likely be considered to be science. Science changes with new information. The fact that the Big Bang has changed along the way is not anything which would go against the Big Bang.

Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology have little comparison to Psychology or Psychiatry. They are far different kinds of science and methods of discovery. I see no comparison at all. The Big Bang has passed all of the tests and has evolved into a much greater science. As more information comes in, science changes. Data and change in information drive change in the sciences. If it did not, it would not be considered to be science. I cannot believe that psychiatry and psychology have not changed over the years. You spoke of autism. At one time Bruno Bettelheim (often called *Brutal* Bettelheim) considered autistic children to have been caused by *Refrigerator Mothers* instead of the other way around. When the mothers failed to get any responses from their refrigerator children, they would tend to give up trying. A new medicine, Risperdone (I believe it is called) has changed all of that and has turned many *refrigerator children* into *participating children* -- *in one fell swoop* (Shakespeare). Now, psychiatry and psychology hopefully have changed. If they have not, they can hardly be considered to be scientific.

I repeat, Big Bang cosmology is science and change is something that always happens in sciences, unlike in most religions and in certain unscientific fields of so-called science. I would not apply the requirements for psychiatry and psychology to data-driven sciences such as physics, astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology. New data has confirmed the Big Bang, rather than discredited it.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-01-01 22:46 ]</font>

mutineer
2003-Jan-02, 02:10 PM
Silas Again, I've given you half a dozen other science stories that have "mythic" value; you haven't answered my question. If scientific theories are accepted or rejected on the basis of their mythic fit to the psychological zeit-geist ...

I was not talking about criteria for accept-or-reject so much as pointing out that theories DERIVE from the ruling (if you like) zeit-geist - i.e. that of the particular science involved. Give "Kuhn paradigm" a whirl on Google.

When it comes to something like plate tectonics, I think we both know that that is of a less speculative nature than the Big Bang - but plate tectonics is part theory (understanding the physics of the mechanism) and part history (the particulars).

We might sometimes use the expression, "The theory that ..." in history. We would be better off using the expression, "The case that ...". It avoids confusion with scientific theory. Science is about generalising. History is about specific events.

We might have the theoretical side of plate tectonics wrong - it's ONLY a theory. But we apply some rules even to what we will tolerate as a (valid) theory. Apart from being undisproved, it must not only be better than other alternatives - we must not be able to SEE any 'holes' in it, i.e. in the evidence or chain of deduction. The Adam-and-Eve aspect of Big Bang logic is a hole we can see. A philosopher might explain this a bit differently; it gets a bit 'theological', so to speak. The example serves better than too much Jesuitical logic.

BASICALLY, what bugs me is that the Big Bang - which above all should be treated as something like 'speculative conjecture' [I am sure that description could be improved upon] is so often believed in, and as FACT rather than THEORY, and with such conviction/devotion. I don't really want to pick too much of an argument with anyone who says "LET SKEPTICISM REIGN!" For a lot of people, skepticism comes real hard!

Re: Fleischman and Pons.

Seems just as bizarre an episode to me as to everyone else. I claim no special insights.

Re: Phlogiston.

[I know you didn't mention that.] Wonderful example of a theory of its time. Exciting idea of negative mass - arguably would not have been swallowed a century earlier. Moral: exercise imagination with caution!

[I shall be offline for a while. Do I hear sighs of relief?]

mutineer
2003-Jan-02, 03:12 PM
On 2003-01-01 22:31, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
While I am an astronomer, this isn't my field of research. Never the less, I can comment.


Thanks, Spaceman. All of your comments much appreciated.

Silas
2003-Jan-02, 04:33 PM
On 2003-01-01 21:20, mutineer wrote:
IS THERE ANYONE READING BABB WHO IS SO SURE ABOUT THE BIG BANG THAT HE WANTS SCHOOLKIDS BRAINWASHED WITH IT?


Of course not. We want it taught as science.

Silas

DoctorDon
2003-Jan-02, 06:07 PM
The "adam&eve analogy" does not apply to the Big Bang. You are forgetting look-back time. You have a couple of people comparing the data from their (relatively short) lifetimes and concluding that the process of population expansion they see can be extrapolated to two people. In astronomy, we can see all the way back to the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we see exapansion happening the whole way. At earlier times than the moment the universe turned transparent, we have to use the laws of physics to extrapolate. But there are two big differences between that extrapolation and your Adam & Eve analogy. First, we know when the laws of physics break down, and we don't extrapolate any earlier than that. Second, this early phase of expansion and cooling makes a distinct prediction of what abundances of light elements would be produced if you took a soup of hot quarks and electrons and let it expand and cool, and this prediction matches what is observed. There is a world of difference between the Big Bang theory and your biblical figures.

I'm curious, though. If you think the idea of the visible universe being compressed into a "speck" is too ridiculous to contemplate, what do you think prevents it? Since all we can observe implies the universe was ever denser in the past, going back some 14 billion years, what is wrong with extrapolating the last few minutes? And how do you feel about black holes?

Yours sincerely,

Don Smith

D J
2003-Jan-02, 06:23 PM
On 2003-01-02 13:07, DoctorDon wrote:
You are forgetting look-back time. In astronomy, we can see all the way back to the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we see exapansion happening the whole way. At earlier times than the moment the universe turned transparent, we have to use the laws of physics to extrapolate. First, we know when the laws of physics break down, and we don't extrapolate any earlier than that. Second, this early phase of expansion and cooling makes a distinct prediction of what abundances of light elements would be produced if you took a soup of hot quarks and electrons and let it expand and cool, and this prediction matches what is observed.

Yours sincerely,

Don Smith


All of this can be explaned without the Big Bang or the theory of the expansion of the universe:
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Chip
2003-Jan-02, 08:27 PM
It is a common misnomer that the "Big Bang" theory is about the actual creation of the universe via a some sort of tremendous explosion. As I understand it, (and I'm not an expert,) space itself, and all that is observed including time is within the "Big Bang" expanding from everywhere rather than a central point. Also, Big Bang theory does not address the creation or very beginning of the Universe. It is concerned with the expansion of the universe from its earliest known, very different state to its presently observed state. (The expansion is still ongoing.) Although there are aspects of the universe that could exist within the Steady State model, several observed phenomenon could not. From what I gather, they are the following - perhaps more:

1. The "CMB" blackbody radiation would have no reason for existing in an endless Steady State of eternal renewal.
2. Steady State universe doesn't account for the past time location of an observed Isothermal Universe.
3. In a Steady State universe, strong radio sources and the amount of early quasar forms would not necessarily be distributed more abundantly in the distant past -- as observed.
4. TCMB red shifts reveal an evolving state rather than a steady consistent state.
5. Light isotopes would not exist in the abundances that they do in a renewing eternal steady state, without rewriting the observed history to include unobserved phenomenon - (perhaps more supernovae in the past than today?) Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li are consistent with very early atomic reactions in the compressed state.

Also:
Perhaps someone could address what is termed the "angular power spectrum" which Cosmologists use to study temperature variations at specific points in the sky. The anisotropy of the background radiation offers a way to understand the early universe. I'd be interested if someone would like to explain in layman's terms how the terms "y-axis variable" and "x-axis variable" in the "angular power spectrum," support measurements consistent with an expanding universe, and the "big bang" theory. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-01-02 15:28 ]</font>

ljbrs
2003-Jan-03, 02:31 AM
The "adam&eve analogy" does not apply to the Big Bang. You are forgetting look-back time. You have a couple of people comparing the data from their (relatively short) lifetimes and concluding that the process of population expansion they see can be extrapolated to two people. In astronomy, we can see all the way back to the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we see exapansion happening the whole way. At earlier times than the moment the universe turned transparent, we have to use the laws of physics to extrapolate. But there are two big differences between that extrapolation and your Adam & Eve analogy. First, we know when the laws of physics break down, and we don't extrapolate any earlier than that. Second, this early phase of expansion and cooling makes a distinct prediction of what abundances of light elements would be produced if you took a soup of hot quarks and electrons and let it expand and cool, and this prediction matches what is observed. There is a world of difference between the Big Bang theory and your biblical figures.

I'm curious, though. If you think the idea of the visible universe being compressed into a "speck" is too ridiculous to contemplate, what do you think prevents it? Since all we can observe implies the universe was ever denser in the past, going back some 14 billion years, what is wrong with extrapolating the last few minutes? And how do you feel about black holes?

Yours sincerely,

Don Smith


Doctor Don:

Good! You are back again! I have missed seeing your posts recently. I have enjoyed your posts so very much, and I regularly look for them. Great post (as usual)! Whether the people to whom your posts are intended get the drift, there are others (like me) who thoroughly enjoy reading them.

Happy New Year!

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif !!!

ljbrs
2003-Jan-03, 02:43 AM
Tim Thompson:

I never tire of reading your posts. They always offer some new insight into cosmology. They compel me to THINK. That is really, really tough.

Happy New Year!

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

SAMU
2003-Jan-04, 05:31 AM
Just as when teaching children that "the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening" is later in teaching used to illustrate the rotating earth to create the appearence of sunrise and sunset, so the big bang model can actually be used to illustrate the steady state model.

Disregarding, for the time being, the various (occasionally farfeched) SS and BB models. Assume the BB has the usually characteristic quality of an explosion with a "blast front". Wherein the majority of the of mass/energy of the explosion is confined to a fairly thin "shell" of the "blast front". Some have speculated (in the confines of the BB theory) that the "blast front" is as thin as a few thousand light years thick. As such, the "blast front" could be as dense (within its own reference frame) as a black hole (but not a point source, a shell source). Some obsevations indicate that this is the state of being vis a vis QUAsi stelAR (quasars)objects with some properties of stars but with the energy output of entire galaxies idicading tremendous mass/energy concentrations.
As some of the readers of this know, observable matter (radiating matter) decending into a black hole appears to reach nearly the speed of light (due to gravitational curvature) before it vanishes from our frame of reference. So matter, observably radiating, from the vicinity of the mass concentration of the BB "blast front" is also suject to spacial distorton(although characterized in an earlier post to this thread as "strange").
of a similar gravitational curvature.

Were one to draw a line from our obsevational point "here" through the BB "blast front", one could ,speculatively(due to the observed physical properties of matter/energy), have an infinite mass on that line.

Were the universe infinite and steady state (infinite and uniform distribution of mass/energy to infinity) then on a line drawn from "here" (our observational point) to infinity, then the mass/energy on that line would be as infinite as it appears in (some aspects of)the BB cosmology. At some distance some aspects of the observable physical properties of matter can be identical to either the BB cosmology or the SS cosmology.
This has been a radical simplification. You will need to adopt some intuitive leaps to follow it.

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2003-01-04 13:55 ]</font>

mutineer
2003-Jan-04, 08:05 AM
DoctorDon If you think the idea of the visible universe being compressed into a "speck" is too ridiculous to contemplate, what do you think prevents it? Since all we can observe implies the universe was ever denser in the past, going back some 14 billion years, what is wrong with extrapolating the last few minutes? And how do you feel about black holes?

OK, let’s deal with that ‘speck’ business first. It’s not an essential part of any case I am putting. I am not an expert on cults, but I have the general interest a psychologist might be expected to have, I guess. So I am interested in how people can have the most extraordinary beliefs. And the thing is, they don’t have to be persuaded or cajoled. You wish they would at least reflect! So when Big Bang Believers exhibit not the least problem with the entire universe contained in a ‘speck’ – that’s par for the course. I would at least appreciate a show of wariness! That would make a comparison with (other) cults more difficult. Black holes makes comparison more easy. You give the Followers a couple of fairly impossible things to believe, and then you sock it to them with the biggie! Black holes is kinda like softening them up! Gee - they’re a cinch compared to the ‘speck’. I could believe in a black hole after as little as a couple of stiff brandies. Anyway, I have described myself as an open minded skeptic in an earlier mailing, so I guess I ought to be willing to believe in the ‘speck’ too. (The ‘speck’ business is very peripheral to my objections to the Big Bang.)

[Short serious answer: No great problem in believing in boundaries to observation created by black holes.]

DoctorDon First, we know when the laws of physics break down, and we don't extrapolate any earlier than that.

I want to give you a serious answer about the Adam-and-Eveness of the Big Bang. I liked my parable because it seemed a good way to escape getting into the hideous complexities of the Philosophy of Scientific Theory. But first, I need clarification on the above sentence. When you say “we”, I am not sure who you are speaking for. Are you saying that YOU personally would NOT go back to the Big Bang singularity itself? Would stop short of accepting ‘inflation’ (exceeding speed of light)? See there could be all sorts of people wanting to stop in different places whom I might have to deal with separately. Help! Tell you what: why don’t you fight it out with a REAL Big Banger, and then I’ll fight the winner.

What do you think happened before the point at which you want to stop?

<HR>

Chip It is a common misnomer that the "Big Bang" theory is about the actual creation of the universe via a some sort of tremendous explosion. As I understand it, (and I'm not an expert,) space itself, and all that is observed including time is within the "Big Bang" expanding from everywhere rather than a central point.

I want to make it clear what I am talking about when I use the term Big Bang [I was clearly understood by Silas]. I do not mean a big explosion, but I do mean the very initial (Adam-and-Eve) stages of creation as opposed to the on-going (supposed) expansion. People arguing for or against the Big Bang TEND to be arguing for or against an expanding universe, rather than about the Big Bang itself – which I think is how your reading of the expression has arisen. If you believe in an expanding universe you may or may not believe it had origins of the sort described by Big Bang theorists. If you believed in something akin to Proportionality Theory, that (going back in time) the universe halved in linear size every four billion years, and thus was infinitely old, you would certainly not believe in a Big Bang.

Chip [I]Also, Big Bang theory does not address the creation or very beginning of the Universe.

I am talking precisely about what would be called the BEGINNING GAME (in the sense of the opposite of an END GAME) of an expanding universe. I take a Big Bang to be something like:

t = 0 (about 15 billion years ago)
* * * * r = 0.
* * * * Temperature T = Infinite.
* * * * Density = mass per volume = Infinite.
t = 0.01 seconds
* * * * T = 100,0.00,000,000 0C.
* * * * Energy is mostly radiation.
t = 2 seconds
* * * * T = 10,000,000,000 0C.
* * * * Density = 100 million kg per cubic meter.
* * * * Proton-antiproton and neutron-antineutron pairs begin forming.
t = 3 minutes
* * * * T = 1,000,000,000 0C.
* * * * Protons and neutrons begin forming hydrogen and helium.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2003-01-04 03:27 ]</font>

DoctorDon
2003-Jan-04, 03:15 PM
On 2003-01-04 03:05, mutineer wrote:
[I couldn?t resist taking a look at the BABB. But I am away from home and may not be able to rejoin the debate for a while.]

It'll still be here when you get back. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

OK, let?s deal with that ?speck? business first. It?s not an essential part of any case I am putting.

This doesn't make sense. Your whole case (as you presented it) was based on saying that scientists were being gullible by accepting something as patently ridiculous as the Universe being compressed into a "speck". When I ask you why you think that's patently ridiculous, you say it's not important. Now I'm really confused.

I am not an expert on cults, but I have the general interest a psychologist might be expected to have, I guess. So I am interested in how people can have the most extraordinary beliefs.

I think it's ridiculous that you're comparing a highly sophisticated, well-tested, and thorough scientific theory to a religious cult. The Big Bang theory is based on physical evidence. From a psychological point of view, people wanted the universe to be closed. THey liked the psychological closure provided by the Big Crunch idea. However, when the evidence became clear and unavoidable a couple of years ago that the universe was flat and accelerating, the scientific community did not try to argue away or deny or avoid the evidence, they rejected the theory. That's science, that's not a cult.

If the speck business is not your beef with the Big Bang, what is?

But first, I need clarification on the above sentence. When you say ?we?, I am not sure who you are speaking for.

I am speaking for myself and all other professional astrophysicists. People may speculate at what goes on before the Plank Time, but they all know it's just speculation, not part of "the Big Bang Theory".

Would stop short of accepting ?inflation? (exceeding speed of light)?

Inflation is an acceptable part of the Big Bang theory, although I think the book is still open on whether it truly happened or not.

And it does not involve exceeding the speed of light. Not in a relativisitic sense, anyway. From any one point, it looks like other points are receding faster than light, but that's just because the space between them is stretching so fast. This does not violate the limit of the speed of light for the motion of individual items within that expanding space-time. See, e.g., _The Inflationary Universe_, by Alan Guth.

Tell you what: why don?t you fight it out with a REAL Big Banger, and then I?ll fight the winner.

(a) No. I'm not interested in "fighting it out"; I'm interested in what you think and why. (b) what on earth is a "real" Big Banger?

What do you think happened before the point at which you want to stop?

No idea.

If you believed in something akin to Proportionality Theory, that (going back in time) the universe halved in linear size every four billion years, and thus was infinitely old, you would certainly not believe in a Big Bang.

But you would predict a very different redshift-distance relationship than what we observe.



I take a Big Bang to be something like:

t = 0 (about 15 billion years ago)
r = 0.
Temperature T = Infinite.
Density = mass per volume = Infinite.
t = 0.01 seconds
T = 100,0.00,000,000<sup>o</sup> C.
Energy is mostly radiation.
t = 2 seconds
T = 10,000,000,000<sup>o</sup> C.
Density = 100 million kg per cubic meter.
Proton-antiproton and neutron-antineutron pairs begin forming.
t = 3 minutes
T = 1,000,000,000<sup>o</sup> C.
Protons and neutrons begin forming hydrogen and helium.


Knock off the first step at t=0, and you would be right. (Well, I haven't double-checked your exact times, temperatures and densities, but they sound about right.)

Yours sincerely,

Don Smith

Zathras
2003-Jan-04, 03:46 PM
On 2003-01-04 03:05, mutineer wrote:
. . .
OK, let’s deal with that ‘speck’ business first. It’s not an essential part of any case I am putting. I am not an expert on cults, but I have the general interest a psychologist might be expected to have, I guess. So I am interested in how people can have the most extraordinary beliefs. And the thing is, they don’t have to be persuaded or cajoled. You wish they would at least reflect! So when Big Bang Believers exhibit not the least problem with the entire universe contained in a ‘speck’ – that’s par for the course. I would at least appreciate a show of wariness! That would make a comparison with (other) cults more difficult. Black holes makes comparison more easy. You give the Followers a couple of fairly impossible things to believe, and then you sock it to them with the biggie! Black holes is kinda like softening them up! Gee - they’re a cinch compared to the ‘speck’. I could believe in a black hole after as little as a couple of stiff brandies. Anyway, I have described myself as an open minded skeptic in an earlier mailing, so I guess I ought to be willing to believe in the ‘speck’ too. (The ‘speck’ business is very peripheral to my objections to the Big Bang.)
. . .
You say you are interested in the psychology of people who believe in the BB. You first need to be clear on your own psychological biases before you can analyze others'. I have seen three in your postings:

1) One emotional reason why you dislike the BB is that you perceive it as being too much akin to creation stories found in various religions, particularly Christianity. You obviously detest religion, and you have transferred this dislike to the BB theory. You are not alone in this--AgoraBasta is in the same boat. You need to realize that you should be dispassionate about how religious belief might coincide with the BB theory before you can be dispassionate about the BB.

2) You seem to start with the premise that the belief in the BB or black holes is an extrordinary belief. What, however, can define "extrordinary?" For some reason, you find BB and black holes extrordinary, and so you start from the premise that these theories are wrong. What is it about these theories that is so extrordinary? Again, in examining any scientific issues, you need to be dispassionate, or at least recognize your own biases.

3) You seem to have little faith in the scientific method. That you're a psychologist makes it understandable, because the scientific method has proven fairly unreliable in psychology. In a way, astronomers and physicists are spoiled in how successful the scientific method has been in their field. Just because it has worked in the fields of astronomy and physics does not mean that it works in other fields. Psychology, sociology, and economics have proven almost intractable for the scientific method.

I agree with your point in your original post that scientists are the high priests of the age (others more favorably disposed to science than you have made the same point--look at several of John Horgan's writings). In this day, scientists' statements are accepted by the public, and for the public it is a matter of faith, because they cannot know every detail of how these experiments give the results, let alone verify the results for themselves. Just because something is taken by the public as faith, however, does not mean it is untrue. The problem is when the statements of psychologists or dietetic experts are given as gospel, when they are notoriously unreliable. The fact that these "findings" are given to the public as absolutely true is probably the single greatest source of the public's mistrust of science.

The wonderful thing about physics and astronomy is that they have been so successful. People in other fields have tried to duplicate this success in their own fields, but to no avail (see, for example, More Heat than Light about the attempt to do so in economics). Just because such methods have not proved as transferable to other fields as one might want should not deter one from seeing the wonderful success in much of physics and astronomy.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-04, 03:50 PM
On 2003-01-04 10:15, DoctorDon wrote:
I am speaking for myself and all other professional astrophysicists.Wouldn't that be too bold a statement?

But you would predict a very different redshift-distance relationship than what we observe.
The current interpretation of cosmological redshift seems too flaky for a rock-solid argument anyway...

David Hall
2003-Jan-04, 11:32 PM
On 2003-01-04 10:50, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2003-01-04 10:15, DoctorDon wrote:
I am speaking for myself and all other professional astrophysicists.

Wouldn't that be too bold a statement?


I don't think so. Whether any individual astronomer or physicist agrees with the Big Bang Theory or not, they almost to a man understand the limitations of it, and one of the biggest is that the first instants are undefinable by current physics.




But you would predict a very different redshift-distance relationship than what we observe.
The current interpretation of cosmological redshift seems too flaky for a rock-solid argument anyway...


It's not flakey in the least. Under the Big Bang theory, cosmological redshift has both a reasonable explanation and conformation with observation. Sure you can formulate other hypotheses, but so far every other attempt has been even less "rock solid" than this one.

And as for my personal opinion, it's all those other hypotheses that seem a bit "flakey". Expanding space is a simple, elegant solution. The objects themselves aren't moving that fast, so space itself must be expanding and carrying them along. This is what observation seems to show, and since this is what Einsteinian relativity predicts anyway, it also fits perfectly with our current knowledge of physics. All the other explanations I've heard however depend on unseen or untenable assumptions such as tired light or "Compton" scattering. If you want people to accept something like this over expanding space, you have to conclusively show how your model explains observations better first.

I tend to agree with Zathras. Your bias is showing.

Silas
2003-Jan-04, 11:34 PM
On 2003-01-04 10:46, Zathras wrote:
3) You seem to have little faith in the scientific method. That you're a psychologist makes it understandable, because the scientific method has proven fairly unreliable in psychology.

While I agree with nearly everything else you say, I wanted to quibble with this. There are *many* statistically-meaningful, honest, double-blind, productive experiments in the field of psychology!

The field is a challenge, since the object of study is of the same level of complexity as those studying it; the field resists "reductionism."

Reductionism is *not* a bad thing! Where would chemistry be if we didn't have the luxurious reduction of the limited number of chemical elements? What if every single chemical compound and molecule had to be treated as a unique "rule unto itself?" That's one of the reasons geology is so difficult: there are so darned many kinds of minerals, and they're often difficult to "classify" -- i.e. reduce.

Astronomy got off to a lovely head-start when the HR Diagram and the Mass-Luminosity Relationship allowed the "reduction" of stars into classes. Again, imagine how difficult astronomy would be today if every single star obeyed its own set of rules and couldn't be compared to any other!

In psychology, every individual obeys his and her own set of rules, and can't be compared (except in very broad terms) to any other. No wonder the science seems frustrating to some! But it is still a science.

(Aside: hm... Hey, Mutineer? Have I given a fair defense to your field?)

Silas

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-05, 12:04 AM
On 2003-01-04 18:32, David Hall wrote:
All the other explanations I've heard however depend on unseen or untenable assumptions such as tired light or "Compton" scattering.
What about this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&18)? Would you care to prove it wrong?

I tend to agree with Zathras. Your bias is showing.
Sure it does. I do show it quite openly.

Taks
2003-Jan-05, 02:19 AM
mr. thompson,

i'd like to field an opinion that actually has nothing to do with the factual basis of the big bang one way or another. people often disagree with something for no other reason than a profound distrust of any accepted dogma. questioning authority is often it's own reward /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

mark

ljbrs
2003-Jan-05, 05:39 AM
mr. thompson,

i'd like to field an opinion that actually has nothing to do with the factual basis of the big bang one way or another. people often disagree with something for no other reason than a profound distrust of any accepted dogma. questioning authority is often it's own reward

mark


Questioning authority for the sake of questioning authority is a rather stupid and/or ignorant occupation. People who do so do not have a clue as to the authenticity (or possible lack thereof) of what they are questioning.

There are some really great writers with substantial backgrounds here on Bad Astronomy. I, personally, learn so much from them. Others might do the same. You need to know something about the topic(s) in order to know the difference.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Chip
2003-Jan-05, 06:51 AM
Chip: It is a common misnomer that the "Big Bang" theory is about the actual creation of the universe via a some sort of tremendous explosion. As I understand it, (and I'm not an expert,) space itself, and all that is observed including time is within the "Big Bang" expanding from everywhere rather than a central point.

Mutineer:
I want to make it clear what I am talking about when I use the term Big Bang . I do not mean a big explosion, but I do mean the very initial (Adam-and-Eve) stages of creation as opposed to the on-going (supposed) expansion.

Chip: The "on-going expansion" [i]is the basic overview of THE "Big Bang" theory. Someone once said humorously that it "Wasn't big, and wasn't a bang." At least in the conventional sense. To deny the expansion of the universe is basically to deny a tremendous amount of observational evidence. What you are dealing with, is not the Big Bang theory.

D J
2003-Jan-05, 08:22 PM
On 2003-01-05 01:51, Chip wrote:
To deny the expansion of the universe is basically to deny a tremendous amount of observational evidence.

Observational evidence show also it is seen that an average concentration of about 10-2 particle cm-3 of gas is enough to produce a redshift that would be indistinguishable from the effect resulting from the Doppler shift attributed to the expansion of the universe. Such an average concentration of intergalactic gas is larger than usually accepted, although an almost similar concentration (103 cm-3) of gas has recently been reported in some intergalactic clouds. However, the density accepted comes out of the hypothesis of a Doppler interpretation using Einstein's relativity. Such a calculation of the density of matter is space is irrelevant here, since it is based on the Doppler interpretation of the redshift, while the results obtained here are based on the energy lost due to interstellar gases which is a Non-Doppler interpretation.
Some calculation based on this:
See:
3. Application to Astrophysical Data.
3.1 Interstellar and Intergalactic gases.
Let us apply this energy loss (eq. 12) to astrophysical data. Let us calculate the average density D (atom m-3 ) of gas in space required to produce a redshift coherent with the Hubble constant Ho. The average number of collisions N produced on a path one parsec long is:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-01-05 15:24 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-05, 09:00 PM
On 2003-01-05 01:51, Chip wrote:
To deny the expansion of the universe is basically to deny a tremendous amount of observational evidence.How much of good physics do you wish to sacrifice while forcefully ascribing observational data to "expansion of the universe"?

Silas
2003-Jan-06, 03:08 AM
On 2003-01-05 16:00, AgoraBasta wrote:
How much of good physics do you wish to sacrifice while forcefully ascribing observational data to "expansion of the universe"?


There would obviously be a balance point, where the "costs" outweighed the "benefits." I don't think we've come anywhere close to that point yet.

So far, the BB poses no threat to "good physics."

Silas

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-06, 11:23 AM
On 2003-01-05 22:08, Silas wrote:
I don't think we've come anywhere close to that point yet.Those "we" definitely are nowhere near that point - but that's because that point is already far behind. Critisizing the standard interpretation of the "cosmological" redshift is a definite no-no, no matter how basic is the physics of a proposed alternative...

Zathras
2003-Jan-06, 05:26 PM
On 2003-01-04 18:34, Silas wrote:


On 2003-01-04 10:46, Zathras wrote:
3) You seem to have little faith in the scientific method. That you're a psychologist makes it understandable, because the scientific method has proven fairly unreliable in psychology.

While I agree with nearly everything else you say, I wanted to quibble with this. There are *many* statistically-meaningful, honest, double-blind, productive experiments in the field of psychology!

The field is a challenge, since the object of study is of the same level of complexity as those studying it; the field resists "reductionism."

Reductionism is *not* a bad thing! Where would chemistry be if we didn't have the luxurious reduction of the limited number of chemical elements? What if every single chemical compound and molecule had to be treated as a unique "rule unto itself?" That's one of the reasons geology is so difficult: there are so darned many kinds of minerals, and they're often difficult to "classify" -- i.e. reduce.

Astronomy got off to a lovely head-start when the HR Diagram and the Mass-Luminosity Relationship allowed the "reduction" of stars into classes. Again, imagine how difficult astronomy would be today if every single star obeyed its own set of rules and couldn't be compared to any other!

In psychology, every individual obeys his and her own set of rules, and can't be compared (except in very broad terms) to any other. No wonder the science seems frustrating to some! But it is still a science.

(Aside: hm... Hey, Mutineer? Have I given a fair defense to your field?)

Silas



Okay, okay, I might have been too harsh in my criticism of psychology. There has been science in psychology, in the sense that experiments have been done which are replicatable.

What psychology (as well as economics and sociology) has generally failed to do is to create a set of universal laws analogous to QM, relativity, Newton's law of mechanics, E&M, etc. (basically your point about a lack of reductionism (symmetry=invariance)). There are many competing schools of thought in psychology (Freud, Jung, behavioralism, existential-phenomenological, neurochemical, etc.), and not one of these schools have been able to prove "its" set of rules to the rest of the field. In terms of "unifying rules," you could learn as much from a book of Plato as you would reading a book on Freud, or anything else, for that matter.

I probably went too far in claiming that the lack of a unifying body of laws prevented these fields from being scientific. It does certainly makes it harder for truly scientific expiriments to be conducted (e.g. how do you define a control when there are so many udnerlying issues?).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2003-01-06 12:33 ]</font>

D J
2003-Jan-07, 03:05 AM
On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:

What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology?[/b] What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? What's going on?

Cheers.

There is a concrete reason for rejecting it.
The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe theory are based on a misinterpretation of the reality as presented here:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-01-06 22:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-01-06 22:20 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2003-Jan-07, 04:56 AM
Orion38: There is a concrete reason for rejecting it. The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe theory are based on a misinterpretation of the reality as presented here: A New Non-Doppler Redshift (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html), Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe. (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html)

I should say quite the opposite. the websites that you quote are the misinterpretations of the reality provided by Big Bang Cosmology (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm).

The "new" non-Doppler redshift is just a bad argument dressed up with a lot of equations to impress the easily impressed. It's the same Compton Effect argument that Kierein champions. But its a lousy and unphysical argument that cannot produce the observed conditions. It's trivially false.

Likewise, I don't see anything particularly impressive in the page about cosmic matter. Who really cartes whether or not Hubble thgought the universe is/was expanding? Doppler shifts are great redshift producers, as evey physicist on Earth well knows. the alternative mechanisms offered are lousy redshift producers, if they produce one at all.

No, I'm afraid the "misinterpretation" is by no means assignable to the Big Bang.

D J
2003-Jan-07, 05:18 AM
On 2003-01-06 23:56, Tim Thompson wrote:

Likewise, I don't see anything particularly impressive in the page about cosmic matter.


But I find something who will be more impressive and this is only the beginning.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

D J
2003-Jan-07, 05:52 AM
On 2003-01-06 23:56, Tim Thompson wrote:

The "new" non-Doppler redshift is just a bad argument dressed up with a lot of equations to impress the easily impressed. It's the same Compton Effect argument that Kierein champions. But its a lousy and unphysical argument that cannot produce the observed conditions. It's trivially false.


First I am not easely impressed.
Secondly
You will have to prove than the calculation made by Marmet are false when he conclude:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

3. Application to Astrophysical Data.
3.1 Interstellar and Intergalactic gases.
This value includes the contribution of the very large gaseous nebulae or galaxies located in the line of sight or concentrated around the light source itself. Consequently, depending on the temperature of the source and the nature of the intergalactic gas, an average density of the order of 0.01 atom per cubic centimeter is sufficient to produce, on the Planck spectrum, an effect equivalent to that of a Doppler shift in agreement with the Hubble constant.
---------------

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 09:18 AM
On 2003-01-06 23:56, Tim Thompson wrote:
The "new" non-Doppler redshift is just a bad argument dressed up with a lot of equations to impress the easily impressed. It's the same Compton Effect argument that Kierein champions. But its a lousy and unphysical argument that cannot produce the observed conditions. It's trivially false.So you pick up a really questionable alternative for your debunking. That's understandable. This way debunking goes so easy. Why not try a tougher alternative?

I'd love to see how you would debunk the most intuitive and straightforward gravitational mechanism that is discussed here - http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&18 .
I'd bet you simply can't do that...

Zathras
2003-Jan-07, 03:20 PM
On 2003-01-07 04:18, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2003-01-06 23:56, Tim Thompson wrote:
The "new" non-Doppler redshift is just a bad argument dressed up with a lot of equations to impress the easily impressed. It's the same Compton Effect argument that Kierein champions. But its a lousy and unphysical argument that cannot produce the observed conditions. It's trivially false.So you pick up a really questionable alternative for your debunking. That's understandable. This way debunking goes so easy. Why not try a tougher alternative?

I'd love to see how you would debunk the most intuitive and straightforward gravitational mechanism that is discussed here - http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&18 .
I'd bet you simply can't do that...


Actually, this was already debunked here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=200

Summary: blueshifting cancels out reshifting. Therefore, no gravitational redshift except from the source.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 03:37 PM
On 2003-01-07 10:20, Zathras wrote:
Summary: blueshifting cancels out reshifting. Therefore, no gravitational redshift except from the source.Patently and deliberately false throughout (your statement is). A little hint - use some math...

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-07, 04:55 PM
Well, that thread Zathras mentioned is locked, but I thought (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=219) you were joking (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=212).

In that thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=203), I explained why I thought your logic didn't work, and you answered (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=209):

That's because it's the photon that travels what must be an isotropic medium. When you cut the space your way, the photon sees a highly non-isotropic picture - a ball of matter in front and nothing behind. Moreover, your observer sits in a potential well. Why should you discriminate the poor observer that way - it's unfair, he just sits there peacefully; the photon, on the other hand, aggressively pushes forth - hence it has to get punished for such misconduct.
I've never seen a naughty photon, some of my favorite particles are photons, but irregardless, that analysis doesn't wash. To paraphrase your criticism of me, when you cut the space your way, the photon sees a highly non-isotropic picture - a ball of matter behind. So your logic suffers from the same criticism.

Addendum: The argument seems to hinge on the idea of the assumption of isotropic space. If space is isotropic, then it appears the same in any direction from any point--more or less the definition of isotropy. If you carve out a ball of space adjacent to a point, that ball of space is just compenstated by the entire rest of the universe, in order to satisfy the assumption of isotropy. So, as your photon is leaving its ball of matter behind, it sees a complementary distribution of matter ahead--by definition. Of course, space is not truly isotropic, but that's your assumption in this thought experiment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2003-01-07 12:10 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 05:59 PM
On 2003-01-07 11:55, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
...but I thought you were joking.
I can joke on serious matters. It doesn't mean I'm not serious about demanding that rebuttal attempts are substantiated.
In that thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=203), I explained why I thought your logic didn't work, ...I have provided some totally different logic in the new thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&20). That also explains why your logic is wrong. Deal with it.

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-07, 06:28 PM
On 2003-01-07 12:59, AgoraBasta wrote:
Deal with it.

No problem.

As you point out (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&20&start=7), your analysis assumes that you have a uniform density distribution throughout space--the isotropy mentioned above. My addendum above points out why your mathematical analysis is flawed then. You can't integrate as you try to do (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&20&start=7). You're ignoring matter that exactly offsets the effect that you're trying to produce.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 07:07 PM
On 2003-01-07 13:28, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
You're ignoring matter that exactly offsets the effect that you're trying to produce.Sure I do, since that outer matter doesn't know of the photon emission by its source until the photon gets to that matter. And photons from a star travel in spherical shells concentric with that star. As they travel, the gravitational field formerly delivered by the mass expended on their emission disappears behind them. Looks like they eat up tiny chunks of the source's gravity as they travel away from it.

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-07, 07:29 PM
On 2003-01-07 14:07, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2003-01-07 13:28, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
You're ignoring matter that exactly offsets the effect that you're trying to produce.Sure I do, since that outer matter doesn't know of the photon emission by its source until the photon gets to that matter. And photons from a star travel in spherical shells concentric with that star. As they travel, the gravitational field formerly delivered by the mass expended on their emission disappears behind them. Looks like they eat up tiny chunks of the source's gravity as they travel away from it.

Gravity is a field--the photons interact with that field even before they get there, otherwise there wouldn't be a shifting when they fall in Earth's gravity. And that's been well documented.

If it didn't work that way, then it wouldn't work for what you called the CMB photons either--but you said it does.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 07:57 PM
On 2003-01-07 14:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Gravity is a field--the photons interact with that field even before they get there, otherwise there wouldn't be a shifting when they fall in Earth's gravity.So you want to account for local effects on cosmological scale? You must be joking, right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-07, 08:09 PM
Your assumption is that the universe is isotropic. That's your assumption. You gotta live with that, no way around it unless you completely give it up. However, if you keep it, you give up your ability to do the integration the way you propose.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 08:22 PM
On 2003-01-07 15:09, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Your assumption is that the universe is isotropic. That's your assumption. You gotta live with that, no way around it unless you completely give it up. However, if you keep it, you give up your ability to do the integration the way you propose.Grapes,

I'm sorry to say that, but your arguments are not really arguments, I honestly expected a better fight from you /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

OK, that was only a joke - you do no worse than anybody else. Nobody was ever able to disprove the redshift mechanism I described, no matter how hard they tried. The issue periodically surfaces in some informal discussions but never gets resolved. It's just a little dirty secret permanently under the BB rug...

Such is the quality of modern cosmological science, if you didn't know it already.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2003-01-07 15:28 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-07, 08:27 PM
On 2003-01-07 15:22, AgoraBasta wrote:
OK, that was only a joke - you do no worse than anybody else. Nobody was ever able to disprove the redshift mechanism I described, no mater how hard they tried. The issue periodically surfaces in some informal discussions but never gets resolved. It's just a little dirty secret permanently under the BB rug...
D*ng! At least I tried. Don't worry about me, I've failed before, I'll be back...




Wait a minute! You haven't disproved my objections either! I'm still in this...

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-07, 08:59 PM
On 2003-01-07 15:27, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Wait a minute! You haven't disproved my objections either! I'm still in this...Da*g! I've spent two hours of my Christmas time on explanations and you still ain't convinced?!

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-08, 12:03 AM
I'd just like to have my two minutes back.

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Jan-08, 03:43 AM
On 2003-01-07 15:22, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2003-01-07 15:09, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Your assumption is that the universe is isotropic. That's your assumption. You gotta live with that, no way around it unless you completely give it up. However, if you keep it, you give up your ability to do the integration the way you propose.Grapes,

I'm sorry to say that, but your arguments are not really arguments, I honestly expected a better fight from you /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

OK, that was only a joke - you do no worse than anybody else. Nobody was ever able to disprove the redshift mechanism I described, no matter how hard they tried. The issue periodically surfaces in some informal discussions but never gets resolved. It's just a little dirty secret permanently under the BB rug...

Such is the quality of modern cosmological science, if you didn't know it already.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2003-01-07 15:28 ]</font>


Ok AgoraBasta, oh ye fountain of all knowledge cosmological - this is a discussion of science. And science isn't about the hoarding of knowledge or secrecy. So put your ideas to paper and submit your best shot here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/

If this is such "a dirty little secret" as you say, any astrophysicist who knows of the subtleties of GR and electrodynamics will easily be able to evaluate your claims either way. I'd be willing to pay 50% of the publication bill (and I'm NOT kidding), if your paper is accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal (at the above link). Publication in a peer reviewed journal doesn't address whether or not your idea is correct, merely that it is scientifically viable. IF demonstrated to be correct, I would guess the work would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in physics. So come on, give it your best shot. Either that, or quit your pot shots which are not at all constructive. But sigh...I doubt you'll take me up on either proprosal. It's so much easier to act the high priest of knowledge and throw your grenades of derision.

Surprise me.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2003-01-08 08:13 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2003-01-08 08:14 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-08, 07:28 AM
Agora's model is completely bogus because he can't explain the mechanism. Move along people, nothing to see here.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-08, 08:48 AM
The good old Tweedledee&Tweedledum are back at their proven feces-slinging tactic...

Should I respond alike or should I hope for their future eventual reconciliation?

mutineer
2003-Jan-08, 12:57 PM
Regarding:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-23-02.html

I think I may have been a bit over-the-top in the level of provocation in my BABB postings on occasion. I feel a little like a child being naughty to attract attention. My excuse is that the attention I sought was for that ESO 23-02 Press Release. I wanted to cause controversy, but I thought that you would share my fascination with 23-02, and that the controversy would mostly centre on it. I was grateful that Zathras picked up that 23-02 was interesting, and that for a team of top international astronomers to express themselves in the way they did was extraordinary. However, only by saying something deliberately provocative (and wrong) about HST versus the ESO equipment did I at last draw a single much appreciated reply from Spaceman Spiff.

Hey, you guys who believe in a static universe need to maintain that those images of galaxies, from supposedly less than two gigayears after the Big Bang, look “just like the ones next door” – as I suggested. Those who follow the Big Bang Model need to explain them not looking anywhere near primitive enough. Well, I have just thought it out, so I had to find the nearest computer. Here’s my naive attempt at an explanation. (Which side it takes shows my open-mindedness.) Tear it apart if you will – but this is the sort of suggestion I was hoping for. Someone else have a go!

It is generally recognised that about one-third of the mass of the Milky Way (the mass necessary to account for its rate of rotation and the orbits of stars) is provided by dark matter. Early in the life of the universe, the density of dark matter being greater, a much larger proportion of the mass of emergent galaxies must have consisted of dark matter (by comparison with relatively young galaxies) – perhaps as much as ninety percent (say). A galaxy of Milky Way dimensions must therefore have contained several times more mass than our (present) Milky Way. Its gravity being correspondingly more powerful, the process of transformation of primary halo into disc must have been more rapid than hitherto supposed, and the emergent galaxy must have rotated more rapidly, permitting a spiral structure to become visible more quickly than current estimates allow. As the universe has expanded, the dark matter contained in galaxies must dissipate into increasingly vacuous intergalactic space (as the balance between gravity and pressure shifts). This process must have applied to the Milky Way itself. One of the best Age Crisis arguments against the Big Bang Model is that computer simulations have shown that the currently perceived spiral structure of the Milky Way could not have emerged from the number of rotations that would have occurred in its lifetime. However, if it rotated more rapidly in the past, this problem disappears. (Of course, it would have rotated slightly faster in the past, because it has also lost mass through radiation).

Where’s the flaw? Can it be patched?

I will return to points of contention with DoctorDon and others in my next posting.

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Jan-08, 01:07 PM
On 2003-01-08 03:48, AgoraBasta wrote:
The good old Tweedledee&Tweedledum are back at their proven feces-slinging tactic...

Should I respond alike or should I hope for their future eventual reconciliation?


I am not surprised....

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-08, 02:20 PM
On 2003-01-08 08:07, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
I am not surprised....Neither am I. Ask fellow clowns for surprises...

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-08, 10:54 PM
Agora, simple question: does a luminous object that has a significant radial velocity exhibit a redshift?

Answer that question correctly and win a prize.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-08, 11:20 PM
On 2003-01-08 17:54, JS Princeton wrote:
...does a luminous object that has a significant radial velocity exhibit a redshift?That depends on direction of that velocity and on distribution of masses (source/observer/medium).

But I hardly need any prizes from you...

Tim Thompson
2003-Jan-09, 12:24 AM
AgoraBasta: So you pick up a really questionable alternative for your debunking.

I didn't "pick" anything. I merely responded to what was presented, and that was somebody else's idea, not mine.

AgoraBasta: I'd love to see how you would debunk the most intuitive and straightforward gravitational mechanism that is discussed here - http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&18 .I'd bet you simply can't do that...

I would be happy to refute it if I could understand it, but I find it to be incomprehensible. The model presented is incapable of ever producing redshifts, and can produce only blue shifts, so far as I can tell. I read it several times and can find nothing in it that creates redshifts.

D J
2003-Jan-09, 01:48 AM
On 2003-01-08 19:24, Tim Thompson wrote:
AgoraBasta: So you pick up a really questionable alternative for your debunking.

I didn't "pick" anything. I merely responded to what was presented, and that was somebody else's idea, not mine.



Are you talking about this.This is always open for discussion.Personaly I think Marmet
goes way beyond the Compton Effect by the introduction of new material.
Quote:



On 2003-01-06 23:56, Tim Thompson wrote:

The "new" non-Doppler redshift is just a bad argument dressed up with a lot of equations to impress the easily impressed. It's the same Compton Effect argument that Kierein champions. But its a lousy and unphysical argument that cannot produce the observed conditions. It's trivially false.

Orion reply:

First I am not easely impressed.
Secondly
You will have to prove than the calculation made by Marmet are false when he conclude:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

3. Application to Astrophysical Data.
3.1 Interstellar and Intergalactic gases.
This value includes the contribution of the very large gaseous nebulae or galaxies located in the line of sight or concentrated around the light source itself. Consequently, depending on the temperature of the source and the nature of the intergalactic gas, an average density of the order of 0.01 atom per cubic centimeter is sufficient to produce, on the Planck spectrum, an effect equivalent to that of a Doppler shift in agreement with the Hubble constant.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-01-08 20:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-01-08 21:50 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-09, 07:09 AM
Agora, we've gone over this before. Gravitational redshift is a SMALL effect. Shall we repeat it? Small. It is calculated in Weinberg for very dense objects and found to be small. It does not account for cosmological redshifts as we've discussed in previous threads.

So you skirt the issue because you know that it is an explanation. You just don't like that explanation but you've provided no evidence other than your own arrogance to say why it cannot be that explanation for the redshift. To me, that's just simply burying one's head in the sand. It's like saying that a carhorn that exhibits a changing frequency is doing so because there is some endemic property of the intervening fluid rather than a velocity of the car. We see evidence of the velocity in other places too (such as in cluster gas and in the matter power spectrum) but you blithely ignore these and demand that we consider VF? Good day, sir, you are nothing but an ostrich.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-09, 09:28 AM
On 2003-01-08 19:24, Tim Thompson wrote:
I would be happy to refute it if I could understand it, but I find it to be incomprehensible.Interesting case, looks so... unique! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
So far I haven't met an educated intellingent person who couldn't grasp it almost immediately. There are some rare stubborn types, like JS, who don't want to "understand" because it "no can be" - but nothing graver than that.

Jim
2003-Jan-09, 02:03 PM
So far I haven't met an educated intellingent person who couldn't grasp it almost immediately.

Ah, the old "Emperor's New Clothes" argument.

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-09, 03:30 PM
On 2003-01-09 09:03, Jim wrote:
Ah, the old "Emperor's New Clothes" argument.To me that's more like a direct observation, but I never claimed statistical significance anyway. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-09, 05:57 PM
It's funny, I've never met an educated person who couldn't understand how a recessional velocity causes a redshift. There are the rare, stubborn types, like Agora....

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-09, 06:39 PM
On 2003-01-09 12:57, JS Princeton wrote:
It's funny, I've never met an educated person who couldn't understand how a recessional velocity causes a redshift. There are the rare, stubborn types, like Agora....How is the first sentence in post related to the second one?
Unsuspecting reader might err and conclude I don't understand Doppler. Was that your intent?

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-09, 11:39 PM
On 2003-01-09 13:39, AgoraBasta wrote:
]How is the first sentence in post related to the second one?
Unsuspecting reader might err and conclude I don't understand Doppler. Was that your intent?


I do think you are a Doppler denier, yes. However, my intent was to simply point out that your mudslinging works both ways. You are just as ignorant of current astrophysical and cosmological paradigms as those in the field are ignorant of your whimsies.

Should I ask if your intent was to insinuate that there were those of us who disagree with you who don't understand gravitational redshift?

AgoraBasta
2003-Jan-10, 09:39 AM
On 2003-01-09 18:39, JS Princeton wrote:
I do think you are a Doppler denier, yes. You know quite well that I don't trust the space expansion. Denying Doppler would be rather stupid and ignorant of itself. So I see no reason to deny things that are readily understandable, such denials are rather your tactic...

D J
2003-Jan-10, 06:15 PM
On 2003-01-09 12:57, JS Princeton wrote:
It's funny, I've never met an educated person who couldn't understand how a recessional velocity causes a redshift. There are the rare, stubborn types, like Agora....

Paul Marmet is a very educated person and he demonstrate with a very detailed study than "depending on the temperature of the source and the nature of the intergalactic gas, an average density of the order of 0.01 atom per cubic centimeter is sufficient to produce, on the Planck spectrum, an effect equivalent to that of a Doppler shift in agreement with the Hubble constant."
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

JS Princeton
2003-Jan-11, 01:41 AM
Agora: You've never explained WHY you doubt the recessional velocities of galaxies. Just that you do. You've offered a gravitational explanation that I've shown to you to not work and you say that Weinberg is wrong. This to me is simply denial.

Orion: Marmet's conclusions are ambiguous and fudged as well as completely isolated with respect to the vast evidence associated with expanding space. For example, Marmet decides to ignore FOG effects, mid-velocity absorbers, and structure evolution in favor of giving a limited and simplistic "explanation" that does a worse job than Hubble Velocities.

D J
2003-Jan-11, 02:56 AM
On 2003-01-10 20:41, JS Princeton wrote:

Orion: Marmet's conclusions are ambiguous and fudged as well as completely isolated with respect to the vast evidence associated with expanding space. For example, Marmet decides to ignore FOG effects, mid-velocity absorbers, and structure evolution in favor of giving a limited and simplistic "explanation" that does a worse job than Hubble Velocities.

Whatever you can say to distract the audience you are unable to disprove Marmet`s conclusion and his mathematical demonstration:
"depending on the temperature of the source and the nature of the intergalactic gas, an average density of the order of 0.01 atom per cubic centimeter is sufficient to produce, on the Planck spectrum, an effect equivalent to that of a Doppler shift in agreement with the Hubble constant."

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jan-11, 03:21 AM
This thread can no longer serve a useful purpose. Locked.