Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 54 of 54

Thread: Origin of the our universe

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Thanks Dave,

    I'm aware that statistical analyses can give false results, but to me the main issue is not this particular argument about redshift groupings, it is the interaction between galaxies and quasars. Halton Arp and others have shown a bridges of material between low-redshift galaxies and high- redshift quasars (NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 for example). This would be impossible in a Big bang model.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    And that evidence is not convincing. If it were Arp wouldn't have to play the "persecuted" maverick astronomer that he is made out to be.

    Dave Mitsky

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    It is convincing to me, and the reason it hasn't convinced you and a lot of astronomers is that the implications are so big, it must be repeated at least a million times.
    The other thing is that Arp has built an alternative cosmology that is fragmentary at best. But however we may feel about it, if redshift is not a distance indicator we will ultimately find the evidence that wil convince everybody; truth can't be voted on.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 14 2003, 08:26 AM
    It is convincing to me, and the reason it hasn't convinced you and a lot of astronomers is that the implications are so big, it must be repeated at least a million times.

    Edit
    That statement is more than a little presumptuous.

    Data from studies of type Ia supernovae led to the completely unexpected result that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Yet it was accepted by the general astronomical community just as any evidence that conclusively demonstrated that the Hot Big Bang Model was erroneous would be, but not without some heated debate I imagine. After all, that's what happened with the discovery of the CMB radiation and the original steady state theories.

    Dave Mitsky

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Dave,

    When science finds evidence that builds on previously accepted theory (expansion is accepted, accelerated expansion was not) there is no real conflict. the underlying principles and assumptions are still intact, "only" the view on the universe has changed (which is this case is a considerable change). What Arp is saying is something completely different, he says that science was wrong and has been wrong for a very long time on a very basic assumption. I hate to compare him with Gallileo, but he is basically telling astronomers what Gallileo told the church. Maybe a better comparison is Alfred Wegener with his theory of plate tectonics, it took a very long time for his work to be recognised (after being ridiculed as well).
    The problem is very complex I think, if Arp is right there was no Big Bang, but that in itself gives us no alternative. I know a lot of people are open to new insights, as you pointed out, but we have to keep in mind that we do rely on assumptions that could be false. My reaction to Arp's finding is the same as anybody else's; "is this really true?". I looked at his arguments and looked at his data and it convinced me completely. And if you have arguments against NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 being connected, please let me know. and if I'm presumptuous I'm sorry, it's just the way I see it.

    Louis.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    Wegner (correct spelling), who was not a geologist by the way, wasn't accepted for decades because he was quite wrong about the mechanism of plate tectonics. See http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/plat...onic%20Theories for an explanation.

    When Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was published it certainly was met with scepticism as was the case later with Quantum Mechanics. (Einstein himself had problems with Quantum Theory.) Both were adopted eventually because they explained the observed data far better than classical physics ever could. This is not the case with Arp who certainly isn't being "persecuted" by the astronomical "establishment" as Galileo was by the Catholic Church. Galileo's abrasive personality played a large part in his treatment by the way.

    Dave Mitsky

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Dave,

    Sorry about misspellings and an incomplete historical knowledge, but the question remains, is Arp right in his claim about a connection between NGC 4319 and Mark 205?

  8. #38
    moonwalk2200 Guest
    I support the idea that the universe is in a state of continuity,
    it has no beginning.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Moonwalk,

    Could you be more specific? The generally accepted theory says it started with some sort of creative moment from a single point. As you stated earlier it doesn't have to mean that it was also the beginning of the Universe, but where do you see the evidence, or is this more a gut feeling?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    48
    On October 15, VanderL asked:
    is Arp right in his claim about a connection between NGC 4319 and Mark 205?
    VanderL, as far as I know, all of Arp's evidence for connections between objects such as NGC 4319/Markarian 205, NGC 7320/NGC 7317, 7318A et al, and other such objects, is based soley on the apparent visual connections - "bridges," "tails" and so forth - that appear in various images of these objects. While I agree that there are numerous unanswered questions related to the standard model for the Big Bang, and that there may well be some supplanting methodology for re-examination of the evidence, it seems to me that chance superposition of objects fails to meet the requirements of rigor necessary to overturn the current approach.
    In addition, I must say I find Arp's dismissal of the evidence for gravitational lensing to be somewhat uninformed and self-serving. It may well be that the observational evidence that current orbital instruments will provide can settle some of these questions more definitively.

    John

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Thanks John,

    What your suggestions comes down to is more observational (not theoretical) data on the existence of the bridges and tails of material. I totally agree that this is paramount. In my opnion this is long overdue, certainly for an observation that could basically change our view on the Universe.

    Louis.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    48
    Actually, VanderL, I was suggesting that Arp's evidence is sparse, and limited to a miniscule fraction of the total observational data that are currently available. In addition, his theoretical model is problematic at best, requiring that major aspects of currently accepted gravitational theory be discarded while lacking any replacement that can account for the data. Until Arp or his proteges can present an internally consistent model that explains the so-called "conflicts" in red-shift measurements, his conclusions must be regarded with skepticism. As Carl Sagan once observed, extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

    John

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Sure John,

    But isn't it scientific to investigate other people's claims as well as testing your own ideas? The data Arp shows seem to be unconvincing to the majority of astronomers, but some could also try to prove or disprove his claims, hence more observational data are required.
    You're right that his alternative cosmology is patchy at best but I would think it is not only up to Arp (is he already 90 years old?) and his protegés but also the rest of the scientific community. And my thanks for elaborating on why you don't agree on Arp's views. Arguments are needed to clarify the problems.
    Btw I don't agree with Sagan's adaggio, all claims should be treated equally.

