Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins

[VanderL]

Oh, that's not true at all. Peer review is a disciplined filter, not an ultimate arbiter of truth.

Where did I claim that? Please don't put words in my mouth. You're setting up a "strawman" argument.

When numerous peer-reviewed papers start piling up, all pointing toward the same conclusion, particularly when they're coming at it from different angles, using independent methods, then you might start talking about what's really genuine.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that one single observation (like a quasar in front of a galaxy) can't overturn the interpretation of all those same conclusions from different angles, using independent methods. The final truth will probably never be known, too much depends on our ability to gather enough detail.

I'm pretty confident about the accelerating expansion, for example,

Nice to know, but that's not the point.

but I certainly wouldn't mind more indepedent verification.

Good attitude, always keep in mind that we're only as knowledgeable as our telescopes/tests allow us. No matter what we theorize, the ultimate tests are found either in the laboratory, or in observational data. That's why I am suspicious of the existence of dark matter until we find some kind of proof (not the result of calculations and theory).

Cheers.

[elerner]

You might be interested in the following exchange that I had with Ned Wright. The exchange was cc’d to several other prominent Big Bangers, including Lubin, who worked with Sandage on the Tolman test in ’01, Michael Turner, Sandra Faber, and James Peebles. None of them replied at all, and Wright did not reply to my second or third emails. Feel free to re-post this.
[Nereid: per Ned Wright's confirmation that he did NOT give Eric permission to post this to this forum, you, BAUT reader, are not free to so do]

Eric Lerner

Subject:
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
From:
Eric Lerner <elerner@igc.org>
Date:
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:16:15 -0400
To:

Dear colleagues,

I would be interested in any comments that you have on the attached paper.

Regards, Eric Lerner
surfacebrightness2.pdf

Subject:
Re: Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
[Nereid: content of private email deleted]

Subject:
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
From:
Eric Lerner <elerner@igc.org>
Date:
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:50:28 -0400
To:
Ned Wright
CC:

Ned,

Thanks for your quick response. But perhaps you read the paper a bit too hastily. The evolution argument is tested in section 3.1. The problem is that if you assume a FRW expansion, the at-galaxy UV surface brightness of the high-z galaxies exceeds that of ANY low-z galaxies, including very young ones, by as much as a factor of 40. Given dust absorption of UV radiation, which increases for young populations, it appears physically impossible for such high UV surface brightness galaxies to exist. This therefore rules out FRW expansion. If you want to preserve the FRW hypothesis, you have to find a flaw in this argument. What is it?

Also, it is curious that you now reject the Tolman test using galaxies, when Sandage and Lubin and very many others have long cited it as a key proof of the expansion. In particular, they used it to ”rule out” static universes, because the data supposedly conflicted with a constant surface brightness. But the data I present is exactly consistent with constant surface brightness. So, at the very least, you must admit that the Tolman test no longer “rules out” a static universe, right?

In addition, my results don’t just show that the surface brightness is different from the prediction of the FRW model. It is an extremely close fit to the static model. So, are you arguing that this close fit is just a coincidence, based on evolution exactly canceling out the (z+1)^3 factor? If so, then that coincidence will not recur at different redshifts, but is just a chance product, presumably, of the specific redshift samples that I chose. Do you think this is the case, and that other redshift ranges will show significant deviations from the constant SB prediction of the static universe? Perhaps you would like to make a small—or large--wager on whether this prediction will prove valid at all redshifts or not?

By the way, my address for Sandage bounces. I will appreciate it if you, or anyone else on the cc list, would please forward my orignal message, with the paper, to him.
Eric
Subject:
Re: Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
From:
Eric Lerner <elerner@igc.org>
Date:
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:30:40 -0400
To:
Ned Wright
CC:

Ned and colleagues,

Am I to expect an answer to my last email (repeated below, in case you overlooked it)? Or am I to conclude that you find these arguments unanswerable?

Eric

[VanderL]

Hi Eric,

Ned and colleagues,

Am I to expect an answer to my last email (repeated below, in case you overlooked it)? Or am I to conclude that you find these arguments unanswerable?

Eric

At least you have received one more response to your article than the question for comments got when I mentioned it in this thread. I fear that posting this here won't get you any more response, as it seems the BB proponents are mainly interested in "easy" targets. Then again, if the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed, maybe you'll get a "submit-it-to-a-respected-journal-first" reaction.

Cheers.

[Jerry]

Peer review is a disciplined filter, not an ultimate arbiter of truth. When numerous peer-reviewed papers start piling up, all pointing toward the same conclusion, particularly when they're coming at it from different angles, using independent methods, then you might start talking about what's really genuine. I'm pretty confident about the accelerating expansion, for example, but I certainly wouldn't mind more indepedent verification.

Careful. There is a definite bandwagon effect in cosmological circles, and a lot of free parameters floating around. This makes it easy to rachet concordances where they may or may not really exist.

There is also systemic bias: Whenever 'K' corrections and/or dust corrections are used, if there is an error in one of these assumptions, all bets are off when the same biasing error leads to similar, often evolutionary conclusions.

Eric's discussion with Ned is quite typical of the reaction those of us who are raising legitimate questions about observational trends that are contrary to theory. Ned told me my concerns about supernova data reduction are inconsequential because the science is in full agreement with WMAP results.

Shouldn't we all be concerned?

[akirabakabaka]

So what issues still remain outstanding, concerning observational evidence against the Big Bang?

1. lack of evidence for 'expanding space' independent of redshift interpretations
2. quasar-galaxy correlations, possible quantization (Arp, NGC4319)
3. deep field observations (HST, lack of galactic evolution over time)
4. WMAP and CMB analysis (Lerner et al?)
5. lack of evidence for Dark Matter (galactic rotation curves, Abell 1689, up for grabs)

Observational evidence supporting the Big Bang?

1. Redshift=distance Hubble relation (many anomalous nuiscances in otherwise compelling data, to be determined)
2. BB Nucleosynthesis (a reasonably supported prediction, to a limit)
3. time dilation of IA supernova light curves (why does this specifically support expansion, and not just verify what relativity tells us anyways?)
4. WMAP and CMB analysis (is in trouble?)

The next-gen of space telescopes can't come too quickly... (is it a good time to be an astronomer or what?)

[Nereid]

Nereid said,

"The BBT, therefore, is a set of scientific theories only after the Planck era."

Doesn't the BBT make the assumption of certain defined conditions during the 'Planck era'?

In a word "no".

However, we do need to keep in mind that there is not a single 'big bang theory', there are thousands of them. Tim Thompson's UT post on this is worth keeping handy every time the BBT is mentioned.

Caveat: those who are deep into the study of String-Theory/M-Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and (other) "Theories of Everything" may say their work is scientific, and they may say they can apply those theories to the Planck era.

[Nereid]

Per TomT's request, and as part of consolidating ATM threads which discuss PU/PC/EU/ES/..., I have split out some recent posts in this thread on the topic of Peratt's simulation of spiral galaxies using the PU/EU approach.

The new thread is Spiral Galaxies Without Dark Matter (though it should have 'Perrat' in the title somewhere, IMHO).

[VanderL]

Per TomT's request, and as part of consolidating ATM threads which discuss PU/PC/EU/ES/..., I have split out some recent posts in this thread on the topic of Peratt's simulation of spiral galaxies using the PU/EU approach.

The new thread is Spiral Galaxies Without Dark Matter (though it should have 'Perrat' in the title somewhere, IMHO).

I agree, that and/or Plasma cosmology.

Cheers.

[madman]

and a disclaimer for the unwary.

that one of the decriptors ie: "plasma universe"...is used by both mainstream and alternative theorists.

and so when the term "plasma universe" is used in the thread, it applies strictly to peratt et al.....not the "plasma universe" of mainstream...unless noted.

