Big Bang Busted?

[Jerry]

What's wrong with this explanation?

NOTHING! In fact it makes my case!

The unexpected preponderance of far infrared light implies that many stars have "fallen between the cracks" in ultra- sensitive visible light probes of the distant corners of the universe, such as the Hubble Deep Field. One possible explanation is that the universe is very dusty, with many stars hidden in blankets of dust. Alternatively, many stars may have been born in a flurry of activity in the very early universe but faded away at earlier times than yet reached with large telescopes.

Lots of interesting things to look at here: This "Surprisingly large amount" of faded starlight was not predicted to exist – it is not part of the BB paradigm. It really contra- indicates the BB, or at least the consensus interpretation of the BB, that calls the CMB a pristine remnant of the main BB event.

Secondly, the “dusty” explanation is incredibly weak, and completely ignores the fact the ‘most distant’ quasars indicate just the opposite – you cannot have it both ways. If the Far infrared background indicates a universe filled with dust at high z, the quasars have to be more local, because they certainly do not reveal a lot of dust. (Ironically, in my view of the universe, interstellar dust does play a major role at these distances, but the quasars are more local events and so the lack of dust is not a conflict.)

The second explanation – a “flurry of activity” is at odds with current interpretations of the CMB – this flurry should have also created a flurry of smaller peaks in the CMB. In fact either a “dusty” or “flurry” past should scramble the CMB like an omelet.

Finally, if you look at the FIR plots they are utterly cool – the ‘Milky Way’ contamination is very similar to the Milky Way contamination in the CMB. They can filter out the Milky Way from the survey, but in no way can they claim the remaining radiation – underneath the Milky Way is highly representative of the IR sources behind it.

This is also true of the radiation contributed by the most local galaxies and clusters, we do not know what the specific FIR signatures are behind these galaxies, and I still maintain we cannot accurately map the CMB literally behind-the-face of all these contaminants for the very same reason: Radiation deconvolution requires an intimate knowledge of both the scattering profile and the radiation source. In the case of the CMB, we have neither.

Since we are only guessing at the cause of the FIR background, we can only guess it does not impact the CMB. This is a BAD guess. How could it be a good one, when we don’t know what we are dealing with?

[BrianStewart]

A good example from the original article that started this thread: The author notes that NGC 7319 appears to have a quasar in front of it. This is a point we discussed on another thread and it supports Arp's empirical model. He then notes that the redshift of the quasar must be mostly caused by something unexplained - that unknown mechanism I was mentioning. If Arp's interpretation of ejected quasars is right, then this interpretation naturally follows.

But then he goes on to say that astronomers "assumptions about redshift" and everything that follows are false. That is where the reasoning breaks down. As I already pointed out - perhaps the redshift interpretation breaks down entirely for quasars and partially for galaxies, but with an underlying redshift component from expansion. If that were the case, then it would be wrong to say that everything that follows from the standard views is wrong - much of the BBT expectations could still be right.

Is another perspective on all of this possible? A fair number of astronomers and cosmologists have now sided with Arp on the intrinsic redshift question. If I’m hearing these people correctly, they say that any presumption in favor of the Big Bang is removed by the discovery of intrinsic redshift. The original idea was that redshsift-based calculations of velocity and distance are reliable. Thereby, cosmologists confidently delivered to us the long-sought figures on the age and size of the universe. Now we know that the underlying claim is invalid, so the entire question is thrown open to debate. I believe that plasma cosmologists and electric universe proponents have vital contributions to make on this subject, and it does not serve the interests of science to dismiss them - as some on this group have done. I’ve appreciated your more balanced position, dgruss.

[iantresman]

Is another perspective on all of this possible? A fair number of astronomers and cosmologists have now sided with Arp on the intrinsic redshift question. If I’m hearing these people correctly, they say that any presumption in favor of the Big Bang is removed by the discovery of intrinsic redshift.

Is it worth mentioning the Wolf Effect which has been shown also cause redshift. See The Wolf Effect and Gravitational Redshifts.