    Louis.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2
    Bob, it is interesting to here of Dr. Lee Smolin's theory - I did search for some of his material - because it is similiar to one my father and I have discussed for some time. Since Black Holes appear to reach and eventuality of a single place/time, it seems possible that they all may lead to the same place/time. The "beginning" of the universe for lack of a better term. Or the place in the universe that matter appears to come from. In this way the entire universe is cycling and the existing matter -regardless were it came from- will recycle. This of course -like Dr. Smolin's theory- moves away from both the expanding & collapsing universe theory. Black Holes are truely the most amazing thing we know of. All the rules (known man-made rules) of our physical universe no longer apply due to their enormous density. The gravitational force (the weakest of all) of every particle combining to the point where both the EM & Nuclear forces are overpowered.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2
    Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Oct 15 2003, 02:03 PM
    When Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was published it certainly was met with scepticism as was the case later with Quantum Mechanics. (Einstein himself had problems with Quantum Theory.) Both were adopted eventually because they explained the observed data far better than classical physics ever could.
    Dave, while this statement is true, it disregards the fact that both/either the theory of relativity and/or quantum mechanics are flawed. Certain experiments have proven this:
    Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen & Bell's inequalities
    Young's Double-slit experiment
    http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ei...senParadox.html

    Yet both theories are required to explain our universe at this time. But it is obvious that we are missing something vital. Also, another mishap used in science is are use of light/time in measurements. We determine the distance of objects in the universe by the amount of time light takes to travel. But what if light was slowing down? Our theories about expanding & collasping universes are based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, but there is no way to prove this. It appears that the speed of light is not necessarily constant with regards to black holes anyway.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3
    Define nothing. Question your own existence - Wouldn't "God" question his own existence and reality?
    God would be something, so why would he be here, why isn't there nothing instead!?
    Wat does nothing look like? black? white? it can't look like anything, it's nothing! Questioning reality plays with your mind a lot but it's highly interesting. :blink:

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    418
    The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't flawed, they aren't wrong when it comes to describe what they do describe. But they need to be revised if we want to combine them, that is true. And also, why would we assume the light is slowing down?

  18. #48
    moonwalk2200 Guest
    Defining nothing is an important issue.(though it may
    seem unimportant to some.) I would assume that nothing
    means:

    1. There are no measurable quantities of any kind.

    2. There are no laws of physics. Quantum mechanics,
    false vacuums,quantum flucuations,etc, DON'T EXIST.

    3. The state of nothing is a TRUE DEAD END in physics.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3
    indeed.

    A mind is also something, so if there is absolutely nothing like before the universe was born, then..... NOTHING, that's hard to think about.
    After death, if our soul lives on or we go to heaven etc, i'm sure we will still question our existence... unless we turn blissfully dumb :blink:

    I agree, defining nothing is very important. It's stupid to ignore it. It's good to know how everything works today but... don't ignore nothing lol.. don't sit in ur room missing life over it aswell! O_o

    No one knows what reality is and nobody will ever know. It's INSANE!

    "It's Just A Ride" - Bill Hicks (PLEEEASE LOOK HIM UP "Another Dead Hero")

  20. #50
    moonwalk2200 Guest
    So if: 'a state of nothing'. is the dead end of physics,then
    the universe MUST be in a state of continuity. (Continuity
    does not necessarily follow the time line.)

  21. #51
    Planetwatcher Guest
    LOL guys. Nothing out of nothing is what I see in this string.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    55
    hi all,
    just read this peice about a parellel universe or a 5th dimention kick starting our universal big bang, any thoughts?



    new theory

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,750
    Originally posted by Planetwatcher@Nov 2 2003, 09:54 PM
    LOL guys. Nothing out of nothing is what I see in this string.
    "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin" ?

    Billy Preston, 1974

    http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/n/nothing_f...ly_preston.html

    Dave Mitsky

  24. #54
    moonwalk2200 Guest
    In my posting on Nov. 2, I mentioned continuity. I want to
    use a simple example to show how it is meant to differ from
    time. Suppose the universe experiences a big crunch. It is
    possible that time may lose its continuity. The continuity line
    remains intact as long as we emerge from the big crunch. So the
    only way continuity would stop is if at the big crunch all would
    cancel and we end up with nothing. ( Nothing as I defined it in
    my Oct 30 posting.)

    .

Similar Threads

  1. Origin of the universe
    By rahuldandekar in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-16, 03:51 AM
  2. Origin of the Universe
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-09, 07:54 AM
  3. Origin of the Universe
    By czeslaw in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-24, 09:26 AM
  4. Origin Of Universe
    By alfchemist in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-13, 04:33 AM
  5. origin of universe
    By ashok_bitsboymech in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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