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

[Swift]

After some discussion among the moderators, it was decided to move this thread from S&T to ATM. Aethelwulf was not so much asking about alternative theories to the Big Bang, but advocating alternatives (and one alternative in particular).

Aethelwulf, if you have not done so already, I would strongly suggest you read the Advice for ATM Advocates and the links to the Rules in that document. As the advocate of a non-mainstream idea, you are expected to follow the Rules and this Advice. If you are not prepared or willing to do so, you must say so in your very next post in this thread, and the thread will be closed. Nowever, do not otherwise argue this move in-thread, if you have problems or questions with moderation, PM a moderator or Report this post (click the triangular button with the ! in the lower left corner of this post)

[WayneFrancis]

Sure, it is objects moving away from us - its like a sound wave - the wave depends on the direction motion. All its says is that objects moving away appear red-shifted and objects moving toward us blue...

.. I don't see how any of this makes what I have asserted innacurate in any way? Perhaps I am missing something?

No, see this is where you are confused about what the main stream model says. Cosmic red shift is NOT movement through space. It is a recession caused by the expansion OF space.

Just like if I take a latex chess board and put chess pieces on it and then grab the 4 corners and pull making the entire board get larger the pieces remain in their same relative positions. Just the distance between them gets larger.

There is a big difference between moving through space and having space expand.

Take the sound wave. While we hear the siren pitch lower then it actually is when moving away from us someone on the other side of that fire engine will hear a hire pitch. But if we had an observer on the other side of any of distant galaxies they too would see that galaxy red shifted. That is because, minus the small amount of proper motion and some gravitational red/blue shifting the majority of the red shift, of distant galaxies, is from space expanding and that causes a recession but no actual movement.

Anyway you asked

What if these most distant galaxies are that bit further than what we think?

Well since you don't believe in cosmic red shift do to cosmic inflation then the distance of galaxies has ZERO to do with a galaxies red shift. The red shift would strictly be a function of the proper motion + a small amount of gravitational red/blue shift.

Which means we shouldn't see a preference to galaxies moving away from us unless you feel that the Milkyway is some smelly galaxy the rest of the universe tends to want to avoid.

[WayneFrancis]

red shift just means an objects is moving away from us. Now, there is somewhat of an ilusion going with hubble recession. The more distant an object is, the faster it will appear to move. 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).

You are wrong here. Let us forget about the small amount of proper motion of any galaxy, because in the scheme of things it is like asking what how much fast a formula 1 car is has if there is a 1km/hr tail wind compared to no wind.

Cosmic red shift is strictly a function of how much how much more light had to travel, do to cosmic inflation, then it would have if there was no cosmic inflation.

So if there is no cosmic inflation and light was emitted 1 billion light years away and it would travel 1 billion light years to get to use and there would be ZERO red shift.
Like wise a galaxy 2 billion light years away would have photons travel 2 billion light years and again no red shift.

Turn on cosmic inflation. Galaxy is 1 billion light years away. As that photon tries to race towards us space is expanding. So instead of it travelling 1 billion light years, in 1 billion years, it has to travel an extra 1 billion light years for a total of 2 billion light years, over 2 billion years. Now the light when it gets to us is effectively stretched by a factor of 2. 2 / 1....2.

I would imagine one way to explain this in static terms, is that recession rates appearing to move faster than light is just that: an illusion, brought about the Hubble law of recession for distant objects. The more distant an object is the faster it will appear to move and not only that, but to explain this, there may not be a limit on how fast an ''object appears'' to move at.

The Hubble law is cosmic inflation. Take away cosmic inflation and there is no need for the Hubble law. Do you think a car 2km away will have a radar/laser speed detector measure 60km/hr differently then a car that is only 1km away travelling at 60km/hr?

Effectively you are trying to say that the radar/laser speed detectors have to factor in the objects distance. They don't.

Don't get offended here but you REALLY need to understand the current physics before you try to poke holes in it. You don't seem to have a grasp on how even classical Doppler shifts work.

[WayneFrancis]

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.''

That is because they are giving a simplified explanation. Like my formula 1 car example. The 1km/hr tail wind doesn't make much of a difference to how long the race goes. At large cosmological scales how much do you this 300km/s really is?

Recession velocity of c = 299,792,458m/s proper motion of the a galaxy could be on the order of 300,000m/s. That means galaxies that have a z value = 1 appear to be receding at c. Wooopy .1% of the red shift is due to proper motion. Galaxy with a z value of 1.5 its .066%.

Let me put it another way. Say the police come to a fatal car crash. They measure skid marks and various other things to determine that the driver was travelling at 120km/hr before they slammed on their brakes and skidded into the tree. Do you think they take into account a light breeze into account when working out the speed of the car? No because it doesn't really matter if the car was travelling at 120km/hr or if the car was actually going an extra 3 millimetres a sec because of a tail wind. And that is the scale we are dealing with here. The difference between travelling at 120km/hr (~75mph) and an extra 3 millimetres/second (.12 inches/second). You are literally talking about a snails pace.

Perhaps you should complain about weathermen not factoring in a butterfly's wings when reporting wind speeds of a strong storm.

[Aethelwulf]

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.

The scientists I have spoke to say's that Big Bang cannot reconcile these holes. I will read the link, thanks.

[Aethelwulf]

After some discussion among the moderators, it was decided to move this thread from S&T to ATM. Aethelwulf was not so much asking about alternative theories to the Big Bang, but advocating alternatives (and one alternative in particular).

Aethelwulf, if you have not done so already, I would strongly suggest you read the Advice for ATM Advocates and the links to the Rules in that document. As the advocate of a non-mainstream idea, you are expected to follow the Rules and this Advice. If you are not prepared or willing to do so, you must say so in your very next post in this thread, and the thread will be closed. Nowever, do not otherwise argue this move in-thread, if you have problems or questions with moderation, PM a moderator or Report this post (click the triangular button with the ! in the lower left corner of this post)

Yes, but only because I was asked. As I said before, I was going to write more but decided to cut the post short.

[Aethelwulf]

But yea... close the thread. I am not willing to advocate this, plus the site is breaking its own rules. There are now two threads here open (unless you closed the other one, in which case is it really time up for my other thread?)

[WayneFrancis]

I linked to the top 10 problems by the way. According to that study, there are in fact 30 top problems with BB.

Yea...and did you even goto the page Tensor linked in post #3?

That top 10 is just a bunch of hand waving. Its like creationist saying intelligent design is a better fit to life then evolution but then refusing to say anything about how I.D. works.

It is purely a bunch of hand waving with no backing data.

I could make the following claim with just as much validity as that "top 10 problems" list

Invisible Pink Winged Unicorn Gravity models (IPWUG) fit the data better than General Relativity (GR).
Falling more sense as the IPWUs hooves pushing down on use then the curvature of space time.
GR requires a convoluted G to explain the effect of gravity...I mean invisible hooves pressing down on us makes much more sense then 6.67384x10^-11m³s^-2kg^-1.
The GR can't explain why apples fall at 9.8m/s.
....

What isn't hand waving is flat out wrong for the most part. #10 is the most damaging and that isn't really helpful to the fatal flaws of a static universe.

1) Baseless claim
2) Baseless claim
3) Just false
4) Baseless claim
5) Baseless claim
6) Just false
7) Baseless claim
8) So what? That is what the data points to.
9) Not even sure what they are getting at.
10) Wow they've come across the cosmological constant...so what?

[WayneFrancis]

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.

And you just don't seem to get it. To fit the data you have to throw out special relativity. Do you understand that if SR is wrong that your GPS shouldn't work?!?!?

[Aethelwulf]

And you just don't seem to get it. To fit the data you have to throw out special relativity. Do you understand that if SR is wrong that your GPS shouldn't work?!?!?

Tell me why this implicates special relativity. Why would special relativity be wrong?

[WayneFrancis]

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.

No you didn't come up with a valid reason. You came up with hand waving. You might as well said. "Magic makes it happen" You can't co-opt the Hubble Law as your answer and claim inflation is wrong. That is just like saying Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns keep us on the ground with their invisible feet and by the way the use the same formula as GR but gravity really isn't curvature of space time despite all the other evidence that supports GR over IPWU's hooves.

Basically you've got a very bad understanding of the main stream model and from what I've seen classical physics as well. You need to get a handle on basic science before you criticise more advance topics. Its like a 6 year old trying to argue 2³⁴ can't = 2,417,851,639,229,258,349,412,352 and that it has to = 24 because they don't understand how powers work and anyone not accepting their answer of 24 is just quibbling with them.

[Aethelwulf]

1) Baseless claim
2) Baseless claim
3) Just false
4) Baseless claim
5) Baseless claim
6) Just false
7) Baseless claim
8) So what? That is what the data points to.
9) Not even sure what they are getting at.
10) Wow they've come across the cosmological constant...so what?

I didn't get all the arguements either - but I did know of the arguement of superclusters having age-problems. I had also heard of a limiting temperature of stars. Notice I never mentioned any of the others listed.

[Aethelwulf]

No you didn't come up with an answer. You came up with hand waving. You might as well said. "Magic makes it happen" You can't co-opt the Hubble Law as your answer and claim inflation is wrong. That is just like saying Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns keep us on the ground with their invisible feet and by the way the use the same formula as GR but gravity really isn't curvature of space time despite all the other evidence that supports GR over IPWU's hooves.

Saying we observe galaxies receed because of Hubbles law, that the further you go the faster galaxies appear to move at is hardly handwaving. I just haven't given any rigourous proof. To be honest. I was put on the spot in this thread and now I am being harshly criticized for ''apparent handwaving''. My original contention was not to discuss underdeveloped pet theories.

[Aethelwulf]

My intention was to discuss Big Bang problems, and how those problems are evidence that there needs to be better models.

[WayneFrancis]

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.

No you can't unless you can explain how something can travel faster then the speed of light. Since we have no evidence for anything actually moving THROUGH space faster then light and a TON of evidence that shows that Special Relativity is accurate to a very high degree of precision we can pretty safely say that distant galaxies really are not travelling faster then light through space.

IF you want to claim they are then you have to explain how and why SR is wrong despite all evidence that matches SR's predictions to a very high degree.

[ToSeek]

Yes, I gave a reference. The background temperatures seem more likely as a limiting temperature of the stars.

Flandern notes that Eddington gets the temperature right; however, the temperature is not the most important feature of the CMBR. The most important feature is that it's a virtually perfect black-body spectrum. The stars don't get you that. (Ned Wright has a more rigorous refutation here.)

[WayneFrancis]

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?

No what you said was

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.

Which means we should see a pretty much uniform distribution of blue and red shifted galaxies. But low and behold we don't see that.

[Aethelwulf]

No you can't unless you can explain how something can travel faster then the speed of light.

That is not what I say. Read it again. Nowhere do I claim objects move faster than light. You're making words up or interpretating what I say wrong.

[Strange]

Saying we observe galaxies receed because of Hubbles law, that the further you go the faster galaxies appear to move at is hardly handwaving.

Hubble's "law" is an observation.

All you are saying that we observe galaxies recede because their red-shift increases with distance.

Which just changes the question to: why does their red-shift increase with distance? (Perhaps that is an illusion?)

[Aethelwulf]

Flandern notes that Eddington gets the temperature right; however, the temperature is not the most important feature of the CMBR. The most important feature is that it's a virtually perfect black-body spectrum. The stars don't get you that. (Ned Wright has a more rigorous refutation here.)

It isn't actually perfect.

There is an error... about 10,000th of a degree of error in each direction. I'd say that is far from perfect.

[WayneFrancis]

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.

That doesn't explain why we seem to be at the centre, furthest away, from this massive gravitational body.

That doesn't explain why the data doesn't support an inverse square law but a simple linear plot

That doesn't explain objects with z values >= 1


There is a reason explanations like "maybe there is a massive gravitational interaction" are not accepted. It is because it doesn't match the observation and resulting data!!

[Strange]

Which means we should see a pretty much uniform distribution of blue and red shifted galaxies. But low and behold we don't see that.

Exactly. That is what I have tried to ask twice already (not as clearly, perhaps).

[Aethelwulf]

Hubble's "law" is an observation.

All you are saying that we observe galaxies recede because their red-shift increases with distance.

Which just changes the question to: why does their red-shift increase with distance? (Perhaps that is an illusion?)

No, I never said that either. Are people being obtuse intentionally?

Note, I said that the apparent speeds they move at (the most distant galaxies which appear to move at superluminal speeds) is in fact an illusion.

[Aethelwulf]

Exactly. That is what I have tried to ask twice already (not as clearly, perhaps).

I am about to answer it.

[Aethelwulf]

Which means we should see a pretty much uniform distribution of blue and red shifted galaxies. But low and behold we don't see that.

Why should their be a uniform distribution? Assuming there are interactions between some particles (forces) anything chaotic could lead to a great number of them appearing to move away than they are closng in to a relative but smaller bunch of particles. This is a completely random system here. Nothing determines them to be ''evenly distributed'' in terms of directions of motion.

[Strange]

No, I never said that either. Are people being obtuse intentionally?

It is exactly what you said. I quoted you:

we observe galaxies receed because of Hubbles law

we observe galaxies receed because of Hubbles law -- (1)

Hubble's law = "red-shift increases with distance" -- (2)

Substituting (2) in (1) we get:
we observe galaxies receed because of red-shift increases with distance

Which is just meaningless.

[WayneFrancis]

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.''

Are you snp.gupta?

Void's are very well explained by the big bang model. It is called gravity. Baryonic matter gravitationally collapses into regions that had a slightly higher density. This caused voids. As space expands those voids expand. I really crack up every time someone claims that people avoid talking about something and that is proof how a model is wrong but if they actually understood the model they'd know that the model actually does predict exactly what they are complaining about.

It is the "Best Thoery" because it explains more then any other model and, time and time again, has made predictions that later have not only been observed but match the data to a high degree of precision.

[Aethelwulf]

It is exactly what you said. I quoted you:



we observe galaxies receed because of Hubbles law -- (1)

Hubble's law = "red-shift increases with distance" -- (2)

Substituting (2) in (1) we get:
we observe galaxies receed because of red-shift increases with distance

Which is just meaningless.

I've said it over and over again .... receed faster than light it should be, but I have said this plenty times and you are hung up on that... semi-complete sentance.

[Aethelwulf]

Are you snp.gupta?

Void's are very well explained by the big bang model. It is called gravity. Baryonic matter gravitationally collapses into regions that had a slightly higher density. This caused voids. As space expands those voids expand. I really crack up every time someone claims that people avoid talking about something and that is proof how a model is wrong but if they actually understood the model they'd know that the model actually does predict exactly what they are complaining about.

I never originally claimed voids where not accountable by big bang - other scientists did. Crack up with them if you think I am ill-informed.

[Aethelwulf]

and what is snp.gupta?