What's Wrong with the Big Bang??

[Aldrin]

On 2002-12-16 21:01, Tim Thompson wrote:
cyrek: An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North that appears to be similar to our local environment.

How do you figure that the HDF-N "appears to be similar to our local environment"? Do you just look at the picture and guess by eyeball? It takes a bit more attention to detail. Studies of both HDF images clearly show the effects of galactic evolution, in the images.

The easiest place to see this is in The Hubble Deep Fields, H.C. Ferguson, M. Dickinson & R. Williams, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 38: 667-715, 2000. The paper discusses all manner of galactic evolution visible in both HDF-N and HDF-S. Number counts, morphology, brightness, and more, all vary as a function of redshift, showing clear signs of evolution.

Why both HDF don`t show Quasars redshift?This should be interesting to compare the redshift of far Quasars.

[ljbrs]

Tim Thompson:

Thanks for the list of websites (above) and for other useful information in your many posts on BABB.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 18:29 ]</font>

[ljbrs]

Aldrin:

Thank you for the site which shows the redshifts of the objects in the Hubble Deep Field. Skeptics of the Big Bang should look at that picture and click on the various objects to get their redshifts. Then again, so many of the Big Bang critics disallow redshift as a cosmological tool, so showing redshifts of quasars would have no effect upon the critics' reasoning.

Also, are there any quasars shown in the Hubble Deep Field? If not, there would be no quasar redshifts. The Hubble Deep Fields (both North and South) were tiny spots of the sky and there might just be a possibility of their being devoid of quasars.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ljbrs]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-18 22:47, Orion38 wrote:
And what this have to do with my presentation about the CMBR? .*IDIOT* OOOPS!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Calling somebody an idiot on this board is cause for banning. Care to explain to whom this epithet is directed?

Bad Astronomer: Orion directed that to me. I was answering the part of his post, which was difficult to comprehend, which began:

But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.

His post was rather difficult to comprehend, in the first place. His subsequent rude reply did not bother me. Orion was quite right. For some inexplicable reason, I failed to pay attention to most of what he was trying to get across. I must have fallen asleep...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 20:03 ]</font>

[Dunash]

According to Wal, the Big Bang is beyond science fiction!





THE REMARKABLE SLOWNESS OF LIGHT
By Wal Thornhill

?The more one reflects on the nature of light, matter and
gravitation, the more he realizes that there are problems
connected with them that are quite insoluble in terms of our
current notions. But we no longer reflect intelligently on
these things.? ~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following report comes from the BBC, 8 August, 2002:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm ]

EINSTEIN'S THEORY 'MAY BE WRONG'

The theory that the speed of light is always constant has come
under fire. Australian physicists propose that it may have slowed
over the course of billions of years. It's entirely possible that
the speed of light would have got greater and greater as you go
back towards the Big Bang. Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist
said: ?If true, it would mean a rethink of Einstein's theory of
relativity.?

The idea is floated in a brief communication in the journal
Nature.

It is based on astronomical data involving light from a quasar, a
very distant star-like object. Observations suggest the light has
taken about 10 billion years to reach the Earth. What is more, a
key constant involving the interaction of light photons and
electron particles seems to have changed. It appears to have been
smaller 10 billion years ago.

According to Paul Davies, a physicist at Macquarie University,
Sydney, this can be explained only if the speed of light or
electron charge has changed since then. "But two of the cherished
laws of the Universe are the law that electron charge shall not
change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever
way you look at it we're in trouble," he says.

Star Trek hope
Studies on black holes suggest that the second option is more
likely, according to Davies' team. The theoretical physicist
believes the speed of light was faster six to 10 billion years ago
than its current value - 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second.
"It's entirely possible that the speed of light would have got
greater and greater as you go back (through time) towards the Big
Bang and if so it could explain some of the great mysteries of
cosmology," he says. He admits that further work on light from
quasars is needed to firm up the theory. In addition, the physics
of black holes are known to be extremely shaky. But there are
startling implications if the law that nothing can go faster than
light is overturned.

"Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case
it would enthral Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the
speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy,"
says Davies. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light
limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

HERBERT DINGLE writes:
"It is usually taken for granted that the processes of
mathematics are identical with the processes of reasoning,
whereas they are quite different. The mathematician is more
akin to a spider than to a civil engineer, to a chess player
than to one endowed with exceptional critical power. The
faculty by which a chess expert intuitively sees the
possibilities that lie in a particular configuration of pieces
on the board is paralleled by that which shows the
mathematician the much more general possibilities latent in an
array of symbols. He proceeds automatically and faultlessly to
bring them to light, but his subsequent correlation of his
symbols with facts of experience, which has nothing to do with
his special gift, is anything but faultless, and is only too
often of the same nature as Lewis Carroll's correlation of his
pieces with the Red Knight and the White Queen - with the
difference whereas Dodgson recognised the products of his
imagination to be wholly fanciful, the modern mathematician
imagines, and persuades others, that he is discovering the
secrets of nature.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, (1972) pp.
127-8.

WAL THORNHILL COMMENTS: For many years Prof. Dingle wrote the
entry for special relativity in the Encyclopedia Brittannica --
until he notoriously recanted. The nonsensical responses to his
simple argument against Einstein led him to publish the book from
which the quotes are taken. Einstein?s legacy lives on. There are
so many assumptions hidden beneath the thinking in the above
report that it should have been published in the Star Trek Manual,
not the science journal, Nature. It is the second ?scientific?
report to refer to Star Trek in recent months. The other, also
from Australia, raised the future possibility of teleportation
(?Beam me up Scottie?).

Both reports exhibit the malaise in physics brought about by its
disconnection from reality and the modern need to indulge in show
business to gain recognition and funding.

We still have no idea what light is. Our confusion is evident when
we talk about a photon in one experiment and an electromagnetic
wave in another. Maxwell is supposed to have mathematically
described the electromagnetic wave, but he required a medium --
the ether -- for its transmission. Einstein ?thought? the ether
away but no one is quite sure how he did that, even though the
Michelson-Morley experiment was supposed to have clinched it.

HERBERT DINGLE:
?... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation
equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect
of interaction between moving matter and ether, to give the
mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over
mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about
abolishing the ether and still retaining light waves whose
properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless
without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether
and propose a wholly mathematical theory.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, pp. 165-6.

THORNHILL:
The fact remains that everything we know about electric and
magnetic fields requires electric charges, in other words, a
medium, as a focus for the fields. If there is to be a wave, there
must be something to wave!

We know that the ?vacuum? of space is teeming with neutrinos.
Countless trillions of the ghostly particles pass through each
square centimetre every second. Maybe neutrinos constitute the
medium of ?empty? space? It makes sense if, as I suggest elsewhere
on this site, all particles are composed of orbiting massless
electric charges. And neutrinos are the most collapsed form of
particle.

ETIENNE KLEIN AND MARC LACHIEZE-REY:
?All hope to restore some unity is not lost, though. To start
with, even in the absence of any theoretical or experimental
proof, it is not unreasonable to assume that the particles
known today are actually composites, and that their eventual
description (which remains to be discovered) will involve a
smaller number of new and truly elementary constituents.?
~Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY --
The Adventure of Physics.

THORNHILL:
This brings us to the speed of light, ?c.? We know from experiment
that ?c? varies depending on the medium. More particularly, ?c?
varies depending on the electrical characteristics of the medium.
The speed of light in a vacuum cannot then be simply declared a
universal constant, because a vacuum is not empty space -- it is
filled with vast but varying numbers of neutrinos and some other
particles.

It seems more reasonable to suggest that the speed of light is the
speed with which an oscillating electrical disturbance is
transmitted through a dielectric medium. The speed of light is
highest in a medium where the rate of charge polarization in the
particles of that medium is greatest. Neutrinos, having the lowest
mass, or inertia, of any particle, have the fastest rate of
internal charge polarization and response to an electric field.
Therefore ?c? is a maximum in a vacuum, paradoxically full of
neutrinos.

The notion that c was considerably faster in the past has appeal
to both cosmologists and creationists. Both camps have severe
difficulties in explaining the observed universe, even with their
vastly different time frames, unless things happened much faster
initially. Cosmologists would like to see a near infinite speed of
light immediately following the big bang and creationists about
10^11 times ?c.? Both are misled by their misunderstanding of the
creation myths. It was no accident that a Belgian priest, Georges
LeMaitre, proposed the big bang theory, as it came to be known.
Science is as much driven by culture and religion as any other
human activity.

Proof that the cosmologists are mistaken both in their
speculations about light-speed and the big bang hypothesis comes
from the very source referred to in the above report -- the light
from a quasar. The above-quoted article says that the quasar is 10
billion light years distant. That is based on the most peculiar
big bang theory that the volume of the universe is increasing. It
follows the observation that faint objects have their spectrum
shifted towards the red. The discoverer of this phenomenon, Edwin
Hubble, was careful to not attribute this ?redshift? to the
Doppler effect of the velocity of recession of the object, but
theorists were not so circumspect. The redshift -- velocity -
distance equation quickly became another of the many dogmatic
assumptions of cosmology.

The astronomer, Halton Arp, plays the role of a modern Galileo in
this story. He discovered that redshift is largely intrinsic to a
quasar and is a measure of its youth, not its distance. The faint,
unresolved star-like quality of a quasar is because it is a baby
galaxy, recently born with high-redshift and low brightness from a
nearby low-redshift active galaxy. The quasar referred to by
Davies is nearby and faint, not 10 billion light years distant. He
is not looking at 10 billion-years-old light. Such a discovery
lays waste to big bang cosmology. The response of the cardinals of
astronomy, now as in Galileo?s time, was to refuse to see what Arp
had discovered and, in effect, to take his telescope away from
him.

HALTON ARP:
?The greatest part of the progress independent researchers
have made in the past decades, in my opinion, is to break free
of the observationally disproved dogma of curved space time,
dark matter, Big Bang, no primary reference frame and no
faster than light information.?
~Halton Arp, The Observational Impetus For Le Sage Gravity.

THORNHILL:
The picture of the universe given to us by Arp makes far more
sense than the big bang. We see only a small part of an immensity
of unknown extent and origin. The objects around us are almost
static and form discernible families with parent active galaxies
giving birth to quasars in the jets from their cores. The quasars
grow more massive with time and slow down to become companion
galaxies. Their redshift decreases as they age.

The plasma cosmologists further show us that the entire process is
driven electrically, the power being delivered by a vast cosmic
web of power lines originating from beyond the visible universe.
The galaxies are strung like beads on a string along those power
lines.

Full text with photos available at:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/slow_light.html

Be aware that this image (see website) is highly distorted because
the galaxies have been placed by the computer at their redshift
distances. It has been responsible for the ?fingers of God,?
illusion, where echelons of galaxies appear to point toward us.
Commonsense should have sounded the alarm bells immediately for
theorists, instead of reverential awe. Nonetheless galaxies do
form linear chains. Such structure is not expected from a gravity-
driven formation of the Universe. However, it is expected from
plasma cosmology, where galaxies form at the intersection of two
intergalactic Birkeland current filaments.

Something else that is never mentioned in polite scientific
company is the astounding discovery by Arp and William Tifft that
the redshift of quasars and galaxies is quantized! It has led to
the false impression of ?great walls? of galaxies at various
distances from us. That too, should have set off another loud
alarm. It spotlights the inadequacy of a purely mathematical
quantum theory, divorced from any classical physics underpinning,
and the nonsense that it only applies to the subatomic realm. If
Einstein got anything right, it was his suggestion that quantum
theory pointed to some lower level of complexity in particle
physics, instead of requiring the removal of the foundation stone
of physics -- causality. His god was not a gambler.

I agree with Davies that the charge on the electron has not
changed. But neither has the speed of light. Unlike Davies, it
seems to me that the basis of the physical universe is electric
charge, governed by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force. All
forms of matter and its interactions spring from that simple
basis. Every particle and collection of particles is a resonant
system of orbiting charges, from which comes resonant quantum
effects and the manifestation of inertial mass. Resonance explains
the puzzling non-radiating ground-state of an atom. Gravity,
magnetism and nuclear forces can all be understood in terms of
electric dipole forces between distorted systems of orbiting
charge. Einstein is not required. Space cannot be warped or
expand. Time is effectively universal and has nothing to do with
space. Black holes do not exist. It is an Electric Universe.

There is no crisis of theory in an Electric Universe. The speed of
light in a vacuum depends only upon the nature of the vacuum. A
vacuum is not empty space. However, ?c? is unlikely to vary
significantly in space. ?c? has no connection with the size or age
of the universe. Size and age are meaningless concepts anyway,
given Arp?s clear-sighted view of the cosmos. But can the Electric
Universe offer any explanation for the redshifts?

I think so. We know from Arp?s careful observations that quasars
are episodically ejected in pairs in opposite directions along the
spin axis of an active galaxy. The brightness of the quasars is
higher and their redshift lower the further away we find them from
their parent active galaxy, and therefore the older they are.
Their mass seems to increase with age and they slow down to
eventually go into orbit about the parent as a companion galaxy.

Plasma cosmology provides the insights into what is going on in
the centers of active galaxies. It does not require a mythical
black hole, merely a plasma focus effect. A plasma focus effect is
the result of a cylindrically symmetrical electrical discharge. It
provides the most concentrated form of electrical energy known. It
takes the shape of a tiny plasma donut, or plasmoid, lying in the
plane of the spiral galaxy and at its center. The plasmoid
accumulates electrical energy from along the spiral arms until it
suddenly begins to break down, forming an intense jet of neutrons,
particles and radiation along its axis. Electrons, being much
lighter, are trapped in the focus for a longer time. The neutrons
in the jet begin to decay into protons and electrons, forming
hydrogen atoms and some heavier elements, by neutron capture.
(Given the extreme electromagnetic environment, we should not
expect the neutron decay characteristics to mimic those seen on
Earth). The material in the jet forms a ?knot? and becomes an
electron deficient (positively charged) quasar.

Meanwhile, electrons are being slowly released by the decaying
galactic plasmoid and they stream in a thin beam after the quasar.
They form the great radio jets seen emanating from the nuclei of
active galaxies.

It seems that as the quasar attracts electrons its matter becomes
progressively more polarized, or massive, as Arp found. It is
similar to what we observe in particle accelerators -- the more a
particle is distorted, or polarized, in an electric field, the
more massive it appears to become. If an electron orbiting a
nucleus becomes progressively more massive in a globally changing
electrical environment, it will require to compensate at intervals
by executing small quantum jumps to new resonant orbits closer to
the nucleus. The energy of those orbits will be higher and the
result is a quantized shift away from the red end of the spectrum.
The quasar becomes brighter and less redshifted. It is not closer.

DINGLE:
?The idea then arose that it [the electron] was a sort of mist
of electricity, and Eddington probably gave it the most candid
description as ?something unknown doing we don't know what.?
We are no wiser today; nevertheless, we speak of the mass of
an electron as though it were equivalent to the mass of a lump
of lead.?
~Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads, pp. 141-2.

THORNHILL:
It is the lower energy electron orbits in new quasar atoms that
may give rise to the effect remarked upon by Davies and his co-
workers. If so, it is due to a different inertial mass of an
electron in a quasar atom, not a different speed of light 10
billion years ago. The result is simply that Planck's constant and
consequently the fine structure constant will differ by a very
small amount from that measured on Earth. Once again we see the
trouble caused by arbitrarily assuming universality of physical
constants measured on Earth.

Another serious problem faced by conventional thinking is that the
quantum shifts seem to occur galaxy-wide without delay. No object
has been found with two different redshifts. Yet a change
propagating at the speed of light would take something like
100,000 years to traverse a galaxy. It seems that the kind of
particle dipole distortions that create inertial mass and gravity
propagate at the near infinite speed of the electrostatic force.
So, once begun, the quantum shift in atomic orbitals could spread
across a galaxy in less than a second. I suppose it could be
termed ?galactic quantum entanglement.?

So, the good news for Star Trek fans is that Einstein?s speed
limit is repealed. But the Warp Drive and Teleporter are out, I?m
sorry. They are illogical. Space cannot be warped. And matter can
neither be destroyed nor created, despite the widespread
misconception that the ?m? in E = mc^2 means matter, and that
antimatter annihilates matter. [The only possibility that I can
imagine for a Teleporter would be to create an identical physical
copy from materials already to hand at the receiver. But there is
far more to biology than meets the scientific reductionist eye.
Would the copy be alive? And if so, who, if anyone, would it be?
And what do you do with the original -- kill it and dispose of the
body in the process?]

Despite all of these absurdities, gravitational big bang cosmology
still comes out the clear winner in the science fiction category.

As for Prof. Davies recent book, How to Build a Time Machine --
save your money, space fans, and put it into antigravity research!
As taxpayers we pay dearly for this fiction anyway.

It is incredible that we entered the 21st century with an advanced
technology that is crucially dependent upon electricity and yet a
cosmology where the powerful electrical force has no role, when we
know that electric charge is the foundation of all the matter in
the universe.

Davies? bewilderment is understandable, ?If what we?re seeing is
the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened
100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it
is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.?

Precisely. The revolution in thinking will not come from the
present generation of theoretical cosmologists. It must come from
the next generation of practical electrical engineers, plasma
physicists and observational astronomers.

ARTHUR LYNCH:
??I have no doubt that there will arise a new generation who
will look with a wonder and amazement, deeper than now
accompany Einstein, at our galaxy of thinkers, men of science,
popular critics, authoritative professors, and witty
dramatists, who have been satisfied to waive their common
sense in view of Einstein's absurdities. Then to these will
succeed another generation, whose interest will be that of a
detached and half-amused contemplation; and in the limbo of
forgotten philosophies they may search for the cenotaph of
Relativity.?
~Arthur Lynch, The Case Against Einstein, Dodd, Mead & Co.,
New York, 1933.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-12-25 01:57 ]</font>

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-24 19:52, ljbrs wrote:
...I am hardly an idiot by definition ...

ljbrs,

Merry Xmas! (Futurama kind)

Let me propose that you pick an online toyish IQ evaluator, and we then exchange our results in shape of screenshots sent over email. Orion is welcome to join. OK?

[mutineer]

I come to your Bulletin Board not as an astronomer or a physicist, but as a psychologist. (I note there seems to be some psychology going on already.)

My feeling about the Big Bang is that it is a Cult. It is so exactly what a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century should look like. I have heard the opinion expressed that interest in the Big Bang is evidence for a real public interest in Science. But actually the reverse is the case. Science (most of it) is actually pretty hard work. Religion is a lot easier. The Big Bang represents just about as much as Joe Public is prepared to take in. The Universe is expanding (Hubble as hero; red shift as explanation; clever graphics showing Doppler effect for the inqusitive). Ergo, it used to be smaller. Ergo, it was once very small. Hey, if you go back far enough there was just this speck that contained the Whole Universe. Wow! Say, I can follow that!

So if you are a competent particle physicist you can get real clever figuring how to jam the Whole Universe into that speck, and then have it explode. You can calculate just how it needed to happen so as to get a Universe that turned out like this one. You can become a High Priest - an Initiate into the Higher Realms beyond the understanding of the masses who constitute the Faithful - and you can get Research Grants (which have replaced Tithes). Gee, you practically deserve the credit for the whole thing, squeezing it all in like that!

But the Big Bang is nothing like Real Science. It is speculative Spoof Science. (We have that in Psychology too.) It provides interesting intellectual exercises for Initiates who wish to test each other's skills. You try to break the laws of physics the least number of times (and in the sneakiest ways so no one notices). I suspect that the best particle physicists look upon the whole thing as just good fun. (Something not quite right? I'll fix that in a jiffy with a new parameter.) They relish their soaring mental agility in playing the game. But they are not True Believers. Trouble is: a lot of the Devout Faithful do really believe all this stuff. They take it far too seriously - and they are going to discover they were misled.

I don't understand half the stuff that the Doubters put up against the Big Bang. And quite a lot of what I do understand I think they've got wrong. But when it comes to the Age of the Universe, the evidence that 14 billion years just ain't long enough seems overwhelming. (Adjust your mindset to a cosmic timescale ... the lifecycle of stars, the evolution of galaxies. 14 billion years is like yesterday.) Thing is: as we get reliable images from ever more remote sources, the Age Crisis is going to grow and grow.

For me, it was Press Release 23-02 of the European Southern Observatory
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-23-02.html
issued on 11 December 2002 that finally sealed matters.

They have looked at the Universe less than two billion years after the alleged Big Bang. They have looked at it in infrared (much better than the HST). And what do they say? "Well, fellas, it looks just like home!" Primordial protogalaxies? "Big spiral jobs, just like the ones next door."

OK - those were not actual word-for-word quotes. This is:
"A few [of these most distant galaxies] are clearly rather large and show spiral structure similar to that seen in very nearby galaxies ... It is not obvious that current theoretical models can easily account for such galaxies having evolved to this stage so early in the life of the Universe. Most ... show relatively little visible star-forming activity. They appear in fact to have already formed most of their stars and in quantities sufficient to account for at least half the total luminous mass of the Universe at that time."

When these guys say: "It is not obvious that current theoretical models," etc ... they are academics being formal and polite. That is actually one sizzler of a sentence for an academic! They sure know their results are pretty dramatic.

I'm guessing it won't be long before we discover that those distant galaxies are so very much like nearby ones that they contain stars much more than two billion years old. Wiggle your parameters out of that, O Ye Faithful!

_________________
Dick Lloyd Thomas
Cheltenham, England

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mutineer on 2002-12-28 12:40 ]</font>

[ljbrs]

mutineer:

The Big Bang is about the only game still in play in cosmology these days. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the balloon experiments MAXIMA and BOOMERANG, etc., continued the confirming data; the accelerating universe of the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z SN Search Team put more data to the subject, showing an accelerated expansion of the universe where a deceleration had been expected. The name, *Big Bang* was created by Fred Hoyle, a life-long enemy of the Big Bang. The name stuck, even though it was neither Big nor a Bang. The Hubble Deep Fields (North and South) show early galaxy formation after the CMBR became transparent (having been opaque). The only people challenging the Big Bang seriously are those who have theories that have not measured up. The more recent CMBR images of the black body radiation (all coinciding with similar black body curves at multiple electromagnetic wavelengths have put the finishing touches on the Big Bang.

What is the psychology behind the enemies of the Big Bang? Beats me. Perhaps you know. Perhaps the enemies of the Big Bang have failed to study the real scientific information thoroughly enough to have an opinion.

Whatever...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-01-01 15:46 ]</font>

[Silas]

On 2002-12-27 14:52, mutineer wrote:
I come to your Bulletin Board not as an astronomer or a physicist, but as a psychologist. (I note there seems to be some psychology going on already.)

The psychology of belief is an interesting adjunct to science.

My feeling about the Big Bang is that it is a Cult.

You are wonderfully incorrect.

It is so exactly what a Creation Myth for the Twentieth Century should look like.

Does that, in itself, mean that it is false?

I have heard the opinion expressed that interest in the Big Bang is evidence for a real public interest in Science. But actually the reverse is the case.

I would agree. The Big Bang has sparked some interest in the general public in science. The same has been true in times past. For instance, many of today's astronomers were inspired by the pictures of the cosmos that came from the first radio telescopes.

Science (most of it) is actually pretty hard work.

Actually *doing* science is mighty hard work. Understanding it at a basic level is actually fairly easy. Subscribe to Scientific American, or Science, or Discover.

Religion is a lot easier.

So are astrology, alternative medicine, and conspiracy fantasies: i.e., true "cults."

The Big Bang represents just about as much as Joe Public is prepared to take in. The Universe is expanding (Hubble as hero; red shift as explanation; clever graphics showing Doppler effect for the inqusitive). Ergo, it used to be smaller. Hey, if you go back far enough there was just this speck that contained the Whole Universe. Aint that just sumthin! Say, I can follow that!

Good for you. Good for me. Good for Joe America. It's a theory of the cosmos that can be grasped by just about anyone.

So if you are a competent particle physicist you can get real clever figuring how to jam the Whole Universe into that speck, and then have it explode. You can calculate just how it needed to happen so as to get a Universe that turned out like this one.

Yep.

You can become a High Priest . . .

Nope.

But the Big Bang is nothing like Real Science.

Why? Because it is comprehensible? Do you believe that real science must be incomprehensible?

It is speculative Spoof Science.

Why? What makes you say this? You have made a gigantic leap from the accepted to the debatable. Where is the spoof? Where is the error?

I don't understand half the stuff that the Doubters put up against the Big Bang.

Do you understand any of the stuff that the mainstream astronomers put up in its favor? Do you understand anisotropy? Do you understand the background microwave radiation? Do you understand the "expansionary phase" refinement? Do you understand the fallacy of "tired light?"

. . . But when it come to the Age of the Universe, the evidence that 14 billion years just ain't long enough seems overwhelming.

Why? Show your work. Explain your reasoning. 14 gy seems long enough to me. What particular task do you feel has been accomplished that this time is too short to accomodate?

(Adjust your mindset to a cosmic timescale ... the lifecycle of stars, events on a galactic scale. 14 billion years is like YESTERDAY.)

It's enough for several generations of stars, as we comprehend their lifetimes. Have you explored the HR diagram, and the mass-luminosity relationship?

And...how are these failings which you perceive related to psychology? You started out claiming that your psychological expertise shows a "cult like" dependence on the theory, and yet your arguments have been based on cosmology, not on psychology.

Let's take a long pause...

The evidence in favor of the Big Bang is fairly strong. We have ways of measuring the distance to far galaxies (based on observing certain kinds of variable stars.) We find that the faintness of those stars is strongly correlated with the red-shift of the light from those stars.

The explanation of "tired light" would be *preferred* by nearly anyone. The idea that distant galaxies are actually receding is *not* intuitive. The notion that space itself is expanding, and carrying the galaxies along with it is even *more* counter-intuitive.

Astronomers don't believe in the expansion of space because they want to. They would far, far rather *not* accept it, as it is a remarkable and shocking concept.

But they have been compelled to accept it, because every *other* explanation fails to explain the observed data as well.

I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

I think we all agree that psychology has some relevance to science. I hope you are familiar with the case of Rene Blondlot and "N-Rays." But I also hope that your studies will show you how Blondlot's failure is not applicable to the Big Bang.

Silas

[ljbrs]

Silas:

Your posts are wonderful to read. Just marvelous! I love reading them whenever I come across them.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Zathras]

In fairness to mutineer, he does a better job of pointing out specific examples of real present issue with the BB than other doubters. He referenced an article written by several professional astronomers that express doubts of how to reconcile their observations with the BB, i.e., how could spiral structure have developed so soon after the BB? Any thoughts or references regarding how this issu could be resolved?

[Zathras]

On 2002-12-27 21:54, Silas wrote:

. . .

I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

. . .
Silas

I don't know if these two set up a favorable dichotomy. Specific events in the past (dinosaur extinction, Big Bang) are subject to a different class of empirically verifiabile expiriments than general laws of natures (cold fusion). For cold fusion, we can set up all sorts of expiriments to prove that it was false. For the specific events in the past, you can't run any experiments; the possible "experiments" have already run, and we are left to scour the earth/universe for the data.

I think a better comparison would be between evolution and Lamarckism (sp?). This would set up a proper historical dichotomy between two theories of past speciation. For evolution, the evidence keeps running in its favor, while for Lamarckism, serious scientists have stopped keeping track, because too much evidence does not fit it. After a while it becomes impossible to "tweak" a theory, even a historical one, to account for the accumulating mountain of evidence.

[ljbrs]

I would like to suggest that you examine, from a psychological perspective, two events in recent science.

1) The Alvarez theory that a comet impact might have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

2) The Fleischman and Pons theory that a palladium lattice in heavy water can produce hydrogen fusion.

Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

. . .
Silas

Zathras:

Although I am certain that Silas can defend his statement much better than I, from what I understand, he was attempting to show the difference between real science, on the one hand, and bogus science (hardly *science*) on the other. The Alvarez theory has become solid science. The Fleischman and Pons work ended up as a scientific embarrassment - a blatantly *crank* joke which originally made a lot of headlines and had some members of the United States Congress enthralled at first. Of course, now there are some people who are still laughing...

Then again, Silas probably has a much better explanation of what he has written. That was the way I understood it when I read it.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-12-27 21:54, Silas wrote:
Why has the former become widely accepted, and the latter become widely rejected? Which theory is more attractive, psychologically? Which theory would most affect our lives? Which theory is "sexier," prettier, more attractive, more enticing?

Both theories have their detractors, but in the second case, the detractors also have experiments that prove their point--or at least, don't provide evidence that the cold fusion theory says they should. The impact theory has been as roundly criticized, but no one has come up with convincing evidence that it's wrong.

[Silas]

On 2002-12-27 22:10, ljbrs wrote:
Silas:

Your posts are wonderful to read. Just marvelous! I love reading them whenever I come across them.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

You are too kind! (The check is in the mail...) (Grin!) (Alas, if I'm so smart, why ain't I rich?)

Zathras: as lbjrs noted, my point wasn't exactly to present a dichotomy, but just to compare a success story with a failure story.

You're right, in that "cold fusion" failed immediately, as no one could duplicate the experiment, whereas the Alvarez theory of the comet-impact cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs is based on indirect evidence and is (we hope!) not going to be duplicated.

But consider this, please, in the context of the post by mutineer, in which he suggested that the psychological context of science might be overpowering the objective context. His thesis has validity: there *is* a danger in science in the psychological desire to believe. He merely chose a very, very poor example for his target. Thus, I proposed two examples in which the psychological "will to believe" played very different roles.

The Alvarez theory was ridiculed...at first. But, little by little, as evidence accumulated, it was grudgingly accepted.

Fleishmann and Pons' announcement of cold fusion was initially received with great joy and complete acceptance....at first. But, little by little, as evidence accumulated, it was grudgingly rejected.

From the psychological perspective, the two cases are about as opposite as can be.

(Heck, I *still* want cold fusion to be true! But the universe doesn't seem to care about what I want!)

[Zathras]

I see your very valid point regarding the psychology of people being contradicted by experiment. I'm just saying that cold fusion, as a falisfiable theory, is not really comparable to the Big Bang, because of the ability to set up and repeat experiments to test them. A better example (IMHO) is one such as Lamarckism, which was another theory of the past, and despite our incomplete knoweldge and data-gathering, we have been pretty much able to rule out.

The use of the word "accepted," as applied to a scientific theory, is interesting. What does it mean for a theory to be "accepted?" Does it mean that the body of scientists as a whole believe that the theory is substantially more likely than not to be true, or does it simply have to be the best theory we got? As applied to the meteor/dinosaur extinction theory, I believe only the second definition holds, and not the first (but I could be wrong about this). This is in opposition to the status of the Big Bang, which fits both definitions of being accepted.

[old_skeptic]

The latest “The American Scientist” has an article (“The Hubble Constant and The Expanding Universe” by Wendy Freedman) that presents pretty good arguments that the Hubble constant is 72 +/- 8. This is based on a variety “standard candles” and their red shifts. I can accept it as a good measurement, but of what? I am not convinced that it has to be a Doppler shift.

I always thought that the Big Bang proponents swallowed the theory with undue haste, and every flaw that has appeared in Hubble’s original observations has had to be answered with another rabbit pulled out of a hat. This to me is the mark of a theory that is not necessarily wrong, but troubled.

With the Hubble constant of around 72 combined with other observations, it seems that dark matter and a vacuum energy density greater than one have to be pulled out of the hat to keep the big bang creation running on time.

I have a silly question regarding observation. The deep field studies using the Hubble Telescope show galaxies that were supposedly created within the first or second billion years after the big bang. This should mean that their maximum distance from each other should be less than around a billion light years, because the universe was a lot smaller then. Ordinary “flat universe” thinking might suppose that from our viewpoint, twelve to thirteen billion light years away, their little universe should subtend no more than about four and a half degrees.
Is there a possibility to be entertained that there is a grand gravitational lensing in effect such that we would see the same configuration of galaxies at the same range in any other arbitrary direction?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-12-29 12:50, old_skeptic wrote:
Is there a possibility to be entertained that there is a grand gravitational lensing in effect such that we would see the same configuration of galaxies at the same range in any other arbitrary direction?

Welcome to the BABB old_skeptic.

Check out this thread from last year, where I think much the same question was asked. I posted a response, with a quote from Max Born.

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-29 13:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Check out this thread from last year, where I think much the same question was asked. I posted a response, with a quote from Max Born.

If such an argument is valid, then the observed angular size of distant features should grow with distance.
If you consider a two-dimensional analogy, the angular size of every object should appear more like the full horizon with certain angular dependence in luminosity within the spread-out image. The most distant objects should look evenly spread-out, i.e. much like the "highly isotropic CMB".

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-12-29 13:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
If such an argument is valid, then the observed angular size of distant features should grow with distance.

Why? Because space has expanded? Is that it?

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-29 14:28, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Why? Because space has expanded? Is that it?

Nope. Sphericity and closedness would be quite sufficient.

[David Hall]

On 2002-12-29 12:50, old_skeptic wrote:

I always thought that the Big Bang proponents swallowed the theory with undue haste, and every flaw that has appeared in Hubble’s original observations has had to be answered with another rabbit pulled out of a hat. This to me is the mark of a theory that is not necessarily wrong, but troubled.

I disagree a bit here. I don't think the BB was accepted "hastily". Edwin Hubble deduced that the universe was expanding in 1929. The idea of a "big bang" arose fairly naturally after that. It's true I think that it caught on fairly easily, but there were two reasons for that: 1. It explained the Hubble expansion, and 2. The basic structure of the theory was already cconsistentwith Einstein's theories, once he took out the cosmological constant mistake.

But the Big Bang was by no means freely accepted. Almost immediately there arose naysayers. Fred Hoyle developed his steady state model in 1948, and debate ran back and forth well into the 60's and beyond. I don't think the BB was considered on truly solid ground until the 70's, some 40 years after the observations that spawned it. That doesn't seem like hasty acceptance to me.

Now, as for your second point, it's true that the BB has had a lot of modifications, but then again so has every other theory to be put up in it's place. Heck every theory goes through this modification pprocess Do you really think the Steady State theory has remained basically unchanged from when it was first conceived? No. Theories usually undergo a kind of evolution. Any time there's a new set of observations, theories need to be modified. Nobody ever throws out a theory just because a few observations don't seem to fit. First you try to see if you can modify the existing theory to account for the discrepancy. Perhaps you have to wait a while for more accurate readings to clarify things. But as long as you can keep your model stable and comprehensive, there's no problem. It's when you absolutely can't fit observation into your theory at all without breaking it that you are forced to abandon it.

The only other reason to abandon a theory is when you find that a competing theory is also able to explain observations, and is simpler and more complete in doing so. Then you'll usually find that it's the more efficient and "cleaner" of the competing theories that gets accepted.

That's where the BB has it over the others. It's not that it has needed modifications, it's that it continues to explain observation better than any other theory out there, even after (and because of) them. Steady State died out, for example, not because people didn't like it, but because it didn't work. The same with every other competitor to the Big Bang. They all fail in some way. Only the BB is able to explain observations and remain cconsistentwith itself.

Now, that doesn't mean that the BB will always be on top, or that we should simply abandon all the rest. There may still be some hope for competing theories and the best of them should continue to be "refined". And maybe one day the BB will come across something that it can't handle, and we may have to abandon it anyway. But for now the truth is, the Big Bang cosmology is the one to beat.

Heck, one of the reasons the BB is so strong now is because the competition has helped smoke out potential weaknesses in the theory. I say, bring on the competition, and may the best model win.

BTW, some other poster here (is it JSPrincton?) likes to point out that the Big Bang is not a theory, but a metatheory. In other words, it's a blanket term for a group of different theories all sharing a common base concept. That's one reason why the BB has a cobbled-together look. What you often see are bits and pieces of different theories that fit side-by-side, making the whole thing look messier than it really is.

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-29 17:01, David Hall wrote:
It's true I think that it caught on fairly easily, but there were two reasons for that: 1. It explained the Hubble expansion, and 2. The basic structure of the theory was already cconsistentwith Einstein's theories, once he took out the cosmological constant mistake.

3. It dearly resembles Creation!

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-12-29 16:45, AgoraBasta wrote:
Nope. Sphericity and closedness would be quite sufficient.

Why would you need closure if you have sphericity?

But I digress. That would only be (apparent angular size growing with distance) after a certain point, wouldn't it, if I understand your analogy.

[David Hall]

On 2002-12-29 18:31, AgoraBasta wrote:

3. It dearly resembles Creation!

Well, no. Not for scientists anyway. Most cosmologists couldn't care one fig whether or not the Big Bang or any other theory resembles some creationist myth. While there may be some scientists who would let such personal bias affect them, in the aggregate such influences are negligible.

Now OTOH, many laymen and religious types do find some comfort in the idea that there was a definite start to the universe. It gives them a point at which to insert a creator, and a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. Then again, judging from some of the posters here, others don't see things that way. In any case, the "court of popular opinion" is not much of a factor in which cosmology model is deemed the most creditable.

And don't forget, the creation myth is primarily western Christian. But there are people all over the world who accept the Big Bang cosmology, and they don't have this creation idea influencing them to accept it.

[ljbrs]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-29 18:31, AgoraBasta wrote:

3. It dearly resembles Creation!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, no. Not for scientists anyway. Most cosmologists couldn't care one fig whether or not the Big Bang or any other theory resembles some creationist myth. While there may be some scientists who would let such personal bias affect them, in the aggregate such influences are negligible.

Now OTOH, many laymen and religious types do find some comfort in the idea that there was a definite start to the universe. It gives them a point at which to insert a creator, and a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. Then again, judging from some of the posters here, others don't see things that way. In any case, the "court of popular opinion" is not much of a factor in which cosmology model is deemed the most creditable.

And don't forget, the creation myth is primarily western Christian. But there are people all over the world who accept the Big Bang cosmology, and they don't have this creation idea influencing them to accept it.

Beautifully stated.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[D J]

The Origin of the 3 K Radiation.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
Quote:
Abstract.
It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required.
See link for details:
..... It is well known in basic physics and chemistry that atomic hydrogen H is quite unstable. Spectroscopy reveals that when one has a given quantity of atomic hydrogen in a given volume, these atoms react between themselves to form molecular hydrogen (H2). This is unlike helium and other inert gases that remain mono-atomic. Atomic hydrogen reacts so readily, that it is impossible to buy or keep any quantity of stable atomic hydrogen, because atoms of atomic hydrogen combine in pairs, to produce very stable bound H2 molecules. Molecular H2 is extremely stable at normal pressure down to the most extreme vacuum. One can expect that, after billions of years, an important fraction of atomic hydrogen H in the universe is already combined to form the extremely stable molecular hydrogen (H2).
Conclusion:
Since we have seen that the normal chemical reaction in space strongly favors the recombination of H into H2(and not the reverse), we must conclude that there has to be a large amount of H2 in space.
The high homogeneity of the 3 K radiation, the absolute need of having H2 in space and the absence of the hypothetical anisotropic radiation expected from the Big Bang, showing the non primeval origin of the background radiation observed from space, constitute an experimental proof that the Big Bang never happened. More complete arguments in favor of the Planck's radiation as the ultimate source of the 3 K radiation in the Universe were recently presented in an international meetings (Marmet 1994).

[D J]

See also:
stellar aberration".
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Aberr..._on_Relativity

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Aberr...berration.html

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-29 19:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
That would only be (apparent angular size growing with distance) after a certain point, wouldn't it, if I understand your analogy.

You're quite right if only the 2D spherical analogue is considered. In case of 3D spherical "hypersurface", the observer can see the source along all circumferences of radius of curvature connecting source/observer.
That's all just my opinion, I'm not too great in visualizing non-realistic geometries...

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-12-30 10:15, AgoraBasta wrote:
You're quite right if only the 2D spherical analogue is considered. In case of 3D spherical "hypersurface", the observer can see the source along all circumferences of radius of curvature connecting source/observer.
That's all just my opinion, I'm not too great in visualizing non-realistic geometries...

I think I can see what you're trying to do, but the 2D and 3D cases sometimes work differently. However, in this case, I think the 2D case might point out some weaknesses in your argument.

On a sphere, there is more than one way to connect two points. However, that is true in ordinary 3D Euclidean space. How does light "pick out" the straight line to travel? There are all sorts of explanations of how this is accomplished, but applying any of them to curved spacetime shows that the image would arrive at our eyes along a null geodesic. Not along all possible paths.