[Cougar]

So what issues still remain outstanding, concerning observational evidence against the Big Bang?

1. lack of evidence for 'expanding space' independent of redshift interpretations

Lack of evidence? There is evidence.

2. quasar-galaxy correlations, possible quantization (Arp, NGC4319)

This is the same point as 1.

3. deep field observations (HST, lack of galactic evolution over time)

Again, there is evidence for cosmic evolution. Ignoring it and chanting to yourself, "No evidence, no evidence" won't make it go away.

4. WMAP and CMB analysis (Lerner et al?)

WMAP and CMB analysis provide MAJOR observational support for the big bang model. Asserting the direct opposite of something known to be true is, like, the worst debate tactic I can think of.

Lerner, et al.? Who's the et al.?

5. lack of evidence for Dark Matter (galactic rotation curves, Abell 1689, up for grabs)

Again, there is such evidence. It's just not direct evidence.

[akirabakabaka]

Lack of evidence? There is evidence.

...but it almost all relies on redshift. On an old BABB thread I asked if anyone could come up with evidence for expansion that didn't rely on redshift, and it couldn't be done. I havn't seen it done in this thread either. Is there any other verifiable observation that supports expansion? (even time dilation in supernova is contentious, according to this thread)

Again, there is evidence for cosmic evolution. Ignoring it and chanting to yourself, "No evidence, no evidence" won't make it go away.

I've already asked if you could point me to any, but you havn't (here they are btw). I would of course argue that they are invalidated by their dependence on redshift, of which there is no exception (all distances > ~1bly depend on redshift). Speaking of ignoring, could you respond to this post or this one from the inflation thread? (a thread which has lost all focus and should continue here anyways)

WMAP and CMB analysis provide MAJOR observational support for the big bang model. Asserting the direct opposite of something known to be true is, like, the worst debate tactic I can think of.

Debate tactic? It was a summary of what has been said so far, I didn't even give an opinion in that post, not to mention I also cited it as evidence FOR the Big Bang (which you fail to mention). No need to always be so defensive.

Anyways, as shown in elerner's post above, the matter hardly seems resolved. I havn't read Eric's work, the 'et al' assumed he was not the only one around still questioning the WMAP data (which he is not).

[Quartermain]

I would of course argue that they are invalidated by their dependence on redshift

How is the evidence for cosmic evolution invalidated by redshift? If you're going to argue that redshift is not distant dependent but rather the result of other phenomina can you explain why redshift is so incredibly evenly spread throughout the universe? Surely the mass of the universe is not that evenly spread. Surely if the redshift were the result of tired light, gravity or other forces, We would expect to see redshift imbalances everwhere... concentrations.. dilutions.. yet we do not. You're demanding explainations and so here do I. EXPLAIN IT!

[akirabakabaka]

How is the evidence for cosmic evolution invalidated by redshift?

Sorry, 'invalidated' was a bit strong. I meant that any conclusions based on the assumption that redshift=distance are questionable. Regardless, we don't even have a valid working model of how galaxies are formed or how they evolve, so I am saying that any claims that the Hubble Deep Fields 'show galactic evolution' are not justified.

If you're going to argue that redshift is not distant dependent but rather the result of other phenomina can you explain why redshift is so incredibly evenly spread throughout the universe? Surely the mass of the universe is not that evenly spread.

What do you mean by 'evenly spread'?

Surely if the redshift were the result of tired light, gravity or other forces, We would expect to see redshift imbalances everwhere... concentrations.. dilutions.. yet we do not. You're demanding explainations and so here do I. EXPLAIN IT!

What if the redshift is intrinsic? That would mean objects similar in composition would also have similar redshifts. What if redshift is dependent on age, as proposed by Arp? Would this change the 'spread'?

There are plenty of anomalies in redshift data, several have been discussed in this thread. We can only accurately measure distance to objects < 1bly away (cosmic distance ladder), otherwise we rely on redshifts. How do we know the redshifts are 'evenly spread' if we can only verify them for 'local' objects? Quasars in particular tend to be anomalous. Another problem are interacting galaxies (therefore local to each other) which have vastly different redshifts.

[Cougar]

I meant that any conclusions based on the assumption that redshift=distance are questionable.

If you believe that the redshift-distance relation is an assumption, I don't know if there's anything that can be done for you. Observations over the past 70 years support this relation. More recent measurements of time dilation in Supernovae Ia continue to solidify this relation. If you want to ignore all this confirming evidence and base your personal belief on the odd book or article, I guess that's your decision, but perhaps you'll understand that arguing such a case becomes very tiring.

[akirabakabaka]

If you believe that the redshift-distance relation is an assumption, I don't know if there's anything that can be done for you. Observations over the past 70 years support this relation. More recent measurements of time dilation in Supernovae Ia continue to solidify this relation. If you want to ignore all this confirming evidence and base your personal belief on the odd book or article, I guess that's your decision, but perhaps you'll understand that arguing such a case becomes very tiring.

Except that you never argue it, you just kind of repeat the 'party line' of BBers and claim there's nothing to argue about.

But I agree, time dilation of supernovae is the only good support of the redshift=distance interpretation, and just looking at this thread shows that there is contention on that issue as well. Also, the supernovae in these studies are typically z~=0.5, right? You apparently don't mind applying the results to every object all the way to z=10 and back, but I doubt everyone will agree with you.

Do we have good observations of supernovae with z>1? I wonder to what distance that automated detector is reliable.

[Nereid]

There's only two options here, either his paper is the result of a good analysis based on acceptable data, passing the peer review and thus qualifying as a genuine result, or it is all hogwash, the analysis is poor, the conclusion overstated, in other words, not to be published. If you question the data or analysis, fine, show us what is wrong. If not this is a valid observation and should be treated accordingly.

As Cougar has already pointed out, there are many more 'options' than just the two you cite.

For example, the filters used to measure magnitude, at any given time, are fixed according to the zero redshift Earth, rather than the quite different redshifts of all the objects. Although Hawkins mentions that several bands were used, and provides a reference to a paper where the data reduction and error analysis are to be found (I've not read that paper), I rather doubt he could easily control for any such effect.

Another example is evolution; in the mainstream view, quasars changed quite a lot as the universe aged. Hawkins implicitly assumed that the intrinsic quasar variability is independent of the quasars' ages.

Finally, Hawkins did not - as far as I can see - attempt to what classes of variability models could be ruled out to what degree by his study.

What tests could be done to prove/disprove his result?

First, I'd like to re-iterate that, in science, one cannot 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As a long-time member to at least UT, I expect that you're familiar with why this is so, and could probably rephrase this in a way that's more in tune with what science is actually about.

Second, there are many, many approaches you could take to address the question of time-dilation in quasar variability, ranging from more of the same sort of data, data from different telescopes/detectors, taken over different periods, to analyses that put more rigourous statistical constraints on the results coming from such analyses, to estimating intrinsic variability from quasar models (i.e. SMBH + accretion disk + torii + jets + ...).

[Nereid]

1. lack of evidence for 'expanding space' independent of redshift interpretations

...but it almost all relies on redshift. On an old BABB thread I asked if anyone could come up with evidence for expansion that didn't rely on redshift, and it couldn't be done. I havn't seen it done in this thread either. Is there any other verifiable observation that supports expansion? (even time dilation in supernova is contentious, according to this thread)

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean here akirabakabaka ... time dilation would (in principle) do it, would it not? If we could find a sufficiently large 'standard, rigid yardstick', that would work too, wouldn't it?

I'm particularly interested to learn of any approach based on 'evolution' - given your stance, how would a very strong case showing the evolution of galaxies, or stars, over cosmological time be convincing to you, in terms of showing 'expanding space'?

Finally, what of the CMBR? I mean, at two levels, in principle, and data on it to date.

Just to finish this post, I'm sure you are very well aware of the mainstream answer to your question, aren't you?

[TomT]

I know Dark Matter supporters love this image, but doesn't it surprise anyone that if there's so much Dark Matter out there, why don't we see this lensing all over the place? Why have we only found this one single example? Shouldn't the Dark Matter encompassing our own galaxy cluster lense everything we see?

I don't think this question has been answered in this forum. I know there are other examples cited as lensing, but why don't we see it everywhere, or much more often at least, if Dark Matter permeates the universe?
TomT

[akirabakabaka]

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean here akirabakabaka ... time dilation would (in principle) do it, would it not? If we could find a sufficiently large 'standard, rigid yardstick', that would work too, wouldn't it?

See my last post; this would work except that our yardstick is only good for a billion light years or so. If there's a good argument for applying the supernova results to distant quasars and galaxies, I guess I don't see it? If we had a sample of supernovae at 10BLY I imagine that would answer all of our questions.

I'm particularly interested to learn of any approach based on 'evolution' - given your stance, how would a very strong case showing the evolution of galaxies, or stars, over cosmological time be convincing to you, in terms of showing 'expanding space'?

If we were to look at the deep fields and clearly see each era or epoch predicted by BB evolution, that would be pretty convincing. I'm still looking into this, but a cursory glance at least shows most anti-BB sites to agree with me (meaningless, I know).

Finally, what of the CMBR? I mean, at two levels, in principle, and data on it to date.

Just a quick reality check here, did anyone else see the post by elerner? He is talking about WMAP and the CMB, right?

Just to finish this post, I'm sure you are very well aware of the mainstream answer to your question, aren't you?

"Quit asking so many questions!"

[Nereid]

See my last post; this would work except that our yardstick is only good for a billion light years or so. If there's a good argument for applying the supernova results to distant quasars and galaxies, I guess I don't see it? If we had a sample of supernovae at 10BLY I imagine that would answer all of our questions.

Thanks.

Seems the 'only' issue you have is that there is simply nothing sufficiently distant (or, with sufficiently high z) yet observed that would unambiguously show 'expansion', independent of redshift?

In principle, good data showing increasing time-dilation as a function of z just as Einstein ordered would suffice, n'est pas?

If we were to look at the deep fields and clearly see each era or epoch predicted by BB evolution, that would be pretty convincing. I'm still looking into this, but a cursory glance at least shows most anti-BB sites to agree with me (meaningless, I know).

Hmm, well, there's always the CMBR, with unambiguous instances of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, numerous analyses of the Lyman forest, the Gunn-Petersen trough, ... Much of this is, of course new, noisy, or just plain confusing. 'Tis the time for all ATMers to make concrete, specific predictions perhaps? Then in another 10 to 30 years, we will look back and ...

"Quit asking so many questions!"

Ay canna help it, 'tis in the blood.

[Cougar]

If we had a sample of supernovae at 10BLY I imagine that would answer all of our questions.

Well, 1997ff would be a start to that sample....

[akirabakabaka]

Well, 1997ff would be a start to that sample....

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

[akirabakabaka]

And here's a wonderfully relevant site to go along with it, the High-Z SN Search Team, although they appear to have disbanded back in 2001 (last paper was 2000)?

EDIT: actually after perusing their papers they consider 'high redshift' to be z=0.3-1, which is not terribly high afterall. There is much better current data available.

[akirabakabaka]

To put this issue to rest (for the time being), this paper mentions all of the recent high-redshift supernova studies: TWENTY-THREE HIGH-REDSHIFT SUPERNOVAE FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR ASTRONOMY DEEP SURVEY: DOUBLING THE SUPERNOVA SAMPLE AT Z > 0.7 (Feb 2004)

"There have also been continued attempts to discover SNe at even higher redshifts. An extreme case is the serendipitous reimaging in the Hubble Deep Field of SN 1997ff (Riess et al. 2001), which added intriguing evidence for an earlier period of deceleration, with the caveats that it is only a single object and potentially gravitational lensed (Benite´z et al. 2002). The sample size of high-z objects has been substantially augmented by recent campaigns described by Tonry et al. (2003; eight SNe Ia between 0:3 < z < 1.2), as well as Knop et al. (2003; 11 SNe Ia between 0:36 < z < 0.86)."

So the sample is growing but still quite small. Automated detection will probably fix this fairly soon.

The one thing that I couldn't verify was the redshift of the host galaxy of 1997ff (I think catalogued as 4-403.0 in HDF, if I can figure out how to look that up), the original 1997ff paper makes no mention of what it might have been or if 1997ff agreed with it. A followup paper states "(The SN Ia classification is based on the nature of the host galaxy, an evolved, red elliptical; also the observed colors and temporal evolution of SN 1997ff are most consistent with those of SNe Ia.)" but also does not mention a redshift correlation.

However the newer paper is much more reliable in correlating redshifts of host galaxies and SNe, and so far it seems to support BBT. It's interesting that the emphasis of these studies is limiting cosmological parameters, with almost no mention or desire to increase accuracy of distance measurements (which any good Ia observations should be able to do, right?).

[ExpErdMann]

On one hand, it's a good thing to have lots of verification that the time dilation effect is real at different z's. But there's another issue here. It's the assumption that time dilation, if real, definitively proves the expansion case. I have argued in a different thread that it does not. In the various instances where a redshift effect occurs (eg, SR, GR) a time dilation effect is observed too. And the original prediction of time dilation in SNe was not actually based on SR or GR, but on the classical Doppler shift. I have a pet hypothesis, which no one here has refuted yet, that any and all known redshift mechanisms will be paired with a time dilation effect. Consequently, it is premature to rule out time dilation in a future tired light redshift mechanism which successfully explains other cosmological puzzles. To repeat a question I asked before, can anyone think of a case where redshift is not paired with time dilation?

[VanderL]

As Cougar has already pointed out, there are many more 'options' than just the two you cite.

For example, the filters used to measure magnitude, at any given time, are fixed according to the zero redshift Earth, rather than the quite different redshifts of all the objects. Although Hawkins mentions that several bands were used, and provides a reference to a paper where the data reduction and error analysis are to be found (I've not read that paper), I rather doubt he could easily control for any such effect.

Another example is evolution; in the mainstream view, quasars changed quite a lot as the universe aged. Hawkins implicitly assumed that the intrinsic quasar variability is independent of the quasars' ages.

Finally, Hawkins did not - as far as I can see - attempt to what classes of variability models could be ruled out to what degree by his study.First, I'd like to re-iterate that, in science, one cannot 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As a long-time member to at least UT, I expect that you're familiar with why this is so, and could probably rephrase this in a way that's more in tune with what science is actually about.

Second, there are many, many approaches you could take to address the question of time-dilation in quasar variability, ranging from more of the same sort of data, data from different telescopes/detectors, taken over different periods, to analyses that put more rigourous statistical constraints on the results coming from such analyses, to estimating intrinsic variability from quasar models (i.e. SMBH + accretion disk + torii + jets + ...).

Nereid, you're just nitpicking, and you're not addressing the point; what tests can resolve the issue (yeah I know prove/disprove is too strong, but please answer the questions?).

If I say that I accept his analysis and you don't, show me where it is wrong, and I don't mean the possible small errors because of insufficiently precise data (those are everywhere). Show me where his approach is wrong and where the data can be found that shows the opposite, because you need to show the exact opposite of what he found! Don't forget the absence of time dilation in quasar variability still stands unless someone shows different. You say that more of the same analysis could work, but where are those papers?

You are just like Cougar; if it doesn't fit your (BBT) views, you can only respond with lame comments and never, ever acknowledge that any of the papers damaging BBT are anything but litlle quirks or sloppy science. You can at least admit Hawkins produced an acceptable paper and the point he makes needs to be addressed. If you can't show anything more than your own doubts, just say so, an "I don't know" or a "maybe there is something to it" is perfectly acceptable.

Why can professional astronomers come out and say that the need for dark matter is an embarrassment, and some of you people here in the forum can't even admit that there are problems?

Cheers.

[ngeo]

I'm not sure whether to continue in the following vein - I don't want to get in the way of the discussion above. However -

Nereid said the BBT is a set of scientific theories only after the Planck era.

I asked, doesn't the BBT make the assumption of certain defined conditions during the Planck era?

Nereid said, in a word, no.

However, I read in wikipedia that the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously hot and dense state approximately 14 million years ago. The Planck era would be the time from zero to (10 to the minus 43) seconds in the early life of the universe, one Planck time, during which all four fundamental forces were unified and elementary particles did not exist.

So is Nereid saying that the BB 'metatheory' does not assume these conditions: that there was a Planck era which lasted 'one Planck time'; that there are four fundamental forces which were unified during that time; that 'elementary particles' did not exist during that time; and that the universe was enormously hot and dense during that time?

Whether these statements are called 'assumptions' or descriptions of initial conditions arrived at by working backwards from the present time, is it not true that the vast majority of mainstream scientists today take these initial conditions as 'given'?

[Tim Thompson]

Standard (i.e., non-quantum) big bang theories make no assumptions at all, regarding the state of the universe before it is at least one Planck time in age. Standard big bang theories all start with the Planck time, and go on from there.

The period before one Planck time has elapsed can only be dealt with in a quantum field theory of gravity, and there is as yet no such theory in place. String theory is a popular current candidate for such a theory, and it already sports a rich array of pre big bang cosmologies. We should expect that the singularity that exists at the beginning, in general relativistic cosmologies, should vanish in any quantum field theory of the "bang". And so it is with string theory.

It should also be noted that we do not know, for a certain fact, that a viable quantum field theory of gravity is even possible. But it does seem quite strange to imagine that it would not be, especially in light of the fact that superstring theory is a bona-fide quantum field theory of gravity, though we do not know that it is viable yet.

[Tim Thompson]

2. quasar-galaxy correlations, possible quantization (Arp, NGC4319)

Quantization of redshifts, in particular, is not in any way a problem for big bang cosmology. It is a matter of the specific model of space-time chosen within an expanding universe (big bang) cosmology. William Tifft himself has already pointed this out (i.e., Three-dimensional quantized time in cosmology, Astrophysics and Space Science 244, 187-210, 1996). Quantized redshifts should not be on any list of "problems" for big bang cosmology.

[Jerry]

Well, 1997ff would be a start to that sample....

Another excellent example of theory driving the interpretation.

How does Nugent know this is a Ia type supernova? The differences between a 1a and and 1c are very small, and most pronounced in the infrared silicon band. At a redshift (z-shift) distance of 1.3, this band is redshifted off-scale - we can't see it. Ic are brighter than Ia and therefore more likely to be observed at greater distances, even though they make up less than 4% of the local population.

The light curve of 1997ff is the right size and shape for a Ic that is not time dilated, OR it is the right size and ALMOST the right shape for a time dilated Ia, but not quite: The rise time, if it is a Ia, is faster than local Ia rise times.

As I stated before, the 'K' correction for time dilation leaves no spectral bandwidth for any significant interstellar dust correction - the same dust, by the way, that quasars researchers insist DOES exist, and in significant quantities. (Creating the Lyman Forest and Gunn-Peterson effects observed in quasar spectra.) Another unresolved paradox in the standard model.

So the actual observational data without the theoretical assumption is ambiguous, but leans towards a Ic interpretation. Nugent is using time dilation theory to acertain this is a type Ia, and ignoring unphysical trends in that are obvious in supernova data reduction.