Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 145 of 145

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

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    and what is snp.gupta?
    Someone that just had a thread on here about how red shift isn't due primarily to cosmic expansion trying to use some of the same arguments and seemingly having just as bad of an understanding of what the main stream models actually says.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    You explained it in the terms of gravity. I could except that.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Someone that just had a thread on here about how red shift isn't due primarily to cosmic expansion trying to use some of the same arguments and seemingly having just as bad of an understanding of what the main stream models actually says.

    No, I don't have multiple accounts. I have this one, I am Aethelwulf, so please learn my name and stop accusations.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I'll tell you what.... once I have sat for a while and actually developed a theory, I WILL post it here in the ATM then you can all attack it like piranha fish.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    In hindsight, I probably won't use a steady state model. I have a preferrence for another model.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    How about you start answering some of my questions. You asked me the question about particles being shook in an inside container. I have explained these motions are completely random and yet you think they should display motions which are distributed evenly in every direction.
    The directions of particles in a container have a pretty uniform distribution unless you introduce something to bias that motion. This is basic physics. So yes I call your understanding of basic physics into question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    You blame me for having a bad understanding of classical physics, but you haven't even addressed my post yet. You are skimming through every comment I have made like you are offended somehow and trying to punch holes in any arguement.

    I've addressed your post. Your various complaints about the big bang model fall into these categories.

    1) Misunderstanding of what the big bang actually says.
    2) Misunderstanding of the implications and mechanisms of red/blue shift
    3) Blindly regurgitating long refuted arguments about the big bang.

    I am not skimming through your posts. Every post I've made contains the full post to which I am answering. As many people here can attest to I'm often border lining on obsessive when I answer post line by line.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Wayne, Inflation has long finished. It only happened for a very short amount of time.

    Stop criticizing if you yourself don't know the theory!!!!!!
    Sorry I did call is cosmic inflation there instead of cosmic expansion. Functionally they expansion and inflation definition are the same. In cosmology inflation is the period of time in the very early universe and cosmic expansion refers to the expansion of space that has gone on since then, and is still going on today.

    Doesn't change the argument. Its like a kid telling their mother "I'm not jumping on the bed...I'm hopping!"

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    How about you address how you think the inflationary period is still happening, and how it accounts for the superluminal speeds of distant observable galaxies... then could you address how a random particles in a box should have evenly distributed motions?

    You don't seem to have a clear cut of the basics. You seem like a bit of a hypocrite.
    I say the red shift of galaxies is due to cosmic expansion which is not only still happening but the observations actually show that the rate is increasing with time.


    As for a container of particles the vectors of said particles without some external heat source will be statistically uniform using a normal curve based on the temperature. The direction of the particles will be uniformly distributed. The speed of the particles will fit a normal curve based on the particles mass and the temperature of the gas.

    If anyone else here thinks I'm wrong please feel free to correct me but both Strange and I seem to hear you say the same thing which points to a either a basic misunderstanding of physics by you or you are not using the terminology in a standard manner...which often also indicates a basic misunderstanding of the science involved.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Not everthing is though, which is the snag.
    We are going round in circles, where you just drop a different fact each time to try and make things fit.

    You are saying that it is more probable that everything outside the local cluster is moving away from us with a velocity proportional to distance rather than a "random" distribution of directions and velocities.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Data is just data wayne, its a bunch of numbers.

    theories is what attempts to explain data. Objects receeding faster than light is the data, the theory is that spacetime is expanding. I am challenging the theory, not the data.
    Data is data. The big bang makes predictions that fit the data at the time and made predictions that matched data collected later. That is why the big bang is so compelling. It not only matched existing data but it made predictions. Predictions that had to wait for new ways of collecting data.

    Your challenging the theory based on misunderstandings and you are not coming up with anything to replace it with.

    So what causes the spectra be shifted in a manner that is equivalent to a recession speed of >=c? Again are you proposing some "tired light" idea?

    To date there are only a handful of mechanisms that can shift the spectra of an object.
    If you take out cosmic expansion as one of the mechanisms what do you replace that with? Note cosmic expansion is the only mechanism that, to date, can explain z values > 1 without breaking SR and GR.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    How about you address how you think the inflationary period is still happening, and how it accounts for the superluminal speeds of distant observable galaxies... then could you address how a random particles in a box should have evenly distributed motions?

    You don't seem to have a clear cut of the basics. You seem like a bit of a hypocrite.