As far as I know, there are no experiments which distinguish galactic Wolf Effect redshift from galactic Doppler redshift, which must make Doppler redshifts even more uncertain?

Reference

• The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars
• Wolf Effect on Bad Astronomer

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[dgruss23]

A good example from the original article that started this thread: The author notes that NGC 7319 appears to have a quasar in front of it. This is a point we discussed on another thread and it supports Arp's empirical model. He then notes that the redshift of the quasar must be mostly caused by something unexplained - that unknown mechanism I was mentioning. If Arp's interpretation of ejected quasars is right, then this interpretation naturally follows.

But then he goes on to say that astronomers "assumptions about redshift" and everything that follows are false. That is where the reasoning breaks down. As I already pointed out - perhaps the redshift interpretation breaks down entirely for quasars and partially for galaxies, but with an underlying redshift component from expansion. If that were the case, then it would be wrong to say that everything that follows from the standard views is wrong - much of the BBT expectations could still be right.

Is another perspective on all of this possible? A fair number of astronomers and cosmologists have now sided with Arp on the intrinsic redshift question. If I’m hearing these people correctly, they say that any presumption in favor of the Big Bang is removed by the discovery of intrinsic redshift.

The researchers I've conversed with that think Arp might be right about intrinsic redshifts for the most part do not consider the BBT invalidated by that interpretation. Some even think the BBT is still required. Arp himself obviously thinks the BBT is wrong. I'm in the middle on this. Its possible that intrinsic redshifts are superimposed upon expansion - and there are no observations that rule that option out. But I'm willing to look at non-expanding universe options too because I think it is likely that at some point the BBT will have to be dropped.

The original idea was that redshsift-based calculations of velocity and distance are reliable.

Redshift distances are often very unreliable - even with normal galaxies. I cringe every time I see a paper that bases its analysis upon distances derived assuming some particular value of the Hubble constant. I've seen several papers just in the last few weeks in which they used Hubble distances that were significantly discrepant from the Tully-Fisher distances. Depending upon the parameters they're analyzing, the impact of these errors can be significant.

Thereby, cosmologists confidently delivered to us the long-sought figures on the age and size of the universe. Now we know that the underlying claim is invalid, so the entire question is thrown open to debate. I believe that plasma cosmologists and electric universe proponents have vital contributions to make on this subject, and it does not serve the interests of science to dismiss them - as some on this group have done. I’ve appreciated your more balanced position, dgruss.

I don't disagree, but I think everyone that supports Arp needs to keep in mind that Arp's intrinsic redshift ideas might not mean a complete throw away of the standard view - but simply a modification as I've described above.

[BrianStewart]

Found this article on the web and am curious about any comments you guys might have.

LINK

copyrighted material deleted by The Bad Astronomer

This quote is quite telling:

I am not a scientist, and have no exotic theory to peddle. But even I -- a common man with no training in the sciences -- know that the big bang theory is false. I repeat, I KNOW this...and so do many in the Establishment. They just haven't gotten around to telling you yet.

Why bother with an astronomy degree or two or three when you don't have to know anything to know something? BA wasted a decade or so of his life... 8-[

And insinuating conpiracy is a dead giveaway for crackpottery.

I didn’t see anything close to this caricature in the Goodspeed articles. Perhaps he could have emphatically stated, if only to avoid confusion, that he was not offering a conspiracy theory when he expressed his concerns about Internet II.

But he certainly was not celebrating his own lack of scientific accreditation. He was saying what many critics have said about the dangerous role of inertia in science. Halton Arp himself would be the first to admit the occasional necessity, faced by innovators, to take an end run around various protectionist regimes in the sciences. Many critics have also noted the irony of the situation: people with LESS erudition on a subject are often MORE discerning when it comes to clear and obvious tests of a hypothesis.

[BrianStewart]

Just to follow up, the author has posted another article on the big bang. He argues that the whole Doppler interpretaition is thrown into doubt because when it's applied, it produces the illusion of galaxies stretched along lines radiating from the earth, despite the fact that no believes that the earth is the "center of the universe."

Here a link to the article:

http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm

Any comments would be much appreciated.

My comment is that you should waste no further time reading that website. He doesn't even do a respectable job of explaining the "fingers of god" effect in an article in which he claims it refutes the Big Bang. If you want to discuss the evidence for Arp's or other against the mainstream theories there are plenty of people here that can give you the various views.

Just a minor point, perhaps, but I LIKED the explanation given of the “fingers of god”. The logic immediately made sense. Am I missing something? I’d appreciate a brief summary of the failure in Goodspeed’s description of the “fingers of god” effect.

[Jerry]

I think you're looking at it through ATM, Inc. polarized sunglasses or something. I'd have to search the literature, but I think there certainly are findings of lower heavy metal; more dense; smaller, more primal-shaped structures. When you concentrate on a few anomalies, you fail to see the vastness of the forest that is not anomalous.

This is fair, I would have to be nuts not to constantly be questioning my own sanity :P

There are at least a hundred papers released every week that are at odds with my positions. I try to read at least a half dozen of them. When I do, I have to be able to explain every discrepancy. Some are easy - any "power function evolution" can be tied directly to selection effects and a skew in the distance modulus.

Others not so, and sometimes I have to admit I am wrong. For example, Arp's observational catalogue of quasars, equating age with redshift, probably eliminates CREIL as a causal solution to quasar redshifting, and I don't think CREIL is responsible for the Pioneer anomaly, even though I have hypothesized otherwise.

On the other hand, look at the list of things I think I can explain:

>Origin and power spectrum of cosmic rays.
>Neutron star pulses, specifically explain why there is enough energy budget for pulses and gravity waves.
>The failure to observe any celestial gravity waves in "black hole' mergers.
>The lack of supernova at high redshift.
>The Butcher-Oemler effect.
>The Beppu-Wilson Effect.
>The Allias Effect.
>High Fe in very distant quasars.
>The Baldwin Effect.
>The Buckner Curse.
>Why Earth has a fairly weak magnetic field and Mars has a very very weak one, and the Moon virtually none at all.
>Lightening.
>Why supernova explosions also cause gamma rays.
>The Tully – Fisher relationship
>Why the frequency of pulsars is (usually) so incredibly tight.
>Why carpet zaps our fingers.
>The cause of disturbances in the ionosphere during earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
>The FIR background.
>The (cause, existence of ) deeply reddened and sub millimeter galaxies.
>The origin of solar sunspots and flares.
>Why we have not observed any Hypernova at high redshifts.
>Why there are no peculiar supernova observations at high redshifts.
>Why radio telescopes seem to tell us quasars have proper motion.
>Why the power function of quasars evolves with redshift.
>Why all verified ‘cosmic evolutionary trends follow power functions.
>Why there is no transverse proximity effect in galaxies ‘in front’ of quasars.
>Why Radio Loud Quasars have a “blurred’ Spectra
>Why the luminosity function of radio loud quasars is different from radio quiet quasars
>Why there are so many soft X-ray point sources in the HUDF survey.
>Why galaxies are found in webby clusters
>”The fingers of God”
>Why there are areas of new star formation in very old galaxies.
>Why the “S” and “R” matter evolutionary sequences cannot be reconciliated.
>Why quasars appear to be found in close proximity to Active Galactic Nuclei
>Why the biggest, oldest galaxies in local clusters are the least redshifted
>Why we cannot find gravity waves in our own galaxy.
>Why the edges of M-83 and M-81 appear to be streaming towards us.
>Why there are very very few local blue galaxies.
>Why “binning” eliminates most evolutionary trends, with the notable exception of luminosity trends.

So I have a few good reasons to think I might be on to something.

[valiantv]

There are basically 3 possibilities here:

1. The "experts" (with the exception of a tiny minority) are right (or, at least, pretty close).
...

Could we append to russ_waters' first possibility and change it to:

1. The "experts" (with the exception of a tiny minority) are right (or, at least, pretty close) given the tools and technology they have available, today.

Going through this thread and several others similar to it, it is truly enlightening and much knowledge is gained when several "experts", discriminating and discerning laypersons, soon to be "experts" and possibly a few crackpots (myself included :wink: ), discussing, debating, and arguing the merits or demerits of several theories.

What I've learned is:
1. there are some valid observable evidence to support Arp's model,
2. some valid observable evidence to support the Electric Universe model
3. and quite a number of valid observable evidence to support BBT.

What people are discussing, debating, and arguing on are not the observable evidence themselves, but the interpretation and the conclusions of these models. Is this correct?

Given the observable evidence is correct, but the conclusions contradict each other, I wonder if the story of the elephant and the blind men applies not only to the theological community but also to the scientific community.

"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

The universe is a pretty big elephant, and with the tools and technology we do have today, we still can see only a fraction of what is truly out there. We may not be blind, but we sure don't have 20/20 vision,...yet?

I do love reading these threads because I do learn so much, but is it possible to accept that others have a different view AND not agree with them?

[BrianStewart]

I thought history shows that most major changes in paradigm fall into category #2, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Big Bang theory. Originally most people thought they were wrong (scientists and leymen alike), but the new ideas turned out to be right-ish.

No, thats a very, very common misconception (perpetuated by crackpots and picked up on by laymen). Einstein is the typical example of a layman (just a lowly patent clerk) overcoming the dogma of the establishment to revolutionize physics. The reality is quite different: he was an educated, accomplished physicist tackling a well-known problem with the existing theory and his work was quickly seen for what it was: correct.

Newton won a contest to derive gravity. His work was well recieved in his time.

Galileo's work was not generally well recieved, but there is a reason for that: there were few actual scientists to recieve it! The people who persecuted him all did so on a religious, not scientific basis. Scientists, on the other hand, did recognize Galileo's work.

The BBT is the logical conclusion arrived at from what was, at the time, a startling discovery.

And as for a conspiracy, the evidence speaks for itself, see:...

Fortunately most scientists are honourable, impartial and objective individuals, but it's easy to see how one can become a little cynical.

Those two sentences contradict each other - and that evidence doesn't in any way imply a vast, global conspiracy (especially in light of the second sentence there...).

How long has it taken to make any sort of paradigm shift? A few centuries for Galeleo's view of the cosmos? a few decades for Newtonion Mechanics? a few years for Einstiens theory of relativity? At least it seems to be getting better. What is the next paradigm shift?

In general, they are relatively fast: a good theory stands up on its own in front of good scientists. All of your examples were relatively fast paradigm shifts. It must be remembered that it often takes a decade to develop a new theory: Relativity, for example was accepted in part (SR) before it was even completed. The Galileo caveat has to be emphasized: his work was well-recieved by his contemporaries. At 28, he was a university department-head. When he built his telescope and scientists looked through it, they did comprehend what they saw.

The problem was simply that very few laymen knew anything at all of science (since it was in its infancy) and then there was the Catholic church... I cannot emphasize enough that the people who persecuted Galileo were not scientists.

More good info on Galileo - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/

He argues that the whole Doppler interpretaition is thrown into doubt because when it's applied, it produces the illusion of galaxies stretched along lines radiating from the earth, despite the fact that no believes that the earth is the "center of the universe."

He needs to learn some basic geometry. The BBT does, in fact make every point in the universe look to itself like its at the center of the universe.

It sounds to me as if you’re speaking of the illusion that would result from an expanding universe, as distances between objects increased. But that’s not the point when it comes to the “fingers of god.” Can I suggest you reread the article? Or perhaps go directly to the archived “Thunderbolts Picture of the Day” at –

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ers-of-god.htm

Goodspeed himself notes that the “fingers of god” will occur wherever the observer is placed. But the article has to be read in conjunction with the cited graphic– where it is easy to see that, on the map centered on the Virgo cluster (a 90 degree slice of the sky), the “fingers” reach far beyond any conceivable local dynamics of interacting galaxies. Therefore, the typical explanation of the “fingers” by reference to galaxy clusters revolving around their own center of gravity (and therefore producing relative motions toward and away from the observer) cannot account for the larger illusion of streams of galaxies radiating away from Earth across BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS. The Doppler interpretation, it seems, produces an untenable picture of the Earth at the center of the universe. I would think that any defender of the BBT would be more than a little troubled by this.

