Further evidence for BB just found...(BB's sound waves)

[gzhpcu]

Astronomers sight the BB's sound waves.

BB Sound waves

Astronomers reported on Tuesday that they had convincingly seen, in the patterns of galaxies scattered across the night sky, the vestiges of sound waves that rumbled through the universe after the Big Bang.


Stars and galaxies tended to form along the ripples of the sound waves where matter was slightly denser, and the pull of gravity was slightly stronger.

The ripples preserve a picture of the universe when it was only about 1 million years old and fit well with astronomers' ideas of how the universe, which started smooth and uniform, became lumpy with stars, gas clouds and other celestial objects

[ToSeek]

ToSeeked

[gzhpcu]

OK, so now we have:
- red-shift
- cosmic background radiation
- sound waves

so there should be no more doubts about the BB.

[Normandy6644]

OK, so now we have:
- red-shift
- cosmic background radiation
- sound waves

so there should be no more doubts about the BB.

Well, the more doubts raised the more solidified the theory seems to become, so I say keep 'em coming!

[cyrek1]

cyrek comment

This is another example of the desperation of the BB'ers to prop up their
failing theory.

[TravisM]

Failing for the last hundred years, right?

[Cougar]

This is another example of the desperation of the BB'ers to prop up their failing theory.

Please clarify how you can characterize an additional observation that supports a theory as "propping up" a "failing" theory. If there's any desperation being shown here, it would seem to come from your comment.

[soupdragon2]

But then burbling caused by the physics of quantum mechanics created slight imperfections, clumps that were slightly denser with ordinary matter, as well as dark matter, the unknown material that accounts for most of the mass in the universe.

First we had Dark Matter, then we had Dark Energy, now we have waves of Dark Matter -- Dark Waves!

[gzhpcu]

cyrek comment

This is another example of the desperation of the BB'ers to prop up their
failing theory.

First of all, it is not the BB'ers theory. It is the mainstream science theory. Secondly, I was not aware of the fact that it is failing.

[Normandy6644]

cyrek comment

This is another example of the desperation of the BB'ers to prop up their
failing theory.

First of all, it is not the BB'ers theory. It is the mainstream science theory. Secondly, I was not aware of the fact that it is failing.

Apparently the more evidence that corroborates a theory, the weaker it is, because as we all know real theories don't need evidence. :roll:

[Fortis]

cyrek comment

This is another example of the desperation of the BB'ers to prop up their
failing theory.

First of all, it is not the BB'ers theory. It is the mainstream science theory. Secondly, I was not aware of the fact that it is failing.

Apparently the more evidence that corroborates a theory, the weaker it is, because as we all know real theories don't need evidence. :roll:

That would be the homeopathic approach to the philosophy of science.

[cyrek1]

cyrek reply

To all
Any evidence gathered from the CMBR to give support to the BB is purely circumstantial.

Since the BB is based on the EoS concept and there is no empirical evidence for its support, I think the BB is in trouble.

Plus, all the other unanswered questions.

[Cougar]

....Plus, all the other unanswered questions.

"It is rather ironic that the job of a scientist is to understand nature, and if the scientist completely succeeds, the reward is unemployment. But of the many things that concern me in the day-to-day existence of a scientist, waking up one morning and discovering that there are no problems to solve is rather low on the list."

[TravisM]

cyrek reply

To all
Any evidence gathered from the CMBR to give support to the BB is purely circumstantial.

Since the BB is based on the EoS concept and there is no empirical evidence for its support, I think the BB is in trouble.

Plus, all the other unanswered questions.

Yeah, we know your position Mike. Now time for you to dish up some "empirical" evidence that suggests otherwise. In other words: Put up, or shut up. We know already... jeeze...

[impression of mike]
The BB is false.
The BB is false.
The BB is false.
The BB is false.
I don't know why, but...
The BB is false.
The BB is false.
etc... etc...
[/impression]

[cyrek1]

cyrek reply

cougar
That Kolb quote does kind of explain why the BB has not been refuted to any great extent.
Another very important reason is the money and time invested in the BB.

That Kolb quote reminds me of a Naturopathic Physician who said "We are striving to put ourselves out of business'. These doctors refrain from using drugs as treatments.

Travis
You have not provided any empirical evidence for the support of the EoS concept.
Do not repeat the circumstantial evidence you cited about this problem before.

[Cougar]

...empirical evidence for the support of the EoS concept.

Supernova light curves exhibit time dilation. The more distant the supernova, the more time dilation. How do you explain that without admitting that the universe is expanding?

[cyrek1]

cyrek reply

cougar
The Sn1a's data just became news so how does that justify the EoS concept that was supposedly confirmed back in the early sixties?

Besides, I wrote before that I consider those observations to be controversial because of the huge variation between white dwarf masses and temperature variations.
So the critical 1.44 solar mass that ignites these explosions are probably an average only of all these supernovas.

[Cougar]

The Sn1a's data just became news so how does that justify the EoS concept that was supposedly confirmed back in the early sixties?

There was supporting evidence then, and additional, independent evidence (such as the Sn1a time dilation data) just keeps piling up. In order to hold on to your position, you may not like the newer confirmations, but you can't just sweep them under the rug.

Besides, I wrote before that I consider those observations to be controversial because of the huge variation between white dwarf masses and temperature variations.
So the critical 1.44 solar mass that ignites these explosions are probably an average only of all these supernovas.

No, I believe the SnIa mechanism is fairly well understood, and both theory and observation show them to be remarkably regular.

[electromagneticpulse]

I believe the BB is the last theory standing.
[Steps onto the grave of steady state theory and starts dancing [badly!]]
Woo!
Oh yeah!
We won!
You Dead!
[Stops dancing and steps off the grave]

I'm done

[dgruss23]

The Sn1a's data just became news so how does that justify the EoS concept that was supposedly confirmed back in the early sixties?

There was supporting evidence then, and additional, independent evidence (such as the Sn1a time dilation data) just keeps piling up. In order to hold on to your position, you may not like the newer confirmations, but you can't just sweep them under the rug.

You're right. Unless/until somebody shows the interpretation of Type Ia supernova time dilation is in error - most probably through a selection bias such as that suggested by Jerry, the Type Ia's support an expansion interpretation. Since nobody has published contrary results, there is empirical evidence directing supporting an expanding universe.

That's why I don't rule out the possibility that - if intrinsic redshifts are real - they are superimposed upon expansion.

[Rioux]

You're right. Unless/until somebody shows the interpretation of Type Ia supernova time dilation is in error - most probably through a selection bias such as that suggested by Jerry, the Type Ia's support an expansion interpretation. Since nobody has published contrary results, there is empirical evidence directing supporting an expanding universe.

That's why I don't rule out the possibility that - if intrinsic redshifts are real - they are superimposed upon expansion.

Hi! dgruss23
Smart move.
Have you convince any Big Bang supporter about the intrinsic redshift scenario?
Do you also agree with the Big Bang theory because the expansion is one of the pillars for the BBT?

[cyrek1]

cyrek reply

Cougar and dgruss
The 'dark energy' problem is a miniscule addition to the Hubble expansion.
I tried to get some figures of how much added expansion adds to the Hubble expansion and I get no answers.
Care to provide a figure?

I suggested that the "intrinsic light expansion' explains the 'dark energy' problem because the intrinsic force within these photons would be reducing in strength and subsequently reducing the expansion rate.
This expansion rate would be miniscule. Cannot give you a figure on this expansion rate though. No data on the nature of these EM fields.

As I said before, what empirical evidence is there for the Hubble expansion? Dark energy does not qualify.

[bigsplit]

Astronomers sight the BB's sound waves.

BB Sound waves

Astronomers reported on Tuesday that they had convincingly seen, in the patterns of galaxies scattered across the night sky, the vestiges of sound waves that rumbled through the universe after the Big Bang.


Stars and galaxies tended to form along the ripples of the sound waves where matter was slightly denser, and the pull of gravity was slightly stronger.

The ripples preserve a picture of the universe when it was only about 1 million years old and fit well with astronomers' ideas of how the universe, which started smooth and uniform, became lumpy with stars, gas clouds and other celestial objects

I read through this thread and noticed in has drifted away from the OP. I know Red Shift is luring, however, I would like to shift back to sound waves. I am sure there are lots of things that could generate such waves.
I am concerned if this is just another observation of an astrological phenomena that has been make-shiftly connected with the BB scenario.

How these are connected is what I am concerned with.

[czeslaw]

If there was sound wave (gravity wave) it means the Universe was very dense and did not spread out faster then speed of light. Why it not collapsed into the one Black Hole?
What force causes this spreading (inflation) of the space?
This drum resound indicates the creation of many very large stars from concentrated energy at the beginning of the Universe , I suppose.
The creation and decay of the particles resolve special particles with the repulsive force as balance for gravity. Could we search such a particle?

[dgavin]

First we had Dark Matter, then we had Dark Energy, now we have waves of Dark Matter -- Dark Waves!

Come to the Dark Side luke...it's the only way to save your friends.

Seriously though sound waves would support the BB Theroy, along with the Red Shift and the CMB Radiation.

The only issue I have with them is this. Sound waves need matter to travel through, not energy. The first 100 million years or so of our eniverse was spent as energy. If there was sound waves left from the initial 'blast' for lack of better word, they would of had to have been reflected back from the edges of the universe. Which would mean there actually is some kind of boundry between this universe and what?

A boundry of such would mean our universe model is also wrong.

So I prefer to think of the sound waves as by-product of the first black hole(s) that formed while matter was still dense enough to carry them through space.

[electromagneticpulse]

If there was sound wave (gravity wave) it means the Universe was very dense and did not spread out faster then speed of light. Why it not collapsed into the one Black Hole?
What force causes this spreading (inflation) of the space?
This drum resound indicates the creation of many very large stars from concentrated energy at the beginning of the Universe , I suppose.
The creation and decay of the particles resolve special particles with the repulsive force as balance for gravity. Could we search such a particle?

The visible universe is about 78 billion LY in radius IIRC. The sound waves are 1 million years after the BB, 9.4605284 × 10^21 meters in radius. In the visible universe there are about 10^10 galaxies in it. A lot of mass. Also hawking radiation escapes at slower than the speed of light. The collapse of a black hole itself would be like the whole universe moving from a space smaller than it all being turned into bose-einstein condensate and then expanding, the gravity would be spaced out.

Also after it there would have been a lot of matter-antimatter reactions leaving less mass and a lot more heat. Causing faster expansion with less gravity. Nothing special had to happen, just physics happened

[Fortis]

I suggested that the "intrinsic light expansion' explains the 'dark energy' problem because the intrinsic force within these photons would be reducing in strength and subsequently reducing the expansion rate.
This expansion rate would be miniscule. Cannot give you a figure on this expansion rate though. No data on the nature of these EM fields.

The only problem is that your model of the photon does not coincide with what we observe, so your alternative fails the reality check.

[czeslaw]

Electromagneticpulse wrote an interesting idea about space expansion.
I have heard, when we are inside the Black Hole, there would be an antigravity. Theoretically it is possible after eternity, when all the Universe collapses. But why we see gravity in galaxy and antigravity between galaxy.
After Bose-Einstein condensate is the matter-antimatter created and the energy from it causes expansion. It means permanent delivery of the energy. In this idea we have gravity inside galaxy and energy as repulsive force. This repulsive force is however to small and can’t accelerate the expansion we observe.

[cyrek1]

cyrek reply

fortis
I still have not gotten an answer to the added expansion this dark energy had contributed to the Hubble expansion.

The light wave expansion being reduced as I have said would create the illusion that space is expanding.

Since there is no proof of the space expanding, I think it is time to provide other answers.

[Fortis]

cyrek reply

fortis
I still have not gotten an answer to the added expansion this dark energy had contributed to the Hubble expansion.

The light wave expansion being reduced as I have said would create the illusion that space is expanding.

Since there is no proof of the space expanding, I think it is time to provide other answers.

Providing alternative explanations is great. It keeps everybody on their toes, and challenges supposed orthodoxies. The only problem is that the alternative also needs to be consistent with observation, and I don't believ that your theory is. I've outlined some of the issues on the other thread, but the notion of photons possessing charge doesn't seem to hang together, though you're more than welcome to try to prove otherwise.