    This is an ATM thread, so it is up to you, Aetherwulf to support your claims.
    Also claims like in the last sentence are NOT the way to go, and will cost you an infraction next time.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Read post 106 and stop choosing which questions you wish to answer. I will answer yours when you have, like a civil person, answered mine.
    And I've asked you a number of times. Are you suggesting some type of "tired light" idea?

    If you take out cosmic expansion as the primary component of high red shift objects, specifically red shift objects with z values > 1, then you MUST replace it with something that can explain z values > 1.

    You seem to be in agreement that objects can't travel faster then the speed of light so what causes the z values > 1?

    When you make statements like

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ...My question was why we haven't assumed that that objects are simply moving about. ...
    and get repeatedly told that proper motion can not account for most of the red shift and can't explain z values > 1 at all it appears you don't understand the implication of high red shift objects when you remove cosmic expansion as the source.

    If you want to say that light just naturally red shifts as it is travelling through space then you are proposing a "tired light" idea and I suggest you just read up on why such ideas are not accepted.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,694
    Let's tackle one little piece of this. This is a question about your ATM idea that recessional velocities are dependent on distance. Do you understand that Andromeda is, if I recall correctly, the only blue shifted galaxy? Even if there are others in the local galaxy cluster, there are none in any other cluster. This is important. Do you understand this?

    Also, try this article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

    and contemplate the quote from korjik below, please.

    Regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    This is an ATM thread, so it is up to you, Aetherwulf to support your claims.
    Also claims like in the last sentence are NOT the way to go, and will cost you an infraction next time.
    Yes, I don't have problems answering questions, but those who ask question and make assertions of their own must support their own as well. If they didn't, you may as well edit it to look in their favour, and I find that corrupt.

    Either way, I want this thread closed now. I don't support the steady state theory to replace big bang, I have my own theory which I think is much better and I am in the process of writing. Could you please close this thread like I asked a long time back.

    regards.

    ps. keep in mind this thread was put here against my will - I don't want to be forced into giving personal theories into how to account for BB phenomena in a steady state scenario. I never intended it all. I was just being polite answering questions.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Not everthing is though, which is the snag.
    No, it isn't a snag. A very low percentage of objects have negative z values. Most of which are in in our cluster/super cluster of galaxies and gravitationally bound to the the Milkyway. For the other 7,000 odd objects that have negative z values most are very low velocities and most are still unclassified and most have very few data points that resulted in their negative z values.

    The fact is that 7,000 odd objects might seem like a large number until you look at how many MILLION objects are actually in the dataset.

    You seem to think the CMBR has to be "perfect" and that 1 outlier data point invalidates a whole model but that isn't the case. That isn't how science is done. No model is perfect and as models go the Big Bang theory is a very good model.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    No, it isn't a snag. A very low percentage of objects have negative z values. Most of which are in in our cluster/super cluster of galaxies and gravitationally bound to the the Milkyway. For the other 7,000 odd objects that have negative z values most are very low velocities and most are still unclassified and most have very few data points that resulted in their negative z values.

    The fact is that 7,000 odd objects might seem like a large number until you look at how many MILLION objects are actually in the dataset.

    You seem to think the CMBR has to be "perfect" and that 1 outlier data point invalidates a whole model but that isn't the case. That isn't how science is done. No model is perfect and as models go the Big Bang theory is a very good model.
    Read above.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    It's you who doesn't seem to understand the word ''random''.

    For there to always be a ''evenly distributed motion'' doesn't seem very random to me - in fact, to make sure your objects are always observing an equal amount of systems moving to and from is a highly controlled system indeed. At times you would expect your chaotic system to do quite the opposite.
    If I generate one billion random numbers each number being in the range of 0 - 9 how many times do you think 0 will show up? how many times 1 will show up....how many times will 9 show up? More importantly what do you think the standard deviation would be?



