Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 145

Thread: Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post

    Well, given the Hubble "law", more distant galaxies would be receding faster than light.
    My point exactly. But I argue this is not the expansion of space. This is merely the momentum of objects in spacetime. And the further the object is the faster it appears to move. Even perhaps the most distant of galaxies appear to move faster than light because of this.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I would imagine the technical reason is because it takes more time for signals to reach us. (If I am wrong here, correct me please).
    There's no established mechanism for that (it's wrong).

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    My point exactly. But I argue this is not the expansion of space. This is merely the momentum of objects in spacetime.
    I see no "merely" about it.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    There's no established mechanism for that (it's wrong).
    No established mechanism? Well I think scientists better get their thinking caps on because it could answer why objects appear to receed faster than light instead of assuming... that the physical sheet of spacetime itself is moving faster than light. With Cosmology, if it doesn't have an answer, it seems Cosmologists just from one extreme to another, such as Inflationary model to the superluminal expansion of space.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I see no "merely" about it.
    Well it is merely the momentum of galaxies, or it is also the expansion of space and momentum of galaxies, or it is simply the expansion of space. Most books I have read on Cosmology have never attributed to this phenomenon with the first two examples. It's always down to ''space increasing between cosmological objects.''

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Well I think scientists better get their thinking caps on because it could answer why objects appear to receed faster than light instead of assuming... that the physical sheet of spacetime itself is moving faster than light.
    They don't assume - metric expansion simply fits the evidence better than anything else anyone has managed to come up with. If you want to introduce an alternative, you really should study the existing well established theory first so you can understand why it's established.

    With Cosmology, if it doesn't have an answer, it seems Cosmologists just from one extreme to another, such as Inflationary model to the superluminal expansion of space.
    I don't see how that is "one extreme to another." And again, it would probably do you well to learn more of the arguments, as well of the history of how they were arrived at, before making these statements.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I see people raise the question of redshift all the time and it puzzles me why people don't realize you can still have bodies moving away from each other. Andromeda is actually moving towards us, so surely this is an evidence?
    I think you might have a misunderstanding about this. The Hubble data works out. Things close to us, like Andromeda, are not moving away very fast, in fact some more toward us. But as you get further and further, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. Now, you could make the hypothesis that it's only a statistical fluke, that it just happens that the things in our neighborhood are moving in that way. But it's just too much of a coincidence to see that all the things closer to us, on all sides, are moving away only slowly, or in some cases moving toward us, whereas those far away, in any direction, are moving at an increasingly fast rate away from us.

    To tell the truth, I would like to believe in a static universe as well, I find it more reasonable, but the Hubble redshift seems to be telling a different story. . . Really. You just can't argue it away.

    And there's still the issue of the regeneration of matter. If the universe is static, then all the hydrogen should get transformed into helium by stars.
    As above, so below

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    They don't assume - metric expansion simply fits the evidence better than anything else anyone has managed to come up with. If you want to introduce an alternative, you really should study the existing well established theory first so you can understand why it's established.



    I don't see how that is "one extreme to another." And again, it would probably do you well to learn more of the arguments, as well of the history of how they were arrived at, before making these statements.
    Well, my link would seem to disagree with you. It says static models actually fit the data better.

    And it one extreme to another when our model is like patchwork quilt trying to fix problems all over the place.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I linked to the top 10 problems by the way. According to that study, there are in fact 30 top problems with BB.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think you might have a misunderstanding about this. The Hubble data works out. Things close to us, like Andromeda, are not moving away very fast, in fact some more toward us. But as you get further and further, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. Now, you could make the hypothesis that it's only a statistical fluke, that it just happens that the things in our neighborhood are moving in that way. But it's just too much of a coincidence to see that all the things closer to us, on all sides, are moving away only slowly, or in some cases moving toward us, whereas those far away, in any direction, are moving at an increasingly fast rate away from us.

    To tell the truth, I would like to believe in a static universe as well, I find it more reasonable, but the Hubble redshift seems to be telling a different story. . . Really. You just can't argue it away.

    And there's still the issue of the regeneration of matter. If the universe is static, then all the hydrogen should get transformed into helium by stars.
    Bolded by me, that is what I said.

    My question is why objects seem to receed faster and faster as you move further and further away. Someone here said there was no established mechanism, and this worries me... because, in light of the idea that the most distant objects are now receeding faster than light, could be explanable if their was no ''upper limit'' on how fast an object could move due to this strange phenomenon of Hubble Law. In other words, these thing appear to be moving so fast because they are located so very far away, not because spacetime itself is superluminally expanding.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Look, I was told that if I was to believe a static universe, I better have an idea to explain the superluminal recession of distant galaxies. I actually gave a reason, the Hubble law of the most distant galaxies causes the illusion that things are moving really really fast - the snag - and I think it is an important snag, is that no one knows why the Hubble law says that the further an object is in space that it appears to move further away, if indeed it is moving away relative to us.

    In this case, I have provided an answer and I have kept up what was demanded of me. Anything else are just quibbles I feel.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Why is this in science and technology?

    This had every right to be in the cosmological section? The BB is a cosmological theory???? I am very confused by this.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,567
    Hubbles law is more an observation, not an explanation.


    (
    ...and please stop posting off topic posts in your threads. Your "why moved" question should have been made in a report (so all mods see the question, and it doesn't mess up the thread).

    I moved this thread (from the Q&A section), as you were clearly not simply asking a question, you were putting forth a view. Please read the rules. This thread may yet be moved again, to the ATM section.

    )
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-01 at 08:47 AM. Reason: Add "more"
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Hubbles law is an observation, not an explanation.
    Which is why I am saying it needs one.

    Could you also explain why this thread was moved? It's hardly a general science topic?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Which is why I am saying it needs one.
    Well, that's the expanding space thing.

    You keep saying distant things are moving superluminally because of Hubbles law.

    (e.g. post #40 "In other words, these thing appear to be moving so fast because they are located so very far away, not because spacetime itself is superluminally expanding").

    But that's backwards, because the law is more a quantisation of the distance/movement relationship.

    Current science says the Universe is expanding. Naturally, a unit expansion will result in more distant objects "moving" faster than closer objects.

    If you are going to say (paraphrased) "the Universe isn't expanding, it's just Hubbles law" all you've done is make a circle of claims that doesn't go anywhere.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-01 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Clarify quotes
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Look, I was told that if I was to believe a static universe, I better have an idea to explain the superluminal recession of distant galaxies. I actually gave a reason, the Hubble law of the most distant galaxies causes the illusion that things are moving really really fast - the snag - and I think it is an important snag, is that no one knows why the Hubble law says that the further an object is in space that it appears to move further away, if indeed it is moving away relative to us.
    Unfortunately, saying that it is "an illusion" is not an explanation. One explanation is that they really are going faster and faster. If you want to argue that they aren't, that it is only an illusion, then you need to have an explanation of why that illusion happens, in other words, what is the mechanism that causes that illusion.
    As above, so below

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Well, that's the expanding space thing.

    You keep saying distant things are moving superluminally because of Hubbles law.

    But that's backwards, because the law is more a quantisation of the distance/movement relationship.

    Current science says the Universe is expanding. Naturally, a unit expansion will result in more distant objects "moving" faster than closer objects.

    If you are going to say "the Universe isn't expanding, it's just Hubbles law" all you've done is make a circle of claims that doesn't go anywhere.
    That is the major problem however:

    We are presuming that galaxies appear to receed because spacetime is really expanding between objects. But what makes an interesting case for discussion is that you can describe all of this without spacetime expanding, you can explain it as just the momentum of galaxies alone. I find it backwards accounting for motion in the universe by saying it is the expansion of space; and I think this has to do with yet again, accommodating new idea's just to suit the Big Bang theory. Current science only says the universe is expanding because of the background temperatures - that was the final stake in the steady state theory - yet the background temperatures which has been explained can be accounted for the average temperature of space heated by stars themselves.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Unfortunately, saying that it is "an illusion" is not an explanation.
    I am well aware of that. I say illusion predominently because galaxies surely are not moving faster than light, and assuming that spacetime expansion is not a priori of why things appear to move in the first place.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ... you can explain it as just the momentum of galaxies alone ...
    If you can do that with current science *, then please go ahead and do it.

    (* Otherwise, start a new thread in the ATM section to propose the idea.)
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    If you can do that with current science *, then please go ahead and do it.

    (* Otherwise, start a new thread in the ATM section to propose the idea.)
    I'd have to read up on the math of cosmology again - it's been a long time - a good couple of years since I last studied any of it. I doubt I will create a new thread however because I already have an existing thread there and have been warned not to make any more.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I'd have to read up on the math of cosmology again - it's been a long time - a good couple of years since I last studied any of it.
    This seems at odds with your strong assertions against the BB and for this alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I doubt I will create a new thread however because I already have an existing thread there and have been warned not to make any more.
    That's good, just wait.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    This seems at odds with your strong assertions against the BB and for this alternative.



    That's good, just wait.
    Well, I know quite a bit about physics which gives me the upper hand. I know what could be technically plausible -- I think the idea I have proposed is technically plausible, but I will try and come up with some theory over the next passing weeks until my other thread has expired.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Sure. I can argue that things move in a static universe - it's like having a container with atoms which possess momentum inside of the container, which is not being shook and without true boundaries.
    How does the idea of a static universe with galaxies in "random" motion (I assume that is what you mean by a container of atoms) fit with the fact that on a large scale, everything appears to be moving away from us (but locally we detect proper motion in various directions)?

    Edit: Just skimmed through the rest of the thread. Your answer seems to be that the increasing red shift with distance is an illusion. That seems a little ad hoc.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How does the idea of a static universe with galaxies in "random" motion (I assume that is what you mean by a container of atoms) fit with the fact that on a large scale, everything appears to be moving away from us (but locally we detect proper motion in various directions)?

    Edit: Just skimmed through the rest of the thread. Your answer seems to be that the increasing red shift with distance is an illusion. That seems a little ad hoc.
    No, that isn't what I said.

    I said galaxies receeding faster than light is an illusion - the further they are, the faster they seem to move away relative to us. Why is everyone finding this hard to understand?

    We are being told that the most outreached galaxies are now being [dragged by spacetime] at speeds faster than light. However, it is experimental fact that as distance increases, the speed of galaxies also increases inversely proportional to this. That is a hint that what we are observing in the most furthest reaches of space is in fact just a product of this phenomenon, this ''Hubble law''. It probably has nothing to do with faster than light recession due to an expansion.

    So what is the illusion? The illusion is that objects are moving at superluminal speeds - or even being dragged at superluminal speeds. None of which I bet is even happening - if the Hubble law of moving objects increases with distance, then maybe there is no upper limit to how fast a very very distant object may seem to us to move at.

    Understand now?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    And not everything is in fact moving away from us. As I have also explained, Andromeda is in fact moving towards us.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I don't know much about ''on larger scales'' but if you mean, why does everything in the observable horizon seem to be moving away, well maybe there is a massive gravitational interaction we don't know about.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I also like the fact, that out of everything I have said, no one has even said one thing about the ''void'' millions of lightyears across, yet they still proclaim the big bang is the best theory we have. Big Bang can't even for a moment contemplate these voids, so I don't see how it is the ''best theory.''

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    We also required many adjustable parameters to make nucleosynthesis work.
    Quote Originally Posted by tensor
    Can you produce a link for this? Only one parameter (density of bayronic matter) is needed to get a good fit on nucleosysnthesis. I'd like to see where this claim comes from.
    metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

    Handwaving by Tom van Flandern at metaresearch? You can't get any less credible than that!
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    And not everything is in fact moving away from us. As I have also explained, Andromeda is in fact moving towards us.
    Andromeda is part of the local cluster of galaxies.

    As I said, we can detect "random" proper motion in the local cluster (not random, of course; galaxies orbiting about their mutual centers of gravity).

    Beyond the scale of clusters, everything is moving away from us.

    Are we in a special place and there is some reason that everything is moving away from us on this scale?

    And how does this "galaxies fleeing from us" picture match a static universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I don't know much about ''on larger scales'' but if you mean, why does everything in the observable horizon seem to be moving away, well maybe there is a massive gravitational interaction we don't know about.
    No, I mean (pretty much) everything between the local cluster and the observable horizon.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I also like the fact, that out of everything I have said, no one has even said one thing about the ''void'' millions of lightyears across, yet they still proclaim the big bang is the best theory we have. Big Bang can't even for a moment contemplate these voids, so I don't see how it is the ''best theory.''
    I assume you mean the WMAP cold spot? It may not be there. It appears that its significance is only high for a very few windowing functions.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.3988v2.pdf

    LCDM cosmology does in fact produce filaments and voids. The probability of huge voids is low but they are certainly not impossible.

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?
    By Aethelwulf in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 2012-May-01, 12:36 PM
  2. Wow, is it time to move or time to stay?
    By BigDon in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-31, 04:00 PM
  3. Big (bang) Theories and even Bigger ignorance.
    By Christian.Muys in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-20, 06:24 PM
  4. Big bang Theories
    By sfarq1 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-07, 06:18 AM
  5. Are there intelligent non big bang theories
    By glen chapman in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-12, 10:34 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
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: