New Cosmo model

[jimjam]

I've been reading some stuff by an author I'd never heard of, Bryan Belrad. He's got a few things on his website, and talks a lot about 'The Eternal Universe' model. I can't find anything else on it, at least not that seems to be the same model. Anybody have any clues?

For those who've never heard of it, the basic characteristics are 1) Gravity is a function of the existence of matter, 2) Gravitational slope is a function of magnetic spin, 3) Space is infinite and of zero curvature, and 4) The universe recycles. The corollaries to it include the universe not expanding, neutrinos having mass up to electron size, and antimatter having an antigravity effect, among other interesting things.

Before you decide its preposterous, take a look at the case for these ideas. The source site is www.BelradUniverse.com/bu.html, and Belrad always seems eager to answer questions.

I'm not trying to push his stuff here (the two important things on the site are free anyway), I just want other thinker's thoughts on all this alternative model stuff. I guess what it comes down to is that I want to believe, but I'm in shock over the gross magnitude of what this guy says.

Good thinking!

[Cougar]

I've been reading some stuff by an author I'd never heard of, Bryan Belrad.

Why not read stuff by authors who are professionals in their fields or some of the more respected science writers? Then you're much less apt to be wasting your time.

The corollaries to it include the universe not expanding, neutrinos having mass up to electron size, and antimatter having an antigravity effect, among other interesting things.

Why do you find these "interesting"? other than the fact that they are in direct contradiction to mainstream views and are most assuredly incorrect.

Before you decide its preposterous, take a look at the case for these ideas. The source site is BelradUniverse.com, and Belrad always seems eager to answer questions.

If there is a case to be presented, I think it should be presented here. It sounds like Belrad's ideas contradict numerous mainstream views. I think it would be best if each of these "cases" was presented separately rather than one large disjointed, unfocused "Eternal Universe" theory.

I guess what it comes down to is that I want to believe...

Why?

[captain swoop]

because then he can be one of the few who are in the 'elite' of course, same as any ATMer as fdar as I can see.

[Tensor]

I just want other thinker's thoughts on all this alternative model stuff. I guess what it comes down to is that I want to believe, but I'm in shock over the gross magnitude of what this guy says.

Good thinking!

OK, two things, both under the "extras" tab. One comment in the Paradoxes is Olbers paradox. His claim is this:

Well, to simplify, the answer is the same as the reason we cannot see the sun at night - sometimes the Earth is in the way. So it is with very distant light sources - dust, gas, and other non-luminous material have obstructed our view.

The problem with that is simple enough for anyone who has taken first year physics. The non-luminous material would absorb the energy falling on it, and would end up radiating that energy, still leaving the night sky bright. In addition, there is the little problem of how much dust is required. Enough so we wouldn't be able to see the nearest stars in our own galaxy. So throw out that one.

The second problem is this. If you click on extras and then galaxies, you get five pictures of galaxies. The last galaxy has this for a caption:

"This cluster of Galaxies is nearly 13 Billion Light-Years away. The combined gravity of the cluster causes a lens-like effect, allowing us to see galaxies even further away, which, according to the Expanding Universe Theory (the Big Bang), should not exist."

Well, that picture is of the galactic cluster Abell 2218. Which is Three Billion light years away, not thirteen as he claims. So his claim of no galaxies beyond that particular galaxy is just flat out wrong. So in this case, he is either purposely trying to mislead the readers of his site or, he just doesn't know enough to make a intelligent comment on it. Either way, his claims are worthless.

I haven't even gotten to the point of looking at his downloadable books and still have found two things wrong on his website, just off the top of my head. One other thing to point out, is under the tab "Light". Any first year physics student knows that the magnetic phase is 90 degrees out with the Electric phase in the wave model of light. Why he treats it as some sort of deep, profound discovery is is a mystery. Of course, it may be a deep, profound discovery for him. All of the above tells me the rest of his presentation has a very good chance of being littered with other misunderstandings, misconceptions and flat out wrong ideas. I'll look at the rest of it, but if he makes these glaring errors on his website (where presumably you want to put your best feet forward, I don't hold out very much hope that there is anything worthwhile in his presentation.

[north]

lets get to core , of the theory of the expanding Universe shall we , which none have you , respondance , have addressed , that it is the space inbetween objects that is growing , and that the galaxies are being carried along for the ride.

and yet as he has pointed out , this is NOT happening in our solar system. so on one hand the space between galaxies is expanding but the space between the Sun and the Earth is not.

explain this contradiction.

[Tensor]

lets get to core , of the theory of the expanding Universe shall we , which none have you , respondance , have addressed , that is the space inbetween objects is the cause for expansion.

and yet as he has pointed out , this is NOT happening in our solar system. so on one hand the space between galaxies is expanding but the space between the Sun and the Earth is not.

explain this contradiction.

If you want to really know, just go pick up MTW's textbook on GR "Gravitation". It has a nice explanation.

Actually, this should more properly go in the Q and A section. Not in a thread somebody else started.

[north]

If you want to really know, just go pick up MTW's textbook on GR "Gravitation". It has a nice explanation.

Actually, this should more properly go in the Q and A section. Not in a thread somebody else started.

so explain the explanation.

actually my question is relevant to this thread. since it is based on the theory presented here. on this thread.

[Celestial Mechanic]

OK, two things, both under the "extras" tab. One comment in the Paradoxes is Olbers paradox. His claim is this: [Snip!]

Where is this "extras" tab? I don't see it. Does this site require Flash or Shockwave or some other godawful plug-in to see anything? If so I will refuse to visit this site anymore.

[north]

Where is this "extras" tab? I don't see it. Does this site require Flash or Shockwave or some other godawful plug-in to see anything? If so I will refuse to visit this site anymore.

actually I found no problem finding and reading the basis of his theory!!

click on the site given by jimjam ( first post on this thread ) go to WORKS then scroll to the last pictorial on the left and click on it.

it worked for me!!!

[north]

by the way the pages will only start it seems if you click on "pages" a little above the PDF screen.

I kept clicking on the page arrow on the right it got me nowhere until I saw what I mentioned above. then it got going.

[north]

by the way this guy seems to be even keeled. or objective.

he is worth a look.

by the way jimjam thanks for informing us of this site!!

[Cougar]

by the way this guy seems to be even keeled. or objective.

Please explain the contradiction between your opinion above and Tensor's brief but rather devastating criticisms in Post No. 4, which, by the way, do not begin to discuss the question of expansion.

[Cougar]

lets get to core , of the theory of the expanding Universe shall we , which none have you , respondance , have addressed , that it is the space inbetween objects that is growing , and that the galaxies are being carried along for the ride.

and yet as he has pointed out , this is NOT happening in our solar system. so on one hand the space between galaxies is expanding but the space between the Sun and the Earth is not.

explain this contradiction.

That's like asking to explain the "contradiction" when someone throws a brick into the Pacific Ocean and the sea level doesn't rise!

[north]

Originally Posted by north
by the way this guy seems to be even keeled. or objective.

Please explain the contradiction between your opinion above and Tensor's brief but rather devastating criticisms in Post No. 4, which, by the way, do not begin to discuss the question of expansion.

oh well. Tensor has his opinion and I have mine

your right there is no discussion of expansion.

I have no interest in what Tensor is on about. although it may interest others of course.

but what I DO have an interest in , is how this theory views expansion , by our Universe , compared to mainstream.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
lets get to core , of the theory of the expanding Universe shall we , which none have you , respondance , have addressed , that it is the space inbetween objects that is growing , and that the galaxies are being carried along for the ride.

and yet as he has pointed out , this is NOT happening in our solar system. so on one hand the space between galaxies is expanding but the space between the Sun and the Earth is not.

explain this contradiction.

That's like asking to explain the "contradiction" when someone throws a brick into the Pacific Ocean and the sea level doesn't rise!

I see

so then your able of course to give me a more pertinent example , to the subject and question at hand.

[jimjam]

Cougar, you've got a lot of questions for me... here's some answers for ya (despite the fact that I am not a Nobel winner, thus you may be wasting your time).

Quote:
Why not read stuff by authors who are professionals in their fields or some of the more respected science writers? Then you're much less apt to be wasting your time.

I prefer to go looking for the strange and unusual in order to broaden my own horizons. I realize that much of what I come across may be garbage, but I prefer to examine and/or test an idea before I dismiss it out of hand. In essence, one can only read the same idea by different authors so many times before it becomes boring. How can we learn anything if we just keep repeating what everyone else has already said?

Quote:
Why do you find these "interesting"? other than the fact that they are in direct contradiction to mainstream views and are most assuredly incorrect.

I find these things interesting precisely because they are in direct contradiction to the mainstream (hence their presence in this forum). Simply because the ideas dissent from 'known' theory makes them no more 'automatically wrong' than Einstein's Special Relativity was in its day.

More to the point, I find them interesting because they successfully and logically answer several problems with our current theory of the universe. Even the most zealous 'believer' has to admit that there is a lot that Big Bang can't explain without self-contradiction. And, there are so many special exceptions in the theory, its a wonder Big Bang can explain anything at all anymore.

Quote:
If there is a case to be presented, I think it should be presented here. It sounds like Belrad's ideas contradict numerous mainstream views. I think it would be best if each of these "cases" was presented separately rather than one large disjointed, unfocused "Eternal Universe" theory.

One of the first things I asked Dr. Belrad via email was why he'd conglomerated all these concepts together. Why not take on and prove/rule out one thing at a time? He replied that every element of the theory, like Big Bang, depends on everything else. If one attempts to propose ANY idea in contradiction with Big Bang, one has to have an entire model ready to replace it, or noone will take your thought seriously.

In fact, Belrad's book has a great quote for just this situation:
Quote:
"Such is our love for a certain scenario that, sometimes, even if a better idea comes along, we may choose to ignore that idea in preference of our beloved older, incorrect system. We can see this clearly in the reception given to Kepler and Copernicus’s works on the Heliocentric solar system. Even though Heliocentrism, we now know, was the correct choice, very few contemporaries cared to even take the idea seriously. As a people, we tend to prefer what we have been told by ‘respected elders’ to be true over what we can see for ourselves is actually real."

All I'm saying is that we owe it to science to at least consider a new idea before writing it off. What it comes down to is an Acchem's Razor scenario. Which makes more sense: A Big Bang universe, full of inflation, dark energy, and all manner of artificial contrivances that exist only to balance an equation (epicycles!), or a simple, eternal universe? At the core, it all comes down to the interpretation of redshifts. In Big Bang, they're radial velocity shifts, in the EU model, they're not.

Tensor, for your response (and I thank you for being candid in your opinion), you should be aware that Bryan Belrad is entirely self-taught in matters of advanced physics. One of the reasons he's always eager to answer questions, at least in my experience, is that he learns from his mistakes.

Also, I believe there may be a misunderstanding with the properties of the light wave. Belrad isn't proposing that the E and M planes are at right angles, he's proposing that the courses of field flux are offset. Notice on the graphic that the Magnetic line is at a value of 0 when the electric is at a peak.

This is important for two reasons. First, it implies that a wave maintains a constant energy value (as opposed to pulsing plus, minus, plus, etc.). Second, it is a planar representation of Belrad's deeper idea that the e-m properties do not exist on 'planes' per se, but are actually two (semi)particles in a charge-locked orbit, a quarter rotation offset. To get deeper than that, you'll have to ask him directly.

As for Olber's paradox, I would ask you to observe dark molecular cloud FeSt 1-457. It is a clump of dust and whatnot that, in fact, does obscure our sight of stars in our own galaxy without shining as bright as a star itself. There are quite a lot of these in our sky. In fact, one might notice that the Earth, despite absorbing massive quantities of stellar radiation, does not shine like a star either. Earth re-radiates at a much lower temperature, maintaining an overall equilibrium. Could one not suppose that interstellar dust might also re-radiate? If so, would it not do so at its present temperature - say, about 2.7K perhaps? Just a thought.

Everybody, the links on the website are in Flash (just checked). If your system is too out of date to run Flash, you can get right to the meat of the matter (the book preview) at www.BelradUniverse.com/BB.pdf. Of course, since its a pdf, you'll need Acrobat Reader to read it, which, like Flash, is pretty much a standard technology these days.

Good Thinking, everybody!

[jimjam]

It seems to me that there's a large breech of scientific thought going on here. Rather than take an idea for its merits, and test it, some of us are prone to dismiss it under the premises of several logical fallacies. I won't retype all of them here, but they can be found (thanks to the sticky note at the 'front' of the forum) at http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html. I left off at Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) due to time, but so far every opposition to EU has been based in these fallacies. For example, from what I've seen, there's been a lot of 'most people believe the Big Bang'. Yes, we know - that's why we're in this forum. Many of us believe the Big Bang is not a God, and thus has the capacity to be incorrect. If you honestly believe that the Big Bang is infallible, I suggest you start a church and start worshiping it, because what you've got is not science, but religion.

[Cougar]

oh well. Tensor has his opinion and I have mine.

The points Tensor mentioned are not opinions.

[Nereid]

[snip]

Quote:
Why do you find these "interesting"? other than the fact that they are in direct contradiction to mainstream views and are most assuredly incorrect.

I find these things interesting precisely because they are in direct contradiction to the mainstream (hence their presence in this forum). Simply because the ideas dissent from 'known' theory makes them no more 'automatically wrong' than Einstein's Special Relativity was in its day.

More to the point, I find them interesting because they successfully and logically answer several problems with our current theory of the universe. Even the most zealous 'believer' has to admit that there is a lot that Big Bang can't explain without self-contradiction. And, there are so many special exceptions in the theory, its a wonder Big Bang can explain anything at all anymore.

Aye, but here's the rub, surely ...

If, in order to "successfully and logically answer several problems with our current theory of the universe", this ATM idea itself is full of internal inconsistencies, requires a wholesale re-write of classical physics, quantum theory, and General Relativity, and cannot demonstrate a match with any but a tiny handful of the landmark experiments which helped establish these physics theories, that claimed success comes at a very high price, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
If there is a case to be presented, I think it should be presented here. It sounds like Belrad's ideas contradict numerous mainstream views. I think it would be best if each of these "cases" was presented separately rather than one large disjointed, unfocused "Eternal Universe" theory.

One of the first things I asked Dr. Belrad via email was why he'd conglomerated all these concepts together. Why not take on and prove/rule out one thing at a time? He replied that every element of the theory, like Big Bang, depends on everything else. If one attempts to propose ANY idea in contradiction with Big Bang, one has to have an entire model ready to replace it, or noone will take your thought seriously.

In fact, Belrad's book has a great quote for just this situation:
Quote:
"Such is our love for a certain scenario that, sometimes, even if a better idea comes along, we may choose to ignore that idea in preference of our beloved older, incorrect system. We can see this clearly in the reception given to Kepler and Copernicus’s works on the Heliocentric solar system. Even though Heliocentrism, we now know, was the correct choice, very few contemporaries cared to even take the idea seriously. As a people, we tend to prefer what we have been told by ‘respected elders’ to be true over what we can see for ourselves is actually real."

All I'm saying is that we owe it to science to at least consider a new idea before writing it off. What it comes down to is an Acchem's Razor scenario.

Do you mean Occam (or Ockham)?

Which makes more sense: A Big Bang universe, full of inflation, dark energy, and all manner of artificial contrivances that exist only to balance an equation (epicycles!), or a simple, eternal universe?

Curious that you ask this question, and in the next post, provide a link to a list of logical falacies.

Isn't your question itself an example of one such logical inconsistency (or falacy), one that is all too common in this ATM section? The false dichotomy (or false dilemma).

Specifically, your question also conveniently ignores the rather big problems with the eternal universe idea, already mentioned in this thread, and the many others that other BAUT members could no doubt find with a hour or so's reading.

At the core, it all comes down to the interpretation of redshifts. In Big Bang, they're radial velocity shifts, in the EU model, they're not.

So, what are they, in the eternal universe ATM idea?

Tensor, for your response (and I thank you for being candid in your opinion), you should be aware that Bryan Belrad is entirely self-taught in matters of advanced physics. One of the reasons he's always eager to answer questions, at least in my experience, is that he learns from his mistakes.

Also, I believe there may be a misunderstanding with the properties of the light wave. Belrad isn't proposing that the E and M planes are at right angles, he's proposing that the courses of field flux are offset. Notice on the graphic that the Magnetic line is at a value of 0 when the electric is at a peak.

This is important for two reasons. First, it implies that a wave maintains a constant energy value (as opposed to pulsing plus, minus, plus, etc.). Second, it is a planar representation of Belrad's deeper idea that the e-m properties do not exist on 'planes' per se, but are actually two (semi)particles in a charge-locked orbit, a quarter rotation offset. To get deeper than that, you'll have to ask him directly.

Since the webpage is bereft of details, and since he's not here to answer questions, I guess we can say that the ATM idea is not specified in sufficient detail to be able to say just how inconsistent it is, with the relevant, standard Physics 101 experiments.

Or are you prepared to present, and defend, this ATM idea on the nature of EM radiation? If so, I've a handful of starter questions for you ...

As for Olber's paradox, I would ask you to observe dark molecular cloud FeSt 1-457. It is a clump of dust and whatnot that, in fact, does obscure our sight of stars in our own galaxy without shining as bright as a star itself. There are quite a lot of these in our sky. In fact, one might notice that the Earth, despite absorbing massive quantities of stellar radiation, does not shine like a star either. Earth re-radiates at a much lower temperature, maintaining an overall equilibrium. Could one not suppose that interstellar dust might also re-radiate? If so, would it not do so at its present temperature - say, about 2.7K perhaps? Just a thought.

[snip]

If the universe is eternal, and homogeneous, without 'photon sinks', how does the dark molecular cloud avoid being ~6000K?

Perhaps the problem is much deeper - either you, or the website your citing, simply misunderstands the nature of Olbers' paradox?

So, let's try this: in an eternal universe, of the kind described on that website, what do sightlines end on, if not the surface of a star?

In general, my quick skim of the Testing the Big Bang document revealed a strange mixture of inaccuracy and misunderstanding, of the relevant astronomical observations, but most powerfully, of the relevant theories of physics under attack.

In particular, as Tensor has already noted, the representation of GR is seriously flawed, with misunderstandings that have been addressed numerous times, in both standard textbooks and in popular science articles.

Frankly, Belrad has simply not done his homework.

[jimjam]

Wow, that's a lot of response! Pardon me if I miss a few bits here and there...

For the first item you bring up, yes it does seem the EU requires an overhaul of conventional physics. I do not see, however, that that requirement in any way causes an internal problem. Take a similar conundrum from the past: General Relativity. Now, I never had the honor of meeting Einstein, but from reading his writings it seems that he met with HUGE opposition because GR basically tossed entire textbooks out the window. Invalidating several theories at once in no way diminishes the accuracy (or lack thereof, to be fair) of the thesis doing the invalidating.

As to meeting only a handful of specific observations, I have to note that Belrad could not possibly address every observation ever made. Obviously, only a specific few could realistically be addressed in a book designed for public consumption.

To the cost of the volumes of theory that would have to be thrown out should EU prove correct, so what? Again, volume is not an indicator of correctness, and if an idea is wrong, why keep it around? Yes, these theories have done wonders for improving our understanding of the universe, and they will be imortalized as the valuable stepping-stones that they have been. But to assume that they are the end-all be-all of science is arrogance. I do not claim the EU is either - I'm stuck playing devil's advocate here, and, in truth, am undecided - I'm just staying that it might be a more correct idea.

For the spelling of Acchem, Occham, etc, I've seen it spelled in a wide variety of ways. I beg pardon if I've used an unconventional spelling.

To the accusation of a false dillema, I have to cry foul. My question of simplicity ignores nothing, as I have yet to see a substantiative problem with the EU concept itself, only different ways of pointing out than it disagrees with the Big Bang.

You ask 'what are the redshifts then'. Well, the simple answer is that they are not recessional-velocity shifts. After all, the case of "Testing the Big Bang" is show BB invalid - Belrad deliberately tried to limit the input of the EU model as much as possible to keep on track.

As you all know, science is as much about acknowledging what we do not know as much as it is about what we do. Belrad simply points out that we DO know that they are NOT velocity shifts, at least in the standard sense.

Now, were I to guess, and I do mean guess, what they are, I might suspect that they are caused by the absorption of energy by the dust in the IGM. Now before I get jumped on, let me state that I have no idea how such a thing might work without Compton Scattering - I'm just making a guess. If a non-Compton method could be discerned, it would meet the criteria of redshift:distance established by Hubble.

I agree the website is quite sparse. Hopefully, that will change in time. For the time being, consider the following experiment that deals with the EU model, as opposed to the book, which is primarily focused on the Big Bang: Take a proton in a nucleus of an unstable atom. Measure the mass of this proton (1). Now, wait for the proton to eject a positron and a neutrino (becoming a neutron). Now measure its mass (1). According to classical physics, this result is impossible, as two bits of mass have been ejected. However, EU posits that the positron, a bit of antimatter, has an equal mass to that of the neutrino, but of opposite slope. I encourage everyone to look into the medical procedure called "positron emission tomography", which, if a sufficiently detailed description, will provide all the given values in this experiment.

I may not be able to answer any question you may have about the unusual light proposed in EU, but I'd love to hear the questions nonetheless, and will do my best with them.

Dark clouds avoid being 6000+ degrees by reradiating, the same way the Earth avoids being the temperature of the sun. Photons can be absorbed and emitted by anything, depending only on its temperature, and in accord with Thermodynamics, a body will tend towards entropy.

Maybe you mean: if the universe were rife with photons, constantly being emitted by everything, how can anything hold a stable temperature (at least less than a star's)? Well, my ability to grasp the whole universe at once is, shall we say, less than satisfactory. My best answer is that all photons seem to redshift over distance (despite the disagreement over cause). Eventually, photons are either converted to matter or are reduced to such a low wavelength that we can't detect them? Perhaps a photon a couple light years long is being absorbed by an atom on Earth right now? Maybe a photon can get re-accelerated to a 'useful' wavelength by absorption, for that matter...

Getting back to the matter at hand, it seems to me that an infinite universe would be regulated by multi-spectral emissions. Star emits light, planet absorbs light and emits infrared, which is absorbed by dust, and reemitted as a microwave... etc, until it falls into a black hole, perhaps... or reaches zero energy distortion and vanishes into the background of the void.

Thus, every line of sight will end on the surface of a star OR something that is between the observer and a star that does not emit photons in the visible range.

I think this is the last one... if there is a flaw with the GR in the book, please point it out for me. As for me, I can't find any problem, but I will be the first to admit that my understanding of GR is far from complete.

I must also confess that I've been guilty of a bit of a mental faux-pas myself. I've been equating the Big Bang being wrong with EU being right. Obviously, I'm in error here; the BB being wrong does not automatically make EU correct. Sorry 'bout that.

I thank you all for a heck of a time so far! I must say, this is interesting. Hopefully, you all are picking up bits of interest too.

[Nereid]

Wow, that's a lot of response! Pardon me if I miss a few bits here and there...

For the first item you bring up, yes it does seem the EU requires an overhaul of conventional physics. I do not see, however, that that requirement in any way causes an internal problem.

You don't?

Suppose Belrad presents a coherent alternative cosmology.

Whatever new physics he incorporates in that alternative, surely it must pass the same tests as the physics it replaces, right?

For example, the specifics of gravitational redshift, observed in Earthly labs.

Or the value of g-2 of the electron.

If Belrad's new physics fails these (and other) tests, it's worse than useless, right?

Take a similar conundrum from the past: General Relativity. Now, I never had the honor of meeting Einstein, but from reading his writings it seems that he met with HUGE opposition because GR basically tossed entire textbooks out the window. Invalidating several theories at once in no way diminishes the accuracy (or lack thereof, to be fair) of the thesis doing the invalidating.

Indeed.

However, GR has the distinct advantage, over what seems to have been presented on the Belrad website, of making predictions which, when tested, match how the universe seems to work.

As to meeting only a handful of specific observations, I have to note that Belrad could not possibly address every observation ever made. Obviously, only a specific few could realistically be addressed in a book designed for public consumption.

And he doesn't need to ... a small set of the milestone experiments should be enough to whet anyone's appetite - the MMX, time dilation in muon decay, the blackbody spectrum, the hydrogen spectrum, anti-matter, kaon decays - that would be a good start.

To the cost of the volumes of theory that would have to be thrown out should EU prove correct, so what? Again, volume is not an indicator of correctness, and if an idea is wrong, why keep it around? Yes, these theories have done wonders for improving our understanding of the universe, and they will be imortalized as the valuable stepping-stones that they have been. But to assume that they are the end-all be-all of science is arrogance. I do not claim the EU is either - I'm stuck playing devil's advocate here, and, in truth, am undecided - I'm just staying that it might be a more correct idea.

And Nereid's idea about invisible pink fairies, or the souls of dead pets appearing as shapes in clouds, might also be a more correct idea.

This section of BAUT is about more than just idle speculation - you're welcome to present an ATM idea, but you also need to answer questions about it, and be prepared to defend it.

For the spelling of Acchem, Occham, etc, I've seen it spelled in a wide variety of ways. I beg pardon if I've used an unconventional spelling.

To the accusation of a false dillema, I have to cry foul. My question of simplicity ignores nothing, as I have yet to see a substantiative problem with the EU concept itself, only different ways of pointing out than it disagrees with the Big Bang.

Perhaps that's because this so-called "EU concept" consists of little more than presentation of a false dilemma (as you acknowledge at the end of the post I'm quoting).

You ask 'what are the redshifts then'. Well, the simple answer is that they are not recessional-velocity shifts. After all, the case of "Testing the Big Bang" is show BB invalid - Belrad deliberately tried to limit the input of the EU model as much as possible to keep on track.

And I'm sure you'd be the first to agree, having presented that material on logical falacies, that you did not answer my question at all.

I did NOT ask "in the EU idea, what ISN'T the explanation of redshifts?"

As you all know, science is as much about acknowledging what we do not know as much as it is about what we do.

Actually, I am engaged in a discussion, in the Q&A section, on a similar topic ... and I think you'll find that I disagree with this characterisation of science.

Without a viable alternative, science keeps its best current theories, all the while acknowledging their limitations and shortcomings.

Belrad simply points out that we DO know that they are NOT velocity shifts, at least in the standard sense.

Do you wish to defend this?

I mean, my reading of that section of the Belrad document lead me to conclude that he didn't understand standard Physics 101 ... perhaps you could start by stating, in your own words (and, preferably, equations) what you understand the 'standard sense' of cosmological redshifts is?

Now, were I to guess, and I do mean guess, what they are, I might suspect that they are caused by the absorption of energy by the dust in the IGM. Now before I get jumped on, let me state that I have no idea how such a thing might work without Compton Scattering - I'm just making a guess. If a non-Compton method could be discerned, it would meet the criteria of redshift:distance established by Hubble.

As I said before, this ATM section of BAUT is not about guessing and idle speculation - either you have something you can put on the table (and defend), or you don't.

If the latter, please say so.

I agree the website is quite sparse. Hopefully, that will change in time. For the time being, consider the following experiment that deals with the EU model, as opposed to the book, which is primarily focused on the Big Bang: Take a proton in a nucleus of an unstable atom. Measure the mass of this proton (1).

How?

Now, wait for the proton to eject a positron and a neutrino (becoming a neutron). Now measure its mass (1).

How?

According to classical physics, this result is impossible, as two bits of mass have been ejected.

By "classical physics", do you mean pre-quantum theory and pre-relativity physics?

In any case, please show how, "[a]ccording to classical physics, this result is impossible"

However, EU posits that the positron, a bit of antimatter, has an equal mass to that of the neutrino, but of opposite slope.

Wow!

Are you aware that there are many experiments, of many different kinds, which have measured the mass of the neutrino*?

And that none of these experiments finds the mass of the neutrino to be equal to that of the electron (or anywhere near it)?

I encourage everyone to look into the medical procedure called "positron emission tomography", which, if a sufficiently detailed description, will provide all the given values in this experiment.

Please provide a reference to the PET technique, where a conclusion concerning the mass of the neutrino equal to that of the electron may be found.

I may not be able to answer any question you may have about the unusual light proposed in EU, but I'd love to hear the questions nonetheless, and will do my best with them.

[snip]

A short list:

* two-slit experiment (and variations)
* pair-production
* gravitational deflection
* photoelectric effect
* non-deflection of a photon beam in either an intense magnetic or intense electric field.

The rest of your post can wait till later.

*Well, an upper limit to this mass.

[jimjam]

The way I see the expansion conundrum is exactly the same as the Pacific Ocean example. If you throw a brick into the Ocean, sea level will rise, but only a very very very tiny bit. Lets say, for the sake of easy math, that it would rise 1 angstrom, far too small for us to detect on average.

But, if you threw a brick in every second, (assuming you spread them around to avoid making an island), after only ten years, you would find a measurable difference (about 3cm, by my very rough figures).

If you expand that to the level of the Solar System, the expansion effects would be very minute indeed, but should be within the threshold of what we are able to detect. We can detect the Moon moving away from Earth at roughly (I believe) 1.5 inches per year, yet if we reduce that down to the level of a brick in the ocean, it would be beneath our threshold.

If expansion were affecting the Solar System, we should be able to detect it in the orbits of some of the outer bodies. It would be highly implausible that every planet should be perfectly balanced between the sun's gravity and the expansion forces. Besides, gravity would have to be stronger than it actually is, just to simulate a negation of forces.

I hear a lot of 'expansion doesn't work inside a galaxy', but why? Galaxies are pretty big, after all. If expansion didn't affect them, and you watch time in reverse, you'll see space shrink and galaxies stay the same... you run out of space fairly fast that way. More importantly, we can see that expansion isn't changing galaxies - to the best of our ability to determine, there is no sign of galaxies in the past being more compressed than ours.

Then there's distribution, brightness, IGM temperatures... it goes on and on. Expansion just does not work, with or without 'special exceptions' like not working on gravitational bodies.

[Nereid]

The way I see the expansion conundrum is exactly the same as the Pacific Ocean example. If you throw a brick into the Ocean, sea level will rise, but only a very very very tiny bit. Lets say, for the sake of easy math, that it would rise 1 angstrom, far too small for us to detect on average.

But, if you threw a brick in every second, (assuming you spread them around to avoid making an island), after only ten years, you would find a measurable difference (about 3cm, by my very rough figures).

If you expand that to the level of the Solar System, the expansion effects would be very minute indeed, but should be within the threshold of what we are able to detect. We can detect the Moon moving away from Earth at roughly (I believe) 1.5 inches per year, yet if we reduce that down to the level of a brick in the ocean, it would be beneath our threshold.

If expansion were affecting the Solar System, we should be able to detect it in the orbits of some of the outer bodies. It would be highly implausible that every planet should be perfectly balanced between the sun's gravity and the expansion forces. Besides, gravity would have to be stronger than it actually is, just to simulate a negation of forces.

I hear a lot of 'expansion doesn't work inside a galaxy', but why? Galaxies are pretty big, after all. If expansion didn't affect them, and you watch time in reverse, you'll see space shrink and galaxies stay the same... you run out of space fairly fast that way. More importantly, we can see that expansion isn't changing galaxies - to the best of our ability to determine, there is no sign of galaxies in the past being more compressed than ours.

Then there's distribution, brightness, IGM temperatures... it goes on and on. Expansion just does not work, with or without 'special exceptions' like not working on gravitational bodies.

This might be a nice analogy ... but as it disregards GR completely, and as modern cosmology is based on GR, how could your analogy possibly constitute a serious critique of modern cosmology?

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what is in the post ... are you claiming that GR, when applied to the universe, does not produce (as a consistent solution) an expanding universe?

we can see that expansion isn't changing galaxies - to the best of our ability to determine, there is no sign of galaxies in the past being more compressed than ours

Can you provide references, to astronomical papers, which conclude that galaxies in the local universe have the same size distribution as those we've observed at high z?

FWIW, my recollection is that there are plenty of papers which present a contrary conclusion ... but for quite different reasons than this apparent critique of modern cosmology seems to imply ... (again, if this is extracted from Belrad, then it shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of modern cosmology).

[jimjam]

My you type fast... ok, let's see what we've got here.

Yes, any new or modified physics would obviously have to pass any tests presented to them. For example, to my knowledge, EU does not have any conflict with gravity shifts, or, for that matter, velocity shifts in cases where velocity is real, such as the variation between receding and approaching parts of a spinning galaxy.

The g-2 measurements, I concede, are out of my experience. I checked the link, and there is far too much going on that I'm not familiar with to make a case either way. I will endeavor to discover what the core of the matter is, but until then, if you would be so kind as to elaborate on how g-2 might conflict with EU, then I'd be happy to address it.

Also, I agree that there are no useful predictions on Belrad's website. In fact, there are few EU predictions in "Testing the Big Bang". As stated previously, Belrad felt Big Bang had to be dealt with before 'fleshing out' the model presented in "An Alternative View of the Universe".

Belrad does address a few of the items listed, though by far the most thoroughly covered is the blackbody spectrum a-la the CMB.

For a brief interlude of my own, can anyone explain to me what they think would happen to the CMB power spectrum if it were compressed (reverse expansion's effects) to how it would look at the time of the last scattering?
Is Belrad right that it should look just like anything else at that temperature?

The invisible pink faeries thing sounds nifty. Can we test that one next?

I will answer questions about the EU or "Testing the Big Bang" to the best of my ability. However, I want to reiterate that I originally started this thread to get other's opinions on the validity of the science contained therein. Granted, there isn't much science coming out of the EU model as yet, so the best we can do is evaluate it as an idea.

I can understand your position on non-answers, however, realistically, sometimes the only answer we have is "I don't know". The converse of an answer does have real value. Edison once said while working on the light bulb that he did not yet know how to make it work, but had discovered many ways that it did not work. By knowing what something is not, we also learn about what it is. In that way, I did answer your question as fully as I'm able at this time. Though you may disagree with this explanation, that's all I've got right now.

Next, the basics of cosmological redshift. It seems to me that cosmological redshift, under the standard model, is currently defined as V = HD, or recessional velocity equals the Hubble Constant times distance. Past that, there are two variations. In the first, the SR interpretation, V is prevented from exceeding the speed of light via the application of the gamma effects. By anticipating that an observed spectrum already has been dilated by Lorentz factors, we can adjust the calculated velocity to keep the observed body under the speed of light. The other version uses GR's time dilation, and is more commonly accepted because it presents a better match with distant supernova light curves, among other things, than the SR variant.

The problem I have, and one of the reasons I was drawn to Belrad's work, is that I can't see how the GR version allows us to detect anything at a redshift greater than roughly Z = 1.5. The GR interpretation fits observation better, but a large portion of that is due to the fact that it does not use gamma to restrict the observed velocities. Ergo, a lot of what we see must be receding from us faster than light, which should be impossible, or at least make those bodies invisible.

Yes, I've heard of metric expansion. No dice there - first, there's no reason for it, and second, relativity doesn't really care what the motive mechanism is. Its called 'relativity' because it deals with relative states.

If you need a solid assertion of what's actually causing the cosmological redshift, lets say its a gravitational friction like effect caused by the IGM particles. Energy is transfered in minuscule bits by the sum of interactions, with no discernible scattering. That's not EU, that's me - there you go.

When I say 'classical' I mean the current standard model. Guess I've been reading too much Hawking... A result of Proton emits positron and neutrino produces Neutron of unchanged mass is, classically, impossible because there is no such thing as a particle of negative mass. Say 1 - 0.1 - 0.1 = 1 doesn't work (I know the decimals are too big). But, in EU, the positron is negative, so the equation looks like this: 1 - 0.1 - -0.1 = 1 | 1 - 0.1 + 0.1 = 1.

No, I am, personally, unaware of how many experiments have measured neutrino masses. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the world still believes neutrinos have no mass. In fact, you are the first person I've encountered who believes otherwise.

Last for today, of the items listed:
* two-slit experiment (and variations)
* pair-production
* gravitational deflection
* photoelectric effect
* non-deflection of a photon beam in either an intense magnetic or intense electric field.

I do not see any way EU's light would operate differently than traditional light. In fact, it seems to me that EU's light handles pair production better than the traditional view. I'll think on it more, and get back to you.

Out of time for today, I'll try to get to the rest later. Good Thinking, everybody! And pardon any typos - I had to wrap up fast.

[Tensor]

Tensor, for your response (and I thank you for being candid in your opinion), you should be aware that Bryan Belrad is entirely self-taught in matters of advanced physics.

It shows. About all his "sources" are popular science books and articles which describe current theories through the use of analogies. Is it any wonder that, in his "papers" that he is argueing against those analogies and not the actual theories?

Also, I believe there may be a misunderstanding with the properties of the light wave. Belrad isn't proposing that the E and M planes are at right angles, he's proposing that the courses of field flux are offset. Notice on the graphic that the Magnetic line is at a value of 0 when the electric is at a peak.

Who said anything about right angles? I said the are 90 degrees out from each other, which gets you a zero at one when the other is at peak. And again, its a basic first year physics explanation.

This is important for two reasons. First, it implies that a wave maintains a constant energy value (as opposed to pulsing plus, minus, plus, etc.)

.

This is basic EM theory. Nothing new, so what?

Second, it is a planar representation of Belrad's deeper idea that the e-m properties do not exist on 'planes' per se, but are actually two (semi)particles in a charge-locked orbit, a quarter rotation offset. To get deeper than that, you'll have to ask him directly.

Well, again, his idea goes against basic EM theory. Which means he'll have to use his idea to explain, with the math, radios, television, etc.

As for Olber's paradox, I would ask you to observe dark molecular cloud FeSt 1-457. It is a clump of dust and whatnot that, in fact, does obscure our sight of stars in our own galaxy without shining as bright as a star itself. There are quite a lot of these in our sky. In fact, one might notice that the Earth, despite absorbing massive quantities of stellar radiation, does not shine like a star either. Earth re-radiates at a much lower temperature, maintaining an overall equilibrium. Could one not suppose that interstellar dust might also re-radiate?

Actually, that is what I said, it reradiates. What you (and Belrad)seem to be missing in Olbers Paradox is that in an infinite, eternal universe, all the dark dust would be reradiating. That we don't see it in every case is strong evidence that there isn't an infinite, eternal universe.

If so, would it not do so at its present temperature - say, about 2.7K perhaps? Just a thought.

If it did, there would be a greater temprature difference in the CMB than what has been observed. Not to mention, the power spectrum would be different that what is observed. I did notice that you completely ignored the point that to have enough dust, we would not be able to see even the nearest stars in our vicinity.

And how about that caption for that last galaxy? Any comments on why he's off by 10 billion light-years?

[Cougar]

I prefer to go looking for the strange and unusual in order to broaden my own horizons.

Broadening one's horizons is commendable, but how do you know any explanation or description of the "horizon" is accurate unless you are very well versed and familiar with what has been found out about Nature in "your own neighborhood"?

Simply because the ideas dissent from 'known' theory makes them no more 'automatically wrong' than Einstein's Special Relativity...

Of course they're not wrong just because they are different from accepted theory. They are wrong for specific reasons, not the least of which is that they are at odds with repeatable observations.

One of the first things I asked Dr. Belrad via email was why he'd conglomerated all these concepts together. Why not take on and prove/rule out one thing at a time? He replied that every element of the theory, like Big Bang, depends on everything else.

One of the things that makes the big bang so robust is that many independent findings all point to the same conclusion. When a finding is independent, it does not depend on any other elements of an overarching theory. It supports the other elements, but does not depend on them.

If one attempts to propose ANY idea in contradiction with Big Bang, one has to have an entire model ready to replace it, or noone will take your thought seriously.

I'm not so sure about that. As noted, the big bang is well supported by many different independent lines of argument. To attempt to replace them all sounds less like science and more like a campaign.

In fact, Belrad's book has a great quote for just this situation:
Quote:
"Such is our love for a certain scenario that, sometimes, even if a better idea comes along, we may choose to ignore that idea in preference of our beloved older, incorrect system. We can see this clearly in the reception given to Kepler and Copernicus’s works on the Heliocentric solar system. Even though Heliocentrism, we now know, was the correct choice, very few contemporaries cared to even take the idea seriously. As a people, we tend to prefer what we have been told by ‘respected elders’ to be true over what we can see for ourselves is actually real."

This is a myth. Ask some of our contributing professionals like Stupendous Man whether he has any "love for a certain scenario" or whether he takes as truth what he's "been told by ‘respected elders’". I believe you'll find that most working scientists are dedicated only to following the observations.

All I'm saying is that we owe it to science to at least consider a new idea before writing it off.

No problem there.

Which makes more sense: A Big Bang universe, full of inflation, dark energy, and all manner of artificial contrivances that exist only to balance an equation (epicycles!), or a simple, eternal universe?

Well, your representation of the big bang theory is not very objective. There are definite, confirmed reasons why the big bang is considered the Reigning Queen of Cosmology. As previously noted, Belrad's "Eternal Universe" idea has certain problems right out of the gate.

At the core, it all comes down to the interpretation of redshifts. In Big Bang, they're radial velocity shifts, in the EU model, they're not.

EU??? Oh, Eternal Universe. I think this acronym has already been taken by the Electric Universe people. At any rate, Belrad's redshift interpretation would seem to be a good candidate for its own thread. If his overarching theory is all interwoven and depends on this interpretation, then if this element is shown to be flawed, well, his whole theory would fall, wouldn't it?

Bryan Belrad is entirely self-taught in matters of advanced physics.

Then he should realize that scholars who have earned PhDs in physics know a heck of a lot more about physics than he does.

As for Olber's paradox, I would ask you to observe dark molecular cloud FeSt 1-457. It is a clump of dust and whatnot that, in fact, does obscure our sight of stars in our own galaxy without shining as bright as a star itself. There are quite a lot of these in our sky.

A quick glance at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field would seem to nullify this argument.

[jimjam]

Only got a quick second for this one.

N: If your asking if I'm implying that GR can and/or should produce a non-expanding universe, the simple answer is YES. I'll explain why I think that another time.

C: There is nothing I've come across in Belrad's works that, to my knowledge, conflicts with observation. On the contrary, he seems to use confirmed observation and interpret them more logically than Big Bang (in general) does. With this also, I'll elaborate later. For now I'll just say that, looking critically at observations, many do not support Big Bang in any real way - they have to be interpreted to have meaning. There are also several observations which have to be shoe-horned in to keep the theory alive. Consider why Alan Guth had to come up with Inflation to begin with, for starters.

And a question for you guys: Suppose for a moment that you were asked to play devil's advocate in a debate about this. What would you change about the theories Belrad puts forward to make them more 'palatable'?

Good Thinking!

[dgruss23]

jimjam,

The problem is that you have an individual that is proposing to overthrow cosmology without citing a single journal article. Look at the 51 page PDF for his "book" titled Testing the Big Bang.

In that he cites a Hubble deep field image as "Believed to be by STSCI from the Hubble Space Telescope". What kind of caption is that? And the references ... Scientific American, a few books. Not a single reference to a single article from The Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy&Astrophysics, MNRAS, ... With what Belrad is claiming there should be hundreds of references to journal articles.

If there is a concept of interest in there it is difficult to bother searching for. This is a person that has read a few popular sources, developed an idea, and decided he has solved the mystery of the universe. If he is truly interested in pursuing his idea (whatever it is) he should begin to review the journal literature.

[Tensor]

Only got a quick second for this one.

N: If your asking if I'm implying that GR can and/or should produce a non-expanding universe, the simple answer is YES. I'll explain why I think that another time.

I would really be interested in this, IF, you can supply the equations and not some handwaving analogies.

C: There is nothing I've come across in Belrad's works that, to my knowledge, conflicts with observation.

Hmmmmmmm, Well lets talk about just one thing for now. His claim about SR and GR explanations being incompatible. Are you, or Belrad even aware that SR is a part of GR? So, his claim that SR is incompatible with GR is equivalent to a claim that GR is incompatible with itself. His claim simply boils down to being another amatuer who has taken the the analogies, used to make relativity more understandable, to a place where those analogies no longer apply. I'm going to need to see a whole lot more math than he's provided to believe that GR is incompatible with itself.

On the contrary, he seems to use confirmed observation and interpret them more logically than Big Bang (in general) does.

Exactly what is illogical with the interpretation provided here?
And exactly where is his interpretation with that level of detail? Now, if you care to provide or explain to the level of detail provided from that link, I'll be more than happy to listen.

I also be interested in how exactly he interpreted that last galaxy and came up with thirteen billion light years for a distance.

With this also, I'll elaborate later. For now I'll just say that, looking critically at observations, many do not support Big Bang in any real way - they have to be interpreted to have meaning.

And so? All observations have to be interpreted. What makes the