[Jerry]

Could we append to russ_waters' first possibility and change it to:

1. The "experts" are right given the tools and technology they have available, today.

Excellent essay, val, but I would go one step further: "...given the tools and technology they had yesterday."

For example, on the http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight= Wolf thread, JS Princeston dismissed the fingers of god as a local phenomena. Now there is enough data to demonstrate this trend extends deep into the Sloan Digital Survey, so his argument tumbles. (I wish he were still with us (banned), he has a great deal of knowledge and passion for the topic.)

The most difficult thing for any of us to do is reevaluate our core convictions: To admit it when we are wrong, and maybe even more difficult to admit when our heroes are wrong.

Russ Walters made a good point when he said lay books often trivialize the complexity of the Einstein-deSitter model. It is wrong though, to equate complexity with accuracy when in fact a plethoria of parameters is an indication something fundamental is wrong.

Einstein had two choices when he accepted the reality of the Michelson Morley results: To develop special relativity he had to either bend time, or forward the curious notion that movement in an inertial frame varies the speed of light. He made the wrong choice.

[A Thousand Pardons]

For example, on the http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight= Wolf thread, JS Princeston dismissed the fingers of god as a local phenomena. Now there is enough data to demonstrate this trend extends deep into the Sloan Digital Survey, so his argument tumbles. (I wish he were still with us (banned), he has a great deal of knowledge and passion for the topic.)

Perceptive comment. Are you planning on going back and studying his oeuvre?

[Jerry]

Now we know that the underlying claim is invalid, so the entire question is thrown open to debate.

You can start by recalibrating the density of the interstellar medium. It is based upon quasar visuals, and since the quasars are much closer, the attenuation of space is greater...now when we look for supernova's at very high redshift, they should be dimmer than they appear to be. Why not?

Because what we are calling distant supernovae Ia are really hypernovae, like 1987A! They are brighter, but since the dust reddening is greater, we underestimate the magnitude of these events, The REAL supernova Ia's are there, but not bright enough for us to select them with our current search algorithms. This is also why we do not chart 'peculiar' supernova Ia at these distances - everything we can see fits in the category of 'peculiar'.

What is most peculiar is that at these high redshifts, these hypernova have the same sized light curves that they do in local galaxies. This cannot be true if the universe is expanding. The Wilson hypothesis fails, and the universe is NOT expanding.

[iantresman]

What people are discussing, debating, and arguing on are not the observable evidence themselves, but the interpretation and the conclusions of these models. Is this correct?

Yes and no! We are certainly debating, and each providing evidence. I would have thought that interpretation should be fairly consistent on both sides of the argument. I thinik that where we disagree is in th ability to look at (a) additional evidence (b) Alternative interpretations.

From the start I have acknowledged that there is much evidence in support of the Big Bang. I have also presented evidence in support of an Electric Universe, but found very few Big Bangers willing to acknowledge that my evidence is consistent with an Electric Universe. Evidence and interpretation is not mutually exclusive. Just be cause it fits one theory does not exclude it from another.

For example:

• 1. The Solar Wind accelerates. Evidence here.
• 2. Interpretation: There is a continuous force on the charged particles.
• 3. Possible explanation: (a) There is lots of dark matter outside the Solar System. (b) There is an interplanetary electric field.

And I can't see how you can rule out one but not the other.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Star Pilot]

Could we append to russ_waters' first possibility and change it to:

1. The "experts" are right given the tools and technology they have available, today.

Excellent essay, val, but I would go one step further: "...given the tools and technology they had yesterday."

For example, on the http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight= Wolf thread, JS Princeston dismissed the fingers of god as a local phenomena. Now there is enough data to demonstrate this trend extends deep into the Sloan Digital Survey, so his argument tumbles. (I wish he were still with us (banned), he has a great deal of knowledge and passion for the topic.)

I think Aldrin/Orion38 (also banned(s))merit a honorable mention too for starting this topic.
8) :wink:

Edited to add.
And I for one wishing a return for JS Princeton.Maybe a poll can be usefull.

[Cougar]

...the CMB DOES demonstrate a hotter one [a hotter universe in the past].

Only if one assumes the ONLY possible cause of the CMB is a big bang.

This is not a simple assumption. The big bang is currently the only possible explanation that remains consistent with observation and known physical laws. If you think you've got a better explanation that can withstand review by a professional astrophysicist, someone like Ned Wright, I imagine the Nobel committee might be interested.

…the most distant supernovae observed have the same size light curves as local events...

Not according to what I've read. Distant supernova Ia have longer light curves in direct proportion to Einstein's formulae for time dilation.

Galama, Nomato, and Iamoto have reported SN 1998bw is the brightest supernova ever seen in the 'local' universe (redshift z = 0.0085). It also has the longest blue light curve, dimming less than one magnitude in more than 28 days, and although it has many of the attributes of a Ia, it has been classified as a core-collapse supernova or hypernova.

We know how to accurately gauge distance using light curve lengths only using supernova Ia's. Other supernovas have very different mechanisms, dynamics, and lightcurve histories, and it means little to mix apples and oranges.

As you pointed out to me, core collapse supernova are thought to be more likely to occur in the early universe, and a bright supernova or hypernova like 1998 bw should be easier to find than a type Ia at high redshift. Where are the damn things? You have not found any published papers asking these questions. Have you ask yourself why?

Well, for one thing, I haven't looked. But I do appreciate the difficulty in identifying anything at high redshift, especially very high redshift.

[Cougar]

I don't believe in any conspiracy, but I do tend to lean towards iantresman views. iantresman thank you for the links...

I expect you'll find those links to provide only anecdotal evidence.

[Cougar]

In my opinion, the Big Bang will be replaced by a version of the Electric Universe (plasma based), that will also help our understanding of ancient history and the human body...

In my opinion, you've committed yourself to an obscure side road that ends up leading nowhere.

[Cougar]

...people are capable of evaluating the evidence for themselves independent of the prevailing opinion.

I would say not too many people are capable of doing this well -- without the amount of studying, learning, experience, and thought invested by those others who have established the prevailing opinion.

If they come to the conclusion that the mainstream position is mistaken re Arp, that does not mean they have been misled by clever writing on Arp's part.

Nor does it mean their conclusion is correct.

Arp's model is not "assuming" intrinsic redshifts exists.... He's found evidence that some high redshift objects are associated with nearby low redshift objects (eg NGC 7603, NEQ3 ...).

And of course the major question is, what is the nature of this "association"? Arp must stretch in his attempt to prove the association is something other than coincidental alignment. Apparently most of the astronomical community think this stretching results in a very thin argument. But others, such as yourself, have joined in the effort to thicken the argument. Nonprofessionals such as Russ and myself would take a LOT of time and effort to independently reach a well-informed decision on the matter. We are helped by those with much more experience in this area, such as Ned Wright and Phil Plait, not to mention Stephen Weinberg and John Baez.

[Cougar]

Thunderbolts.info is not a reliable information source.

I don’t think this response works well for the intellectually curious.

"Intellectually curious" is good. Intellectually gullible is.... troublesome.

The banishing of Halton Arp was not a minor slip in judgment. It suggests a dangerous posture on the part of the scientists involved.

I think "banished" is a charged and inaccurate word. Arp was denied telescope time, which is a form of funding. How many scientists have submitted funding proposals that have not been accepted? Raise your hands.... I rest my case.

No one who has taught college courses, written books, given public talks, or invested a lifetime of research based on “group think” ideas wants to see these ideas crash and burn.

Incorrect. First of all, lifetimes of research are not based on "group think" ideas. Most scientists like to be innovative, to find something new. And an idea that "crashes and burns"? That's called a negative finding, and they're just as important as positive findings. Scientists investigate phenomena and report on what they find. That's it. This idea that they're following some personal or group agenda is baloney. Sure, you can find cases of individuals who are not following good, objective scientific procedures. However, I would say most do.

[iantresman]

...the CMB DOES demonstrate a hotter one [a hotter universe in the past].

Only if one assumes the ONLY possible cause of the CMB is a big bang.

This is not a simple assumption. The big bang is currently the only possible explanation that remains consistent with observation and known physical laws.

• 1926: Sir Arthur Eddington estimates the thermal background radiation temperature as 3.2K.
• 1930s: Cosmologist Ernst Regener calculates that intergalactic space has a background temperature of 2.8K
• 1938: Nobel Prize winner (1920) Walther Nernst estimates 0.75K
• 1946: Robert Dicke predicts an MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 20K (ref: Helge Kragh)
• 1946: Robert Dicke predicts an MBR temperature of "less that 20K" but later revised to 45K (ref: Stephen G. Brush)
• 1946: Gamow estimates a temperature of 50K
• 1948: Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 5K.
• 1949: Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 28K.
• 1960s: Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)

Ref: Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[iantresman]

Most scientists like to be innovative, to find something new. And an idea that "crashes and burns"? That's called a negative finding, and they're just as important as positive findings. Scientists investigate phenomena and report on what they find. That's it. This idea that they're following some personal or group agenda is baloney.

Unless of course you're British, whose scientists will actively exclude "mavericks". Ref: British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues

Hooray for objective American scientists. But wait...

"... [Halton] Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade. Caltech's telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.

"Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. Ref: Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.


So yes, be objective and innovative, as longs as it supports the status quo.


Regards,
Ian Tresman (British)

[Cougar]

It is now clear that scientific institutions are taking deliberate measures to
insulate themselves from criticism by "outsiders."...

This is a crock. Anyone has access to Hubble data (after a year, at least); anyone has access to Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. There are plenty of other examples. Astronomical data is getting more available, not less.

I’d like to see this claim discussed.

There's not a lot to discuss. I agree with ToSeek.

[Cougar]

...the CMB DOES demonstrate a hotter one [a hotter universe in the past].

Only if one assumes the ONLY possible cause of the CMB is a big bang.

This is not a simple assumption. The big bang is currently the only possible explanation that remains consistent with observation and known physical laws.

• 1926: Sir Arthur Eddington estimates the thermal background radiation temperature as 3.2K.
• 1930s: Cosmologist Ernst Regener calculates that intergalactic space has a background temperature of 2.8K
• 1938: Nobel Prize winner (1920) Walther Nernst estimates 0.75K
• 1946: Robert Dicke predicts an MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 20K (ref: Helge Kragh)
• 1946: Robert Dicke predicts an MBR temperature of "less that 20K" but later revised to 45K (ref: Stephen G. Brush)
• 1946: Gamow estimates a temperature of 50K
• 1948: Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 5K.
• 1949: Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 28K.
• 1960s: Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)

Ref: Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell

Regards,
Ian Tresman

What's your point?

Regards,

[Cougar]

Hooray for objective American scientists. But wait...

"... [Halton] Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade. Caltech's telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.

"Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. Ref: Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.


So yes, be objective and innovative, as longs as it supports the status quo.

Time-Life? You're referencing a quotation from Time-Life? Do you imagine that the author of this Time-Life story ever submitted a funding proposal that was rejected? Do you think this story truly understands the situation and is being perfectly objective when it waxes so eloquently that "Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade." Hey, nobody was stopping him from constructing his own "tool of his trade." He was "barred" from nothing. His funding proposal was rejected, just like millions of other scientists around the country every year.

[Cougar]

Here is the opinions of one researcher that has published alternative research. Each person can form their own judgements about it.

Lopez-Corredoira wants "to tell of my impressions about the world of research in astrophysics, which I know from close observation." In other words, he wants to give his opinion. Certainly other astrophysicists' opinions will differ. Such a paper seems highly nonscientific. Maybe Time-Life will pick it up. :roll:

[Cougar]

The banishing of Halton Arp was not a minor slip in judgment. It suggests a dangerous posture on the part of the scientists involved. Perhaps the real question is: how pervasive is this posture given the very considerations you highlight. (I would also have emphasized the natural human need to be RIGHT. No one who has taught college courses, written books, given public talks, or invested a lifetime of research based on “group think” ideas wants to see these ideas crash and burn.)

That's exactly right. The way it must go in most faculty meetings in physics, geology and astronomy is something like this. We were all taught theory A is correct and we've all made progess during our careers adding bits to theory A. Now you come along and tell us that theory B is really the correct one, but no one else thinks that way and if we went along with you our department will look bad and we won't get our usual grants to add bits to theory A. So, while we hate to see you go, could you kindly pack up and peddle your wares at the community college 40 miles away from here.

I've never seen anything quite so completely fabricated. Or ridiculous. Were you trying to be funny? Sheesh.

[Jerry]

..

.1960s: Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)

What's your point?

The point is the temperature of the CMB was predicted by many theorists working with GR and they missed - even the "correct" prediction was off almost a full degree Kelvin, until it was fine tuned with additional parameters.

Mathematical models are a dime a dozen, and with the number of parameters that have been slipped into the Walker-Robertson-lawhatever cosmology, well as Fermi put it -give me four free parameters and I can model a universe that looks like a squash, with five I can make an elephant - or something like that.

I posted my working hypothesis on the origin of the CMB on the Gravity Behaving Badly thread. A finely tailored model based upon this guess is possible, and it is even possible to model the complete power function. Why don't I do it? It would just be a guess - just like the current model that holds the background predictions in almost dogmatic reverence. We don't know what is way out there - we have to work with what we have, and that does not include Non-baryonic Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

If N. Wright's cosmology were that good, it could explain the NIR background, it would not have predicted a different CMB power spectrum before the COBE & Balloon spectrums were released. What else has it missed on?

>
***No prediction or causal reason of/for:
High fe content in high redshift quasars
Depth of continuity in Sloan Survey, Hubble Deep Field, HUDF
Depth and count of soft Xrays
Galactic radio loudness
Quasars
No mechanism for highest energy cosmic rays
Butcher -Oemler Effect
Fingers of God….

Oh hell Cougar, just look at the list I posted up above. There is not a hard explanation for, or prediction of any of the phenomena on that list. This field has been in a quagmire for a hundred years.

[Jerry]

.. but no one else thinks that way and if we went along with you our department will look bad and we won't get our usual grants to add bits to theory A. So, while we hate to see you go, could you kindly pack up and peddle your wares at the community college 40 miles away from here.[/i]

I've never seen anything quite so completely fabricated. Or ridiculous. Were you trying to be funny? Sheesh.

That is exactly what Tsizlard said happened to him when he told Rutherford he thought there was a possibility to extract energy from an atom via a neutron chain reaction.

Does it still happen? It happened in 1989 when Nilsson & company published a paper stating that they had found a gamma ray in the error box of a supernova. They were told this was contrary to existing theory, and one can assume, that it was deemed an irresponsible paper even though there evidence was confirmed by a group in Europe.

We now know Nilsson was exactly correct, the evidence undeniable for core collapse supernova.

It was seventeen years after Einstein published his five 1905 papers before any of them gained any degree of acceptance in the scientific community.

[Cougar]

Thunderbolts.info is not a reliable information source.

Nor is Rense.com. These websites are internet tabloids. They mix fact, fiction and opinion.

For me the issue is not Rense.com, which is just one of several sites that have posted the Goodspeed articles. I’m most interested in two things: clarity on the status of the big bang in the wake of Arp’s work; and the reliability of information presented on the thunderbolts.info website...

The big bang is the reigning Queen of Cosmology. Arp has not been able to shed his costume that depicts him as Court Jester or Fool. The information on thunderbolts.info is unreliable, as many have mentioned, including dgruss.

[Cougar]

This field has been in a quagmire for a hundred years.

You are certainly one for exaggeration. And misrepresentation, for that matter.