    0 : 100006749
    1 : 99974889
    2 : 99995433
    3 : 100005867
    4 : 100014717
    5 : 99993508
    6 : 100012110
    7 : 100005234
    8 : 100000699
    9 : 99990794

    0 : 100003920
    1 : 99997673
    2 : 100007431
    3 : 99982741
    4 : 100007542
    5 : 100016167
    6 : 99995014
    7 : 99994602
    8 : 100003209
    9 : 99991701

    0 : 99991443
    1 : 99998041
    2 : 99994379
    3 : 100012185
    4 : 100003202
    5 : 99990382
    6 : 99998776
    7 : 100005865
    8 : 100007648
    9 : 99998079


    WOW 1 billion random random numbers generated 3 times and the distribution of numbers is VERY uniform. Look at that the deviation is like .002%

    Funny thing is the larger the sample the lower the deviation will become. So is a container like 1 litre of water we are talking about 3.3428x1025 molecules or 33,428,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules with random motion the standard deviation of motion is going to be VERY small. Heating up the and cooling down the watter doesn't change the deviation either.

    so while the individual numbers are completely random the distribution is very uniform and very statistical.

    Note: after thinking about it ... the standard deviation probably wouldn't change very much. I'm running a set of 100 billion to see if it sits at .002%

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Is there some kind of mental block, I am not answering these questions any more. This was not my intention for this thread and I won't be bullied into answering for a theory which my heart is not even content on.

    Now mods, would you please close this thread.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Ok, I am ready to post my theory quite soon. I haven't written math for it, but I could write some up later.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Let's tackle one little piece of this. This is a question about your ATM idea that recessional velocities are dependent on distance. Do you understand that Andromeda is, if I recall correctly, the only blue shifted galaxy? Even if there are others in the local galaxy cluster, there are none in any other cluster. This is important. Do you understand this?

    Also, try this article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

    and contemplate the quote from korjik below, please.

    Regards, John M.
    I will give him/her that Andromeda is not the only galaxy with a negative z value. We have a hand full of galaxies that have negative z-values but you are right they are all very close to us and gravitationally bound to us. The other 7,000 odd object that have negative z-values are pretty much unclassified at this point and to boot most only have 1-2 spectra used to report their z value and that 7,000 is out of millions of objects. Again as far as classified galaxies the numbers are just a handful out of over 1 million and they again are gravitationally bound to us.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Now you are flat-out ignoring me. I have no choice but to report you for trolling.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Is there some kind of mental block, I am not answering these questions any more. This was not my intention for this thread and I won't be bullied into answering for a theory which my heart is not even content on.

    Now mods, would you please close this thread.
    There is no requirement for you to have your heart content on a theory. It must only match observation the best.

    The mental block is yours. You do not understand the implications of random distributions and large numbers. When you have a very large number of objects averaging their random variable will come out to a very specific value. This is called the central limit theorem.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Now you are flat-out ignoring me. I have no choice but to report you for trolling.
    Please use the Name:  report-40b-hover.png
Views: 179
Size:  256 Bytes,at the bottom left of any post of mine, or anyone elses, you feel break forum rules in any way and needs to be reported to the moderators.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Oh, that you stop to heed. Since the moderators are slow in closing this thread, and in fear of a new infraction, I am posting the new theory in off-topic babbling. Please join there to read it. The mods can move it back here when they have actually decided to close it.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    No offense, but you wait till now to ask this? It was not my activity, I am simply replying like a gentleman.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I'll tell you what.... once I have sat for a while and actually developed a theory, I WILL post it here in the ATM then you can all attack it like piranha fish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Yes, I don't have problems answering questions, but those who ask question and make assertions of their own must support their own as well. If they didn't, you may as well edit it to look in their favour, and I find that corrupt.

    Either way, I want this thread closed now. I don't support the steady state theory to replace big bang, I have my own theory which I think is much better and I am in the process of writing. Could you please close this thread like I asked a long time back.

    regards.

    ps. keep in mind this thread was put here against my will - I don't want to be forced into giving personal theories into how to account for BB phenomena in a steady state scenario. I never intended it all. I was just being polite answering questions.
    Aethelwulf,

    For someone who repeatedly says they are not participating in a thread, you sure post a lot.

    The option given you was to say you didn't want to participate in ATM, and then stop participating. You are not acting like a gentlemen, you are acting at least contradictorily; you certainly also are not following our rules, nor show any indication you are familiar with them. Maybe things were done "against your will" but you don't get to decide the rules here. If you don't like our rules, it is a big Internet. You need to quickly figure out the rules here or the choice of posting here or not will no longer be yours.

    The combined behavior in this thread will earn you an infraction.

    Oh, and this thread is closed. Do not try to start this discussion in a new thread. You get one swing with an ATM theory here, you had your's. If you wish to further discuss this topic, you can Report my post and we will consider reopening the thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

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: