Member
Hi,
You should read this. One can hardly say it better – the big bang is like Ptolemy’s epicycles. You always need one more assumption to fit the new findings to the big bang theory.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org
Here are some interesting links
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/26...ar_einstein.htm
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
What about the singularity in the universe beginning, the matter-antimatter asymmetry, etc.?
Administrator
The original signers reads like a who's who of alternative cosmologists [MOND, CREIL, Plasma, Arp et. al]. They certainly have a vested interest in saying there should be more funding to explore non-standard ideas about cosmology.
Today's Cosmology may be like Ptolemy's epicycles in some ways. We make observations and have to tweak the theories. At some point in the next decade or two we will know much more than we do now about dark matter etc. through lensing, accelerator experiments, supercold condensates, and other tests.
The theories these guys support are worse, as far as assumptions needed to match observations.
Forming opinions as we speak
Member
Whatever the theories the problems with the big bang remain.
Yes, but Einstein didn't just need a theory, for example; he did not speculate; he chose to assume something new when he discovered relativity - likewise, when he invented the cosmological constant based on an assumption, he realized the Constant would not work into his equations they way he originally intentioned. So I agree with Anton on this one.
Established Member
Hi there,
This "Open Letter to Closed Minds" probably won't help at all, but the list of people is extensive and shows there are many scientists doubting the Big Bang cosmology. Of course, anyone doing research will tell you they are open minded, and most really believe they are. But at the same time the complaints voiced in the letter are valid.
There are many holes in Big Bang cosmology, and the way forward is to address the criticisms.
In my opinion the most important and most easily verified/falsified problem is the redshift controversy first described by Halton Arp. We should point the telescopes to the high-redshift quasars that are supposedly before low-redshift galaxies, or point them to connecting bridges of material and show if there is reason to doubt the "redshift equals distance" assumption.
It takes only one example where the high redshift object is in front of a low redshift object to falsify the BB.
Instead, mainstream science is going full throttle in the conviction that there is absolutely no reason to doubt this assumption. Caution has long since been abandoned, and I can't understand how most scientists can be comfortable with the idea that maybe the whole of cosmology is based on a single faulty assumption.
Cheers.
Administrator
That's not strictly true. There could be an exceptional object racing away from us, or blowing material vigorously away from us that would have a higher red shift than some nearby object behind it. But for normal objects I basically agree.Originally posted by VanderL@Sep 27 2004, 07:33 PM
It takes only one example where the high redshift object is in front of a low redshift object to falsify the BB.
That being said, I repeat what I've said to you earlier. Alternative cosmologists, who doubt that red-shift strongly correlates to distance, will never be satisfied until we can get direct parallax measurements to z=0.05 or more. This we can probably do in about thirty years. The ones who think that distance does relate to redshift because light gets tired [plasma & CREIL], and not because of velocity might be satisfied by more accurate type 1a supernova light curves [showing time dilation], or they may try and hold out till we can get a direct parallax to a nearby galaxy [in another cluster] accurately enough that we can demonstrate that the distance is getting larger as time goes along. This is probably at least a century away.
Forming opinions as we speak
Member
hello
i have a question....what is bigbang? how did we come up with the idea of a big bang? it seems to me that we are being silly ... bigbang seems a word of a child.
please reply
The term Big Bang was founded in the same way that "Yank" was: the opposition came up with a catchphrase to put it down, but the nickname sticks as a positive thing for the supporters. The Big Bang is not a bang; it's an inflation. At the Big Bang, supposedly, an infinitesimal point began to expand, in effect giving the universe a finite volume, and breaking up the Unified forces into the forces we know toda: E/M, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. What led to this idea, which was favored over the steady-state theory (static universe model) in the 50s and 60s, was Edwin Hubble's discovery of apparent universe-wide galactic redshift (galaxies moving apart), which led to the conclusion that if galaxies are now flying apart, that if one goes backwards in spacetime one can trace all the known universe back to a pinprick, and the moment this pinprick began to expand is termed the Big Bang.
Member
The term "Big Bang" was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle who believed in the steady state universe. He hated the idea of a universe that came out of nothing and wasn't infinite in time so he used the term big bang to make the theory sound simple and childish.
A couple of things led to the belief in the Big Bang. One was the discovery that the universe is expanding and that the further away an object is the faster it's moving away from us. Running it backwards as though it was a film in reverse gives an indication of how long ago it happened. The other discovery was that the universe has got a temperature of 2.7K (2.7 degrees C above absolute zero). If you run that temperature back in time like was done for the expansion then you end up with a temperature that matches perfectly what can only be reached in a big bang (a little over 10^32 K).
Established Member
You're right, Downunder. But lets add about Fred Hoyle this:
Hoyle is the perfect example of an open mind. He was willing to examine in every detail of the theories of his "rivals" and accept them when they proved to be more viable than his own. He took all this expanding universe stuff very seriously even though he had an acerbic sense of humour (hence the Big Bang coinage).
Established Member
Hi Antoniseb,
That is one way to unequivocally show what is going on, but right now several examples can be studied in much more detail (Markarian 205, I believe is one of them), and for the life of me I can't understand why any cosmologist can live with even the remotest possibility that the fundaments of their work could be wrong. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.I repeat what I've said to you earlier. Alternative cosmologists, who doubt that red-shift strongly correlates to distance, will never be satisfied until we can get direct parallax measurements to z=0.05 or more. This we can probably do in about thirty years.
Don't you agree that we should make it an absolute certainty that redshift is indeed a distance indicator before building a cosmology on this assumption?
Cheers.
Administrator
I added emphasis to the word absolute, because my answer is no. Absolute is hard to achieve. At some level you can't be absolutely sure that every electron has exactly the same charge, or that gravity works over quantum scale distances. How would you be absolutely sure about this?Originally posted by VanderL@Sep 28 2004, 09:54 AM
Don't you agree that we should make it an absolute certainty that redshift is indeed a distance indicator before building a cosmology on this assumption?
Certainly there is a lot of evidence that supports the cosmological red-shift is closely related to distance. The observations of type 1a supernova do not provide an exception to this idea, and they are being pretty carefully studied right now. Other less precise observations support it too. There is a redshift beyond which individual stars can't be observed in galaxies that is fairly constant for any given telescope. Have you ever seen an image of a nearby z=6 galaxy?
Right now redshift as distance is working pretty well. If, in thirty years, we discover through parallax measurements that low redshift [nearby] clusters don't show this correlation, then we still have all of our observations, and can rework cosmology. If that happens, it will be an exciting time.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
Don't you agree that we should make it an absolute certainty that redshift is indeed a distance indicator before building a cosmology on this assumption?
Why do you presume that the one assumption of redshift as a distance indicator is the only piece of evidence supporting current cosmological theory? There are others, and together make a very strong case.
Established Member
Well, there are exceptions being proposed right now (actually for the last 30 years or so), what I would like to see is that these exceptions are studied and addressed by every astronomer (for or against BB is not important) to make sure that these examples can be proven to support (or at least not falsify) the current model.Certainly there is a lot of evidence that supports the cosmological red-shift is closely related to distance. The observations of type 1a supernova do not provide an exception to this idea, and they are being pretty carefully studied right now. Other less precise observations support it too. There is a redshift beyond which individual stars can't be observed in galaxies that is fairly constant for any given telescope. Have you ever seen an image of a nearby z=6 galaxy?
Right now redshift as distance is working pretty well. If, in thirty years, we discover through parallax measurements that low redshift [nearby] clusters don't show this correlation, then we still have all of our observations, and can rework cosmology. If that happens, it will be an exciting time.
We don't need the precision you seem to think is only possible in the future, we have the opportunity right now.
And Q, I didn't say that redshift=distance is the only piece of evidence supporting a Big Bang, but certainly it is the most important and, imo, it is the one most easily addressed. All we need is telescope time. My guess is that if redshift can be intrinsic to certain objects, all of BB cosmology will have to be
changed.
And remember that time dilation in supernovae light curves is being contested right now (Jenson), quasars do not show any evidence of time dilation (Hawkins), we see mature galaxies in the HUDF image, and other things don't add up either (dark matter, dark energy). There is every reason the research our basic assumption that lead to the BB cosmology.
Cheers.
Established Member
My guess is that if redshift can be intrinsic to certain objects, all of BB cosmology will have to be changed.
Perhaps, but it's not likely to change in regards to redshift, that has already been demonstrated to be correct - in fact, the math is really not that hard. That is why the other "Pillars" of cosmology are being challenged instead.
And remember that time dilation in supernovae light curves is being contested right now (Jenson)
It WAS contested and found that Jensen made critical errors in his observations of those HST photos.
quasars do not show any evidence of time dilation (Hawkins)
Again, critical errors on Hawkins part. Time dilation may be "masked" by internal or external sources but it is still measured.
we see mature galaxies in the HUDF image, and other things don't add up either (dark matter, dark energy)
Why don't they add up?
There is every reason the research our basic assumption that lead to the BB cosmology.
The research has been and is continuing to be done with more results supporting BB theory all the time.
You, and those who follow Arp, Hawkins, Jensen, et. al. have to show otherwise. So far, that has not been accomplished to any degree.
Administrator
If there are some small rare objects [not whole galaxies] for which there is an 'intrinsic red shift' a la Arp et. al. , that wouldn't explain the nice smooth relationship we see for redshift and distance with nearby galaxies for which reasonably accurate distances have been determined via other mechanisms, such as Cepheids, Largest Red Giants, Supernova light echos, etc. You'd have to say ALL objects have an intrinsic redshift, and somehow whole galaxies of objects get the same intrinsic shift. That's tough to claim without using a tired light theory such as Plasma or CREIL [in which case it's not intrinsic to the object].Originally posted by VanderL@Sep 28 2004, 03:32 PM
if redshift can be intrinsic to certain objects, all of BB cosmology will have to be changed.
This one should be resolved soon. Jensen's claim of the Malmquist Type II Bias has motivated some researchers to be more thorough here. In the worst case, we'll have to wait for the 30 Meter telescopes to be online in about ten years. Proven time dilation in type 1A supernovae will shut down many classes of alternative cosmology, or if proven not to exist will turn cosmology on its ear.remember that time dilation in supernovae light curves is being contested right now (Jenson)
That's a hard one since it is talking about things that are 1. very different from each other, and 2. probably evolved substantially since the early universe [where are the close ones?] I'll keep my eye open for any new research refuting or explaining this claim, but it isn't there yet.quasars do not show any evidence of time dilation (Hawkins)
After about z=5.5 there should be mature galaxies.we see mature galaxies in the HUDF image
I have no problem with dark matter. I feel comfortable that the dark matter halos around galaxies will prove that it exists. As to dark energy, I have to wait and see, but I don't object to it.other things don't add up either (dark matter, dark energy)
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
Ok,
That's a lot of points to respond to, first I’ll respond to Q’s post:
No matter which math is easy, if redshift is not a distance indicator (as shown by Arp, and I'm only asking for either confirmation or refutation by observational evidence) the whole BB model disappears, or is there a possibility that BB is correct even when redshift is not a distance indicator?
What I would like to see is that mainstream astronomers take the time to really address this issue by showing there really are no connections between high- and low redshift objects. Why would only Arp have to show this, it is in the interest of astronomy in general to get to the bottom of this.
Can you point me to information on Jenson’s mistakes?
And Hawkins’ mistakes too?
Thanks.
Antoniseb,
If redshift is shown to be something intrinsic to the object (I think Plasma effects and Creil should also be considered "intrinsic"), the other methods will become less important, they show a lot of scatter already, and there is a certain distance before the redshift relation enters the socalled "Hubble flow".
Dark Matter is another issue, the observations that lead to the idea of Dark Matter are solid, but other then a lot of hypothetical particles, there is no indication that it will be found soon. That does’t mean we shouldn’t search for it, but we should also take time (and money, I think the original complaint in the Letter) to look at alternatives.
Cheers.
Established Member
No matter which math is easy, if redshift is not a distance indicator(as shown by Arp,
Redshift IS the distance indicator - Arp failed to show otherwise.
What I would like to see is that mainstream astronomers take the time to really address this issue by showing there really are no connections between high- and low redshift objects.
Why bother? It is a moot point.
Can you point me to information on Jenson’s mistakes?
And Hawkins’ mistakes too?
Simply read their papers, you'll find the flaws easily enough. If you can't find their papers, I'll see if I can get them for you. btw - It is Jensen, not Jenson.
Established Member
Hi Q,
I did, and I didn't find the flaws, could you be more specific?Can you point me to information on Jenson’s mistakes?
And Hawkins’ mistakes too?
Simply read their papers, you'll find the flaws easily enough. If you can't find their papers, I'll see if I can get them for you. btw - It is Jensen, not Jenson.
Correct, it is Jerry W. Jensen.
If this issue is moot, then why are so many people still arguing the case (Bell, Russell, Burbidge, Arp and others) they did come up with specific examples and publications. I haven't seen any response to their work (other than "chance projections" voiced in forum discussions) that address the issue.
Are there any places I can look for what is wrong with the observations?
Cheers.
Banned
Mistakes, Hawkins, no, sure'ly not...
Big whimper is better lodgic than big bang. On going, eternal, infinite, for ever, for all time, no biginning, no end just more of the same for ever and all ways, infanitum. Am I the only person that see's so clearly ?..... whats the problem ? Why is it so hard to exept infinity ? Any other conclousion is nieve and verging on religiouse. Utter nonsence. Am I alone ? :unsure:
Administrator
I couldn't tell what you were arguing for here. Are you saying that you hope the big bang is wrong, and that the Universe has existed forever and is infinite in expanse?Originally posted by astromark@Sep 29 2004, 12:33 PM
Am I alone ?
Forming opinions as we speak
Member
astromark...if you're saying the universe is truly infinite in time and size then there are a few problems. That's similar to Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. He had to accept (because of observational evidence) that the universe is expanding so he proposed that matter in the form of hydrogen atoms was continuously and spontaneously created (by some unknown process) to keep the average density of the universe constant. This hydrogen eventually formed new stars and galaxies to keep the universe looking the same at all times. But this begs the question of how something that's infinite in size can have been expanding for an infinite time.
The discovery of the cosmic background radiation ended the Steady State theory because it couldn't account for this.
True infinities of time and space would seem to be an impossibility.
Member
Infinity in time, space or in the big bang universe beginning distorts everything.
In Savov's theory of interaction everything is always finite, made of finite
3d-spirally oscillating elements that synchronize to unfold, to eject smaller ones
from the cores.
The fundamental problem of modern science is to remove the appearance of infinity.
Banned
It pleases me to see a responce to my rantings...
Its just a thought that all of everything. The whole of all the universe. Just wont be that simple as to have come from a single point in time and space. Its like a faith, I may not have the proof, but I wont stop looking untill I can see the facts more clearly. Its my view that there must be more material in the universe, as yet undetected. and that some day we may find its not from the same big bang as us. These thoughts are becomming a logic as yet unproven... "Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evadance of things unseen." Yet. and thankyou for your responces.
Administrator
One reason they say we are entering the new Golden Age of astronomy is that every few years now, we are building vastly more capable insturments, capable of observing things that could never have been seen before.Originally posted by astromark@Oct 2 2004, 04:12 AM
I wont stop looking untill I can see the facts more clearly.
In ten years you'll be able to see much more clearly than you can now, but you won't stop looking because you'll know that in another ten, it will be clearer still, and so on for perhaps another century or more.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
In ten years you'll be able to see much more clearly than you can now, but you won't stop looking because you'll know that in another ten, it will be clearer still, and so on for perhaps another century or more.
[QUOTE][COLOR=blue]
As for the beginning of the universe you see no more than your faith.
Established Member
Two problems have been listed to disprove the steady-state theory.
Stephen Hawking outlines nine problems with big bang theory at his site.
I believe that redshift data interpretation is incorrect. The recent "acceleration", [yet another violation of the laws of motion, conservation] was not predicted by BB'ers, and should have sent up a flag.
According to Hubble and anyone with any sense, the redshift IS an indicator of distance. However, Hubble and others believed it was tied to a "tired light" phenomenon, which supports a steady-state theory.
Stead-state cannot exist in an expanding universe, but the universe is not expanding. For observational evidence look to deep space astronomy which shows 13 Billion years ago that that univers is no more dense, or hot, that it is today. Also seen are galaxies collapsing to form clusters, at a point when tha u was supposed to be expanding rapidly, and be very homogenious.
Hawking,Newton,Einstein, do/did not believe in a singularity.
Michelson believed in aether. He was crushed when he seemed to disprove, and not prove, that light travels RELATIVE to the aether that all classical physicists believed in. He even went to a mountaintop with his instrument hoping to get a different result.
Sadly, a logical fallacy made people believe that if light does not move relative to the medium, then it doesn't exist. We do not know by any proven theory that this is necessarily required.
The CMBR was predicted to be 30 K by big bang theorists. Eddington, previously in 1926, predicted the heat of space to be 3 K.[3 K is correct]
Mant BB'ers explain the CMBR by "expansion". The universe expands like a painting, with the photons stretching with the canvas[ yet no other particles "stretch".]
I only post in "alternative theory" to avoid the big bang theory believers who claim some kind of trademark on truth, science, reality, intellect, and flame others with alternative ideas. I feel the category is what gives me the right to theorize.
Live and let live. Peace to all.
So how do you make out the beginning of the universe?
Established Member
All hope abandon, ye who rail at the gates of Paradigm. They are guarded by two dragons most fierce. The first hight Consensus. His cry is "The talking heads quote each other, and are comforted!" The most dread hight Cognitive Dissonance, whose cry be "This has cost so much it MUST be worth it!" Be pure of intent, and if thy mind be open but not empty, thou mightest yet win the day.
Established Member
Haha, great stuff, worthy to be chiseled in stone.All hope abandon, ye who rail at the gates of Paradigm. They are guarded by two dragons most fierce. The first hight Consensus. His cry is "The talking heads quote each other, and are comforted!" The most dread hight Cognitive Dissonance, whose cry be "This has cost so much it MUST be worth it!" Be pure of intent, and if thy mind be open but not empty, thou mightest yet win the day.
Thanks Steve,
Cheers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote