Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins

[imported_WINSTON]

About twenty years ago, I began arguing against the big bang theory. At the time I knew of noone else who did the same. I had always been cynical, believed that the big bang wouldn't be abandoned in my lifetime.

Arguing on the 'net at Forums I encoutered many who dug in to the Status Quo. There was no reason to disbelieve this big bang theory that's so widely accepted if not proven....

PLAY IT SAFE

If you accept the majority theory and you are wrong, not so bad. If you believe the minority view and are correct, that's OK. But to take a minority stance and take the chance of being wrong, that's frightenIng to some people.

Never go out on a limb, advance any theory that would change anything.

Sadly, when the truth is not on the tree, you have to go out on a limb to find it...

TIME PASSES

On the internet I began to find sites that said many things that I have thought regarding problems with the big bang theory. This was very exciting to me.

FAST FORWARD

Momentum has shifted greatly. Support for big bang has decreased significantly. In one demographic,theorists who aren't employed as astronomers, Big Bang theory enjoys LESS THAN 50% support. A conference was scheduled to address the CRISIS in Cosmology.

Every day advanced research in labs is causing big bang theorists to report observational evidence contrary to BB theory.

BEST TIME TO ABANDON BIG BANG THEORY?

As trends demonstrate year to year, more people, ordinary and profesional, are rejecting the big bang. This comfortable status quo theoretical position is far less comfortable now.

You are no longer in Kansas......

What are status quo theorists going to clutch on to when big bang is the MINORITY opinion? To be in the minority and to be wrong is the worst possible fate, isn't it?

BOTTOM OF THE CLASS

If 90% of the public accepts steady-state theory before you do, that puts you in the bottom 10% of the class, a straggler coming in last at the finish line.

[jimD]

[QUOTE] I had an epiphany fifteen years ago, and came up with a unique theory that the entire Universe is composed of but one type of particle. My cynicism says this will problably not resolve in my lifetime.......

I don't know whether what I want to say here is particularly relevant to WINSTON'S general hypothesis, but here goes.
Let us ponder whether the universe might be derived from one type of particle. Well, it might, since at time delta t the universe was exceedingly small. This seems to preclude more than one particle existing at t = 0. So, complementary particles were generated at delta t, or at sometime later.
At t =0 it is hypothesized that there was no universe. If that is the case, then the expansion of zero is zero.
Can somebody help me out? - Jim.

[biknewb]

Sorry JimEJD, can't help you.

The idea that some zero banged into our universe is something I still can't understand. Lucky for me, I don't have to.

regards

[damienpaul]

do I sense an anti-BB flooding?? this seems to be the 3rd thread based on this!

The cliches! The cliches!!

[Nereid]

Would anyone like to give WINSTON a Baez crackpot rating?

I [...] came up with a unique theory that the entire U is composed of but one type of particle

In which peer-reviewed physics journal can we read the details of your idea WINSTON?

[nutant gene 71]

Would anyone like to give WINSTON a Baez crackpot rating?

In which peer-reviewed physics journal can we read the details of your idea WINSTON?

With all due respect Moderator, I have explored the possibilities of getting peer review status on papers, just to have them listed in a reputable site for others to see, such as Physics Archives, through Harvard or Cornell, for example, or any site where your paper may be looked at, and the chances of getting that done are dim. First you need an "enthusiastic" endorsement from someone already recognized in the field on which you are writing. Without such endorsement, you are not given the approval to list your paper. Solicitations for "endorsements" on any idea that conflicts with BB and mainstream cosmology, in my experienced opinion, will meet with either rejection or silence. This leaves only the "crackpot" sites to list your papers, which in itself is okay if it's a respected crackpot site, i.e., against the mainstream, but falls short of "In which peer-reviewed physics journal can we read...", since that avenue by and large is closed to non-professionals in the field.

What's the other option? Get a Ph.D. in your field, and then publish surreptitiously and cautiously until your "alternative" ideas start getting respect, but expect to be deep fried first. The other option is simply to self-publish, like the guy who wrote Celestine Prophecy, and hope to be discovered and make it big. But getting peer-reviewed is not in and of itself a criterion for legitimacy to question what has become an increasingly unlikely-to-survive-much-longer idea, the Big Bang Theory. Let it RIP.

[Nereid]

Would anyone like to give WINSTON a Baez crackpot rating?

In which peer-reviewed physics journal can we read the details of your idea WINSTON?

With all due respect Moderator, I have explored the possibilities of getting peer review status on papers, just to have them listed in a reputable site for others to see, such as Physics Archives, through Harvard or Cornell, for example, or any site where your paper may be looked at, and the chances of getting that done are dim. First you need an "enthusiastic" endorsement from someone already recognized in the field on which you are writing. Without such endorsement, you are not given the approval to list your paper. Solicitations for "endorsements" on any idea that conflicts with BB and mainstream cosmology, in my experienced opinion, will meet with either rejection or silence. This leaves only the "crackpot" sites to list your papers, which in itself is okay if it's a respected crackpot site, i.e., against the mainstream, but falls short of "In which peer-reviewed physics journal can we read...", since that avenue by and large is closed to non-professionals in the field.

What's the other option? Get a Ph.D. in your field, and then publish surreptitiously and cautiously until your "alternative" ideas start getting respect, but expect to be deep fried first. The other option is simply to self-publish, like the guy who wrote Celestine Prophecy, and hope to be discovered and make it big. But getting peer-reviewed is not in and of itself a criterion for legitimacy to question what has become an increasingly unlikely-to-survive-much-longer idea, the Big Bang Theory. Let it RIP.

First, the post that you cite nutant gene 71, was made before Fraser approached me about being a moderator, on UT (just for the record).

Your comments about the difficulty of getting independent research published are not unique. Rather than address this here, I have started a thread, in BAUT's Q&A, on getting independent research published. I invite you to join that.

[nutant gene 71]

First, the post that you cite nutant gene 71, was made before Fraser approached me about being a moderator, on UT (just for the record).

Your comments about the difficulty of getting independent research published are not unique. Rather than address this here, I have started a thread, in BAUT's Q&A, on getting independent research published. I invite you to join that.

Thanks Nereid! I'll go and check it out, good resource. Not that my ideas are necessarily Earthshakingly brilliant, but I have reason to think the universally constant Newton's G may not be. We've had some very lively debates on BABB regarding the Pioneers Anomaly and possible variable G "proportional" and its equivalence effect on "variable mass". Appreciate it, would be nice to have some real opinions on the math, if nothing else.

BTW, Apj rejected my paper on the Pioneers Anomaly, but didn't expect different.

Ivan

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Apr 15 2005, 01:30 PM
do I sense an anti-BB flooding?? this seems to be the 3rd thread based on this!

Winston seems to have free time on his hands. I agree that he is flooding the forum with too many threads on basically the same subject. The result here will be that one of them will continue, and the others will probably not get much response, and the responses will be a little unfocussed because of doubt as to which thread to post in.

At the moment, the other anti-BB members haven't really chimed in in a big way, but that may change.

Likewise the attacks are rather broad, so the pro-BB members other than Nereid have said much, because it feels too much like writing a term paper. (Thanks Nereid&#33.

I suggest letting this be one of the threads that just withers away, since it is the least on-target for what the issues in cosmology today are.

[imported_WINSTON]

I apologize, the post was somewhat caustic (?&#33.

Still, BB scientists reach into the taxpayer's pocket every year for billions of dollars. They use this money to further big bang, and obscure other theoretical models.

The 30 problems with BB I offered were new(this year), not old news, as suggested by Antonioseb. The ten problems was old news.

Since the release, so many scientists offered more information that the list was expanded!

If the subject bores you, you shouldn't post here. If it is interesting then "30 problems with big bang" is the bible for those investigating big bang VS. other cosmological models. It's the best of the best and only uses scientific method.

I would have complained far less about the big bang if I didn't hear anyone argue against statements, observations, or theory based on their belief in:

1 bent space
2 wormholes
3 time speeding or slowing
4 titanic explosions
5 superstrings
6 acceleration /expansion
7 infinite something, such as mass......
8 dark energy
9 suspension of laws of physics for any epoch or area
10 space that doesn't exist beyond our U
11 alternate U's
12 emptiness of space

These are unproven, unobserved, and unnecessary by proven theory, even if you embrace them into your Cosmological Model.

I see a positive here, as the topic has been covered well.

Earlier post I made were sloppy, I hoped one last surge would clean it up, but I've worn out the topic.

I am OK with ending this discussion, or you can get the last word.

[crosscountry]

I apologize, the post was somewhat caustic (?!).

Still, BB scientists reach into the taxpayer's pocket every year for billions of dollars. They use this money to further big bang, and obscure other theoretical models.

maybe that money goes every year to proving you correct.

[Nereid]

Still, BB scientists reach into the taxpayer's pocket every year for billions of dollars. They use this money to further big bang, and obscure other theoretical models.

How would you propose (astrophysics) research money be spent? For example, you are the director of a leading observatory, and you have on your desk 250 applications for how (most of) the time your observatory can devote to astonomical observations should be used - how do you decide which (if any) of these gets your 'thumbs up'?

I would have complained far less about the big bang if I didn't hear anyone argue against statements, observations, or theory based on their belief in:

1 bent space
2 wormholes
3 time speeding or slowing
4 titanic explosions
5 superstrings
6 acceleration /expansion
7 infinite something, such as mass......
8 dark energy
9 suspension of laws of physics for any epoch or area
10 space that doesn't exist beyond our U
11 alternate U's
12 emptiness of space

These are unproven, unobserved, and unnecessary by proven theory, even if you embrace them into your Cosmological Model.

Well, you've said you don't want to take this further, but allow me to comment on them ('one liners' will do for now):
"1 bent space" - what do you mean??
"2 wormholes" - you're reading too much scifi; there are no such beasts in any currently accepted cosmological theories (that relate to observational data)
"3 time speeding or slowing" - do you have a GPS system? when you use it, does it work? Good, then you have concrete results that GR and SR 'work'
"4 titanic explosions" - huh?
"5 superstrings" - huh?
"6 acceleration /expansion" - I'll be happy to give you links to where the good observational results are published; if you have the time, please do us the courtesy of providing your own analyses which show something different
"7 infinite something, such as mass......" - not in anything I've read!
"8 dark energy" - yep, guilty; would you like to discuss the good observational results which lead some folk to conclude 'dark energy'? or perhaps provide an alternative 'explanation'?
"9 suspension of laws of physics for any epoch or area" - see my reply to you earlier today, elsewhere in UT
"10 space that doesn't exist beyond our U" - huh?
"11 alternate U's" - huh?
"12 emptiness of space" - huh?

[imported_WINSTON]

OKAY, one more post.

I'll just give one example of BB using bad science, the most recent.

Out of millions of theorists, not one BB theorist predicted dark energy or the acceleration of expansion.

Recent observational evidence show an increase in red-shift .

TWO possibilities ensue:

POSSIBILITY 1 This is only due to motion, therefore, acceleration.

This obviously violates Newton's laws of motion. To "get around " that, BBers invent a new form of energy[dark energy] that creates itself.

This violates conservation and the first law of thermodynamics.

This also defies mathematical probability that after 13.7 billion years, the Universe sudenly accelerates just within the extremely small range in time that we are able to measure it.

POSSIBILITY 2 There is another red-shift phenomenon at work.

Science has, one by one, found three more phenomenon that cause redshift. and there could be more of them. Since we don't completely understand matter and light, this possibility in no way is disproven.

The "dark energy" explanation is not a prediction of an observation, but another of twelve "exceptions", created after an observation, to prop up BB.

This is not scientific method at work.

WHAT IS MY ANSWER?

Lightspeed is based on density of medium. In support of #2, I would suggest space has an EM media[higgs boson] of varying density. As we approach the center of gravity for the local group of galaxies, this media should become thicker, slowing light, increasing redshift.

This requires no new particle [higgs boson is 40 now], no new energy, no rewriting of the laws of physics, no mathametical improbability.

OKAY NOW,SWITCH SIDES!

I think I am now the ultimate conventional theorist, uniting all prevailing theory before me.

You guys are the alternate theorists.

You are asking to rewrite every observed physical phenomenon. You are disagreeing with any and all known laws of physics.

You offer explanations that can mathematically be proven to be prohibitively improbable.

That's OK, this is ALTERNATE THEORY. Welcome to your DANTES INFERNO.

[damienpaul]

OKAY, one more post.

wow, never heard that before.....

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by WINSTON@Apr 18 2005, 07:31 PM
Not one BB theorist predicted acceleration of expansion.

That's not true. I "predicted" it (i.e. told my friends about it) back in 1993, as a explanation for the existence of globular clusters older than the oldest possible age of the universe based on current expansion rates (about 10 billion years). I do not work in a vacuum, and this idea came from somewhere else (though I don't recall where).

[JohnnyW]

Dear Winston,

Today, 18 April 2005 is the 50th anniversay of Einstein's passing away. I was five years old then.

I would like to hear more about your "single" particle theory. I assume you mean single KIND of particle, not one particle. It is human Hubris to assume the universe has a begining and end -- I've always been a steady state supporter and I question, not the data, but the INTERPRETATION of the data which drives the assumption of expansion. I believe in an infinite universe in which all objects are spinning off particles (a sort of expansion), but ultimately, every spun-off particle HITS something down the line (and creates the artifact known as gravity.)

I just reworked my home page in honor of Einstein's passing. If you have time you may wish to look at it and give me your reactions. To avoid a flood of protests about "adversting", I will send you the link in a private communication.

Unfortunately, my experience with this site is that a small clutch of vultures prefers to "dis" ideas with quips rather than actually critique indepth ideas (which may take a web site to expound). There are some good folks on this site but the nay-sayers are the loudest and quickest to respond... JohnnyW

[damienpaul]

vultures, or not really convinced

[dave_f]

I have problems with the Big Bang theory, but not to the extent that the original poster to this thread does apparently. WINSTON is using the ol' "scare 'em into submission" argumentation method, a popular method also used by the Electric Universe and Intelligent Design people. Fortunately that method is one of the least effective way to communicate ideas to people who oppose your view (in fact, it forces people into a defensive position which hardens their stance, not sways it).

So, I'd say unless WINSTON does some actual science and show the world *why* Big Bang Theory is wrong, nothing will overcome the "tyranny of scientists that actually perform research before stating their findings". Oh, the horror.

[mas_to]

I agree with you dave, we should proofed our theory by fact and maybe some calc based on fact, and attacking other theory will less effective

but we all free to speak our mind too, unless the moderator thinks your oppinion is dangerous

[damienpaul]

Yes, by name calling and as dave described as 'scare them into submission' tactics - you convince no one of your point of view.

We are not vultures, we are just simply are not convinced. I will continue to support the BB theory (not in its entirety) until I am convinced by DATA that it is not true.

[czeslaw]

There is need for Perpetum Mobile and Mystery. Big Bang is a mysterious appearance from nothing and goes selfdependent. People like it.

I do not think, we have to believe a creation from nothing. The eternity from our point of view may not began 14 billions years ago. It was a beginning of the baryonic matter transformed from a concentrated energy.

[JB007]

There are no dangerous opinions. The lack of understanding is dangerous.

Look at this site. It tells what the Big Bang really is.

http://www.cosmology.info/

[Nereid]

Originally posted by JB007@Apr 23 2005, 12:40 PM
There are no dangerous opinions. The lack of understanding is dangerous.

Look at this site. It tells what the Big Bang really is.

http://www.cosmology.info/

I read (some of) the material on that site - it didn't "tell [me] what the Big Bang really is", just that a bunch of folk are keen on getting together to form a community to explore cosmological models other than the Big Bang (oh, and also to act as a forum for critical observations etc that are inconsistent with the Big Bang).

[VanderL]

just that a bunch of folk are keen on getting together to form a community to explore cosmological models other than the Big Bang (oh, and also to act as a forum for critical observations etc that are inconsistent with the Big Bang).

Makes you wonder why that is, and why now? You would think that as more precision comes from the instruments, the cosmology model would become better and better.

Cheers.

[madman]

"You would think that as more precision comes from the instruments, the cosmology model would become better and better"

it is...and the prognosis is:

there is no discernable hierarchy relative to a big bang scenario.

and there is little more than the first billion light years of poorly studied space left to investigate and discover bb related hierarchy in.

bb theory still has a chance..but that possibility has grown slimmer in the last few years.

[JB007]

A theory that creates the universe from nothing like the bb has no chance.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by JB007@Apr 25 2005, 09:20 PM
A theory that creates the universe from nothing like the bb has no chance.

The big bang says nothing about what came before, and so while you can look at the expansion and say this implies it came from nothing, the fact is we see the universe expanding (hence the big bang), and yet do not claim to know what came before, and certainly do not claim that it came from nothing.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by JB007@Apr 25 2005, 09:20 PM
A theory that creates the universe from nothing like the bb has no chance.

To extend antoniseb's comments - would you mind telling us how you came to think that the Big Bang Theory (a.k.a. the concordance model in cosmology) contains the concept of 'create the universe from nothing'?

I've read this many, many times in posts here in UT, from many different posters, but am quite baffled as to how these posters came to this opinion. :blink:

[isferno]

Strange, how topics such as these inspire my creativity more then ockham's razor sharp reality.
Maybe a choice between Impricism or rationalism might change views. But in view of synthetic a priori, he's got a good point from which he started.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by isferno@Apr 26 2005, 12:35 AM
But in view of synthetic a priori, he's got a good point from which he started.

Hi Larry,

This sounds a little ambiguous, can you fill in the antecedents? Who is "he"?