Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins

[VanderL]

The main point of misinformation I was speaking of is this thread's title.

You sure made it "sound" as if you meant my posts specifically.

There is no such "mass exodus" - not even the beginnings of one. And some weird finding with respect to a single quasar 10 billion lightyears away is unlikely to change that.

You may be right that there is no mass exodus (as most posters already acknowledged), but don't try to downplay the importance of this quasar as "some weird finding". This is serious science, if you fail to acknowledge that, there is no point in discussing any further.
Every change always starts with single observation, but don't forget to include the other points; this thread isn't just about this quasar, which btw is only weird because BBT insists the Universe is 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years old. It's BBT that painted itself into this corner. But rest assured, some sharp stick will undoubtedly find a way to convince everyone that metallicity is a bad age indicator, or maybe these quasars have such powerful black holes that a large part of it's redshift is gravitational, or maybe, as the authors of the paper suggest, the parameters do need substantial adjusting.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

But rest assured, some sharp stick will undoubtedly find a way to convince everyone that metallicity is a bad age indicator, or maybe these quasars have such powerful black holes that a large part of it's redshift is gravitational, or maybe, as the authors of the paper suggest, the parameters do need substantial adjusting.

I don't think that there will be a claim that a substantial portion of the red-shift is gravitational. The lines are created by features well away from the central black hole.

I do think that metalicity has been very badly applied as an age indicator here. The light from this quasar is coming from the place in the galaxy where there should have already been many giant stars and supernovas BEFORE the quasar starts jetting photons our way.

Side note, the title of the thread was created by WINSTON, who has indicated that he was trying to provoke discussion. VanderL is a very thoughtful protagonist for pretty much all alternative theories, but a believer of none.

[Duane]

VanderL is a very thoughtful protagonist for pretty much all alternative theories, but a believer of none.

Well put antoniseb.

[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.

[dgruss23]

Quite the essay there, dgruss, over basically a non-issue. The main point of misinformation I was speaking of is this thread's title. There is no such "mass exodus" - not even the beginnings of one. And some weird finding with respect to a single quasar 10 billion lightyears away is unlikely to change that.

Your statement about misinformation was in specific response to my statement that if you think VanderL is overstating the case that is your issue with him. You gave no indication that you were switching from the specific reference to VanderL to the general of this thread's title.

But I agree that there is no mass exodus from the Big Bang. Nor should there be until there is clear observational evidence that the theory is untenable.

You're also right that this quasar would not be a reason to abandon the Big Bang. But if the age holds it will require a modification of dark energy of concordance model parameters.

[Mr. Peabody]

If there was a mass exodus from BB in progress, it wouldn't be the beginning, it would be the near-end.

Everything must have a start.

More that 50% of amateur physics buffs , and many physicists dismiss Big Bang metatheory.

Stephen Hawking [one of the BB creators] is trying to distance himself from it.

The Journal of the Scientific American article called for a new cosmological model, causing the Crisis in Cosmology Conference.

I'd say that qualifies as a start.

[Nereid]

Welcome to BAUT Mr. Peabody!

More that 50% of amateur physics buffs

Did you determine this statistic yourself? If so, how (if I may ask)?
If not, where did you get it from?

Stephen Hawking [one of the BB creators] is trying to distance himself from it.

What leads you to state that Hawking is "one of the BB creators"?
How do you know that he "is trying to distance himself from it"?

The Journal of the Scientific American article called for a new cosmological model,

which article was this (issue, date; author)?

causing the Crisis in Cosmology Conference.

How did you arrive at this causal connection?

[Cougar]

More that 50% of amateur physics buffs... dismiss Big Bang metatheory.

Where do you get this statistic? And even if this claim is correct, which I doubt, I kind of question the ultimate value of the opinions of "amateur physics buffs." On the other hand, I do place some value in a survey of scientists who have paid their dues and earned PhDs in their fields.

...and many physicists dismiss Big Bang metatheory.

Many? Care to be a little more specific?

I'd say that qualifies as a start.

Whatever. Sorry to go off on your first post there, Mr. Pea. Welcome to the new improved BAUT Forum.

[antoniseb]

How did you arrive at this causal connection?

Thanks Nereid. Mr. Peabody jumped right in, but perhaps assumed that this forum was populated by people with the same level of interest in astronomy as he meets at work (or school).

Mr. Peabody, everything you've said here is provocative, and none is backed up with pointers to what you're talking about. It would be nice if you can provide these pointers. But even if you can't, you are welcome on this forum as long as you are nice to everyone. This first gaff will be quickly forgotten.

[crosscountry]

[VanderL]

VanderL is a very thoughtful protagonist for pretty much all alternative theories, but a believer of none.

That's not quite true (actually not even very), I am searching for theories that contain truth and still make sense, I pretty much gave up on BBT, but I haven't seen any real alternatives that can fill this void (yet, plasma cosmology coming closest).

Cheers.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I don't think that there will be a claim that a substantial portion of the red-shift is gravitational. The lines are created by features well away from the central black hole.

How do we know that?

[Nereid]

How do we know that?

Because they're narrow!

EM coming from sufficiently deep inside a gravitational well as to be substantially redshifted will be coming from matter that is on a one-way trip out of our universe, either quickly (essentially free-fall into the SMBH) or not so quickly (i.e. in the accretion disk)*.

Either way, our line of sight will traverse hot gas (so the lines will be broad), excited atoms in turbulent motion (so the lines will be broad), excited atoms travelling a wide range of speeds wrt us (so the lines will be broad), or excited atoms at a range of depths in the well (so the lines will be broad), or some combination of these three (so the ... you get the idea).

*while it's true there is some matter on its way out (in the jets), we don't observe lines from jets.

[Tim Thompson]

The redshifts of quasars cannot be gravitational, that has already been settled. See Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei - An Introduction, Ajit K. Kembhavi & Jayant V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 1999. The discussion is in section 1.3.2, pages 6-7.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Because they're narrow!

EM coming from sufficiently deep inside a gravitational well as to be substantially redshifted will be coming from matter that is on a one-way trip out of our universe, either quickly (essentially free-fall into the SMBH) or not so quickly (i.e. in the accretion disk)*.

Either way, our line of sight will traverse hot gas (so the lines will be broad), excited atoms in turbulent motion (so the lines will be broad), excited atoms travelling a wide range of speeds wrt us (so the lines will be broad), or excited atoms at a range of depths in the well (so the lines will be broad), or some combination of these three (so the ... you get the idea).

*while it's true there is some matter on its way out (in the jets), we don't observe lines from jets.

Thanks Nereid, that makes sense.

Is the situation where there wouldn't be this in-rushing matter completely unthinkable? So that there would be just the layer of matter emitting the light, but there wouldn't be the layer of matter causing lines to broaden.

[Nereid]

Thanks Nereid, that makes sense.

Is the situation where there wouldn't be this in-rushing matter completely unthinkable? So that there would be just the layer of matter emitting the light, but there wouldn't be the layer of matter causing lines to broaden.

The short answer is "NO!"

An easy way to see this is to start with the question "how strong must the gravity be, for us to observe gravitationally redshifted lines?" You take your formula, and re-arrange it so 'local value of g' is on the LHS, and 'z' is somewhere on the RHS. You then ask, "what form must matter be in order to be stable, and static, with a given 'local g'?" A surface, if you will. As you want to have a decent redshift, you want 'local g' to be as high as possible - a neutron star! What is the 'local g' of an NS?

That rules out stable, static solutions.

Next, try unstable ones. A key question would be "Forget about how it forms, create a configuration that gives narrow lines in a deep well; how long would it last?"

Last, try dynamic ones.

[Ari Jokimaki]

The short answer is "NO!"

Considering how my question was laid out, I think you mean "YES!".
Well, ok, we're thinking about the situation, so perhaps it is not unthinkable.

An easy way to see this is to start with the question "how strong must the gravity be, for us to observe gravitationally redshifted lines?" You take your formula, and re-arrange it so 'local value of g' is on the LHS, and 'z' is somewhere on the RHS. You then ask, "what form must matter be in order to be stable, and static, with a given 'local g'?" A surface, if you will. As you want to have a decent redshift, you want 'local g' to be as high as possible - a neutron star! What is the 'local g' of an NS?

That rules out stable, static solutions.

Actually, I was thinking about a black hole. It has been said that time freezes at event horizon from outside observer's perspective, so when matter falls in the black hole, it appears to stop at event horizon. To me it seems that over sufficient amount of time this would create a quite dense layer of matter that would indeed resemble a "surface". And if the amount of matter falling in wouldn't be very big, you might have direct line of sight to this dense layer of time-frozen matter (or rather to the matter that is getting very close to be frozen in time). Situation would also be stable, I think.

Furthermore, time slowing down should cause redshifting, because things happen more slowly (from our perspective). This should help the situation, because you would have two mechanisms (gravitational and time slowing down) contributing to the overall redshift, so we perhaps would manage with slightly smaller 'local g' than in your neutron star case.

But, as we have seen host galaxies around quasars, there probably is quite big amount of matter falling in, so I don't think this suggestion of mine is very likely.

[Nereid]

The short answer is "NO!"

Considering how my question was laid out, I think you mean "YES!".
Well, ok, we're thinking about the situation, so perhaps it is not unthinkable.

Thanks for this. You're right - we can think of ways in which narrow lines from something in a deep well might be observed. I'm right - nothing I can think of matches what is well-observed.

Actually, I was thinking about a black hole. It has been said that time freezes at event horizon from outside observer's perspective, so when matter falls in the black hole, it appears to stop at event horizon.

Except, of course, that you can't 'see' it!

To me it seems that over sufficient amount of time this would create a quite dense layer of matter that would indeed resemble a "surface". And if the amount of matter falling in wouldn't be very big, you might have direct line of sight to this dense layer of time-frozen matter (or rather to the matter that is getting very close to be frozen in time).

Then there's all the matter that's just 'above' this 'dense layer', and that 'above' this, .... The 'deepest' layers would the 'darkest', and you'd get line broadening (you'd have to do the detailed calculations to see how much etc).

Situation would also be stable, I think.

Possibly. But wouldn't the lines, in the rest frame of the falling matter, be very much broadened? After all, getting that close to the event horizon, all kinds of exciting interactions would be taking place, no?

Furthermore, time slowing down should cause redshifting, because things happen more slowly (from our perspective). This should help the situation, because you would have two mechanisms (gravitational and time slowing down) contributing to the overall redshift, so we perhaps would manage with slightly smaller 'local g' than in your neutron star case.

Without crunching the numbers, I could say for sure. However, I rather doubt it (and it still doesn't avoid lots of line broadening mechanisms).

But, as we have seen host galaxies around quasars, there probably is quite big amount of matter falling in, so I don't think this suggestion of mine is very likely.

D'accord.

[Ari Jokimaki]

You're right - we can think of ways in which narrow lines from something in a deep well might be observed. I'm right - nothing I can think of matches what is well-observed.

Heh, we both get to be right, that's nice.

Except, of course, that you can't 'see' it!

Well, I don't mean that point of emission would be the event horizon, I mean something slightly outside the event horizon where you can still see the matter. My explanation was vague on this point, sorry.

Then there's all the matter that's just 'above' this 'dense layer', and that 'above' this, .... The 'deepest' layers would the 'darkest', and you'd get line broadening (you'd have to do the detailed calculations to see how much etc).

Yes, you are probably correct. But of course, radiation from deepest layers would be blocked by the layers above them, so it's a question if a clear surface, without much fog over it, would form or not. But I think I agree with you, it doesn't seem very likely scenario. And yes, it should be modelled mathematically to know for sure. That is unfortunately beyond my abilities (or at least it would take more time for me to do it than it seems to be worth investing, as it's a far fetched idea anyway).

But wouldn't the lines, in the rest frame of the falling matter, be very much broadened? After all, getting that close to the event horizon, all kinds of exciting interactions would be taking place, no?

I'll take your word for it, we're entering a territory where my already feeble knowledge starts to fade toward non-existence.

[VanderL]

You've got it a bit backwards. The observed rotation curves are data. Observables if you will. It turns out that the observed curves are not consistent with the amount of matter in a galaxy based on the number of stars, nebulae, etc (the "bright" matter to coin a term). So you're left with a couple of basic options.

1) There is matter in galaxies, and the universe that does not emit EM radiation in the observable bands. Let's call it "dark matter." We don't know its properties yet, but it must exist if General Relativity and other theories in the standard models are correct.

2) The current theories are wrong and the "anomalous" velocity distributions are evidence for a new force, for which there is no other evidence at this point in time.

You left out a few possibilities don't you think? EM-fields can also accelerate and condense matter, the force may not be "new". And which bands of EM radiation are not observable?

So, what's a scientist to do?

Acknowledge that something fundamental is wrong

The first choice is number 1. The current theories are well supported by a vast number of other observations, so initially we assume they're correct and that there is some other missing or "dark" matter. It's a much more drastic choice to go for number two and assume that everything we know is wrong and go for a totally new theory. Unfortunately, that's the choice most ATM advocates prematurely go for.

You can call it prematurely, but how long must we accept this dark matter fudging before we call it a day?

Cheers.

[Nereid]

You left out a few possibilities don't you think? EM-fields can also accelerate and condense matter, the force may not be "new".

Hmm ... so you've developed a model, based on "EM-fields", which "accelerate[s] and condese[s] matter", and which accounts for the observed rotation curves?

Would you be so kind as to provide us with a link to the paper you published on this topic?

And which bands of EM radiation are not observable?

The main band is the EUV - blueward of the Lyman limit (except, of course, very locally, and in a few clearings, such as the Lockman hole). Neutral H is very good at absorbing UV at wavelengths of 90nm and lower. As the part of the MW galaxy we live in has a great deal of such neutral H (except in a few clearings), we can't 'see' very far in this band.

The other significant 'not observable' band is redward of ~1-10 kHz (in the low frequency radio band). This blindness arises from a well-known plasma phenomenon (I'm sure Ian can give you chapter and verse, in the offchance that you yourself aren't familiar with it).

However, if I may be so bold, what expectations do you have re significant amounts of matter (in the context of galaxy rotation curves) that might be 'unobservable'? Of course, given your oft-stated views, I am referring to baryonic matter.

So, what's a scientist to do?

Acknowledge that something fundamental is wrong

Why? I mean:
- there are no other indications that GR is 'wrong' (indeed, it has passed all the tests with flying colours)
- there are very good, non-astrophysical, reasons for considering the existence of 'dark matter' (from neutrinos, to the inescapable conclusion that the Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete, and many things in between)
- some form of non-baryonic matter is consistent with good observational results in other astrophysical domains.

The first choice is number 1. The current theories are well supported by a vast number of other observations, so initially we assume they're correct and that there is some other missing or "dark" matter. It's a much more drastic choice to go for number two and assume that everything we know is wrong and go for a totally new theory. Unfortunately, that's the choice most ATM advocates prematurely go for.

You can call it prematurely, but how long must we accept this dark matter fudging before we call it a day?

VanderL, we've been over this point dozens of times, both in this thread and others in UT and BA.

The short answer is, either
a. until the inconsistencies become quite intolerable
b. until a better alternative theory is produced
c. both the above.

You, an outside observer*, are fond of calling key aspects "fudging".

You, a self-professed supporter of alternative ideas, cannot defend even mild, tentative challenges to the alternatives you proclaim, much less the rigours of technical journal publication.

And that's OK; you are totally free to believe, proclaim, declare, ... whatever you wish.

However, if you wish to understand how the folk doing the real work in astrophysics and cosmology go about that work; to learn why 'dark matter' was introduced into astrophysics; even to see how modern astrophysics is a thoroughly scientific endeavour per the best work in HPS ... then, please, either engage in the discussion constructively, roll up your sleeves and start to lift the EU alternative out of its thirty-year quantitative drought, or find another forum more accommodating to your beliefs.**

*I freely admit that this statement is based on little data. If you have published in ApJ, PRL, AA, MNRAS, etc, please let us know; I will then - loudly - retract this statement.

**for avoidance of doubt, this is Nereid the BAUT member speaking; it is not, I repeat NOT, Nereid the BAUT moderator speaking.

[Mr. Peabody]

You, an outside observer*, are fond of calling key aspects "fudging".

Big bang models now use an ever increasing variety of free parameters to maintain consistency with various observational restraints. Related to origin and expansion alone, we now have the Hubble constant, the cosmological constant, the cosmic deceleration parameter, the density parameter, subdivided into the density for ordinary matter and that for invisible dark matter, and the bias parameter.

A recent survey gave the over 50% figure on amateurs dismissing BB, go to "30 problems with big bang".

Read a story about the CCConference and it should include a mention that it was created as a response to the Scientific American article.

OTHER FISH TO FRY:ENTROPY VS. BIG BANG

According to Entropy theory, all systems move to less order. This is an arguement against steady-state theory of infinite time, that all matter would cool to the same temperature......

In the early BB universe, there was very little order, exponentially LESS order than there is today.

How, after 13 Billion years of moving toward less order, do we end up with more order?

[VanderL]

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL
You left out a few possibilities don't you think? EM-fields can also accelerate and condense matter, the force may not be "new".
Hmm ... so you've developed a model, based on "EM-fields", which "accelerate[s] and condese[s] matter", and which accounts for the observed rotation curves?

Would you be so kind as to provide us with a link to the paper you published on this topic?
Quote:
And which bands of EM radiation are not observable?
The main band is the EUV - blueward of the Lyman limit (except, of course, very locally, and in a few clearings, such as the Lockman hole). Neutral H is very good at absorbing UV at wavelengths of 90nm and lower. As the part of the MW galaxy we live in has a great deal of such neutral H (except in a few clearings), we can't 'see' very far in this band.

The other significant 'not observable' band is redward of ~1-10 kHz (in the low frequency radio band). This blindness arises from a well-known plasma phenomenon (I'm sure Ian can give you chapter and verse, in the offchance that you yourself aren't familiar with it).

However, if I may be so bold, what expectations do you have re significant amounts of matter (in the context of galaxy rotation curves) that might be 'unobservable'? Of course, given your oft-stated views, I am referring to baryonic matter.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eta C
So, what's a scientist to do?
Acknowledge that something fundamental is wrong
Why? I mean:
- there are no other indications that GR is 'wrong' (indeed, it has passed all the tests with flying colours)
- there are very good, non-astrophysical, reasons for considering the existence of 'dark matter' (from neutrinos, to the inescapable conclusion that the Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete, and many things in between)
- some form of non-baryonic matter is consistent with good observational results in other astrophysical domains.
Quote:
Quote:
The first choice is number 1. The current theories are well supported by a vast number of other observations, so initially we assume they're correct and that there is some other missing or "dark" matter. It's a much more drastic choice to go for number two and assume that everything we know is wrong and go for a totally new theory. Unfortunately, that's the choice most ATM advocates prematurely go for.
You can call it prematurely, but how long must we accept this dark matter fudging before we call it a day?
VanderL, we've been over this point dozens of times, both in this thread and others in UT and BA.

The short answer is, either
a. until the inconsistencies become quite intolerable
b. until a better alternative theory is produced
c. both the above.

You, an outside observer*, are fond of calling key aspects "fudging".

You, a self-professed supporter of alternative ideas, cannot defend even mild, tentative challenges to the alternatives you proclaim, much less the rigours of technical journal publication.

And that's OK; you are totally free to believe, proclaim, declare, ... whatever you wish.

However, if you wish to understand how the folk doing the real work in astrophysics and cosmology go about that work; to learn why 'dark matter' was introduced into astrophysics; even to see how modern astrophysics is a thoroughly scientific endeavour per the best work in HPS ... then, please, either engage in the discussion constructively, roll up your sleeves and start to lift the EU alternative out of its thirty-year quantitative drought, or find another forum more accommodating to your beliefs.**

*I freely admit that this statement is based on little data. If you have published in ApJ, PRL, AA, MNRAS, etc, please let us know; I will then - loudly - retract this statement.

**for avoidance of doubt, this is Nereid the BAUT member speaking; it is not, I repeat NOT, Nereid the BAUT moderator speaking.

Indeed we have been over this (though never in BA), but that doesn't change anything about the nature of the dark matter problem. Just like your supposedly superior knowledge and my supposedly unscientific approach. Just calling it dark matter is part of the problem, the first finding was best characterised as missing matter; the matter necessary to keep galaxies from flying apart under the "gravity only" assumption.

You might consider the fact that this matter has eluded detection (to infer it's existence is not detection, and it is certainly not proof) for over 70 years. It is clearly a failure, you and most astronomers argue it is a failure of "detecting", I and many others that do not assume that the basics of science are already known, argue that it is our lack of understanding the different forces in nature.

Some astronomers even acknowledge that dark matter as a concept is an embarrassment. What I fail to see (and won't accept) is that you and others in this forum always take the "high ground"; you try to explain that nothing is wrong, BBT is secure and that we should believe and accept what our great scientists (I consider myself also some sort of scientist, albeit not in astronomy) are producing all around us. I will not accept this call on authority, I want to see it myself, and this forum is exactly the place for these exchanges.

Inferring dark matter and accepting it as truth (and thus starting this wild goose chase) is an extension of the hubris underlying the assumption that we can understand the Universe from behind our desks without having to look at the "pictures". We rely on our formulae and sneer at people that base their views on images. A little more humility would be in place, acknowledging that we might have some of our fundamental assumptions wrong would be an acceptable stance. There is no shame in admitting there is a limit to our knowledge.

Dark matter is already used as a given in modelling lensing and many other aspects of cosmology. It is like building houses on poles in a swamp; you keep your feet dry until the poles have sunk too deep.

I readily agree that no other model has been worked out enough to replace BBT and I think it has everything to do with funding/manpower. Talking about these concepts is one thing, proving them correct is quite another. But don't assume that the layman who is unable to provide a worked-out model is unable to understand that dark matter is a possibly fatal observation for current theory.

And you should stop making these personal attacks, disguised as reasonable statements, you better explain why dark matter is anything but an assumption, you should provide the evidence why I shouldn't view this as a failure of the theory of gravity. Until dark matter (and in the same vein dark energy) is a proven reality there is enough reason to doubt BBT.

Cheers.

[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.

[cyrek1]

WINSTON, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

I see the complete demise of the BB in about 10 years when they see gigantic galaxies with redshifts of 10+.
This will be accomploshed when the Next Generation Space Telescope is launched in its projected date of 2011.
Right now, they see gigantic galaxies that with the Spitzer Telescope, are portrayed to have been formed about 2 billion years after the BB origin.

I may be an amateur cosmologist but I have studied the BB for more that 15 years and I cannot accept the idea of 'creation out of nothing' in violation of known laws of physics. There are other numerous problems as you mentioned above.

cyrek1

[dgruss23]

OTHER FISH TO FRY:ENTROPY VS. BIG BANG

According to Entropy theory, all systems move to less order. This is an arguement against steady-state theory of infinite time, that all matter would cool to the same temperature......

Not exactly - the second law of thermodynamics states that processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe.

Reactions that are non-spontaneous can be forced to occur with energy sources external to the system. For example the Earth's ecosystems (and life itself) are a massive system of non-spontaneous reactions - but those reactions take place because of the external energy input from the Sun. So there is no violation of entropy.

Since the universe is the entire system, within our universe the second law of thermodynamic would suggest we could expect an overall increase in entropy. But I'm not convinced that the second law of thermodynamics - which readily applies to chemical systems - can be applied to the universe as a whole - regardless of what model you choose to work with. Is the 2nd law a cosmological imperative in the BBT?

Certainly the gravitational and electromagnetic forces provide opportunities for the temperature of matter to increase. Or we wouldn't be here discussing this.

In the early BB universe, there was very little order, exponentially LESS order than there is today.

How, after 13 Billion years of moving toward less order, do we end up with more order?

Within the context of the Big Bang you could argue that in the initial state, the fact that the 4 forces of nature (gravity, em, strong and weak nuclear)were united - and then later split is a move from higher order (4 forces united) toward less order (4 forces split).

That's how entropy is described in chemical systems:

2KClO3 (s) --> 2KCl (s) + 3O2 (g)

This reaction represents and increase in entropy because the compound has split (and because gases are higher entropy than solids).

[dgruss23]

- some form of non-baryonic matter is consistent with good observational results in other astrophysical domains.

I'm not so sure about that- on galaxy scales CDM has serious problems because it is now well established that there is a coupling between the luminous and dark matter. This coupling is not an expected property of collisionless cold dark matter:

See Sancisi and Donato et al and Sellwood and McGaugh .

This coupling requires a lot of fine tuning if dark matter is collisionless CDM in order to explain the observed rotation curves of spiral galaxies and even relations such as the Tully-Fisher relationship.

In fact in the mid-80's when accurate rotation curves were becoming available for larger samples of spiral galaxies Bahcall and Casertano noted that:

The most striking feature of rotation curves is that there are no striking features. There is no overall change in the observed rotation curves that marks the transition between the inner region, in which visible material dominates the gravitational field, and the so-called halo region which is filled with unseen material or missing mass.

And they sum up the key observational results in the second paragraph of page L10.

[Cougar]

You left out a few possibilities don't you think? EM-fields can also accelerate and condense matter....

Oh, that's the theory you "like better"? Is this theory claiming that a long-range electromagnetic field is the thing that is keeping the galaxy from flying apart? I suppose such a thought should deserve consideration. So let's consider.... Apparently the spinning galaxy itself is thought to generate this field? But gee, it seems to be spinning awfully slowly. Humans have come to have a pretty good handle on practical electromagnetism. Is there any way you can show that this galactic action could "generate" such a strong EM field to be able to alter the orbits of very massive bodies? And not just alter. The effect must be huge. It's got to be 8 or 9 times the effect of gravity from all the stars and dust (and central black hole) that we know inhabit our galaxy. As Rocky Kolb says, "We find that the galaxy has a much larger mass than the sum of all the stars, dust, and other things we "see." The shortfall is not just a few percentage points, but most of the mass of our galaxy seems to have been left unaccounted."

So feel free to explain how big this field strength has to be and how such a massive EM field is generated throughout the galaxy and extending well outside its edges. I guess this is what Nereid means when he suggests that you "lift the EU alternative out of its thirty-year quantitative drought." And after you quantify how much EM we're talking about here, wouldn't we expect to be able to detect such a strong field even within our solar neighborhood?

Inferring dark matter and accepting it as truth...

Whoa, Vander. You're letting your rhetoric get a little carried away there. There is not that much that most scientists "accept as truth". And dark matter is certainly not one of those things. It is a contingent explanation.

We rely on our formulae and sneer at people that base their views on images.

Is that all you base your views on? Images are certainly helpful but are kind of static. Most scientists think more in terms of "models". Have people been sneering at you?

I readily agree that no other model has been worked out enough to replace BBT and I think it has everything to do with funding/manpower.

But you're just guessing on that, right? You really don't know that much about funding for science, do you? How many proposals did you submit to NSF over the last 5 years? Have you ever?

Big bang models now use an ever increasing variety of free parameters to maintain consistency with various observational restraints. Related to origin and expansion alone, we now have the Hubble constant...

Er, the Hubble constant is a measurement. It's not exactly a "free" parameter. It's a very difficult measurement to make, and only recently do we have a very accurate figure for it; nevertheless, it's not something we can juggle with. It is what it is. How ever redshift is conceived, the measurement remains.

A recent survey gave the over 50% figure on amateurs dismissing BB.

As I've asked before, this is supposed to mean what?

According to Entropy theory, all systems move to less order.

You really ought to give a little more credit to your textbooks and a little less to those evangelical websites. If you keep reading those textbooks, you will come to realize that you are making a misstatement and are showing a misunderstanding here.

[dgruss23]

Er, the Hubble constant is a measurement. It's not exactly a "free" parameter. It's a very difficult measurement to make, and only recently do we have a very accurate figure for it; nevertheless, it's not something we can juggle with. It is what it is. How ever redshift is conceived, the measurement remains.

Its both. There is the observationally determined value (H0=~72) which proponents of a strong effect from Malmquist bias (Sandage, Paturel et al) argue is too high. They claim that after correcting for Malmquist bias H0=58.

There are also the studies where the value of the Hubble constant can be a free parameter if other variables are observationally fixed. For example - this paper .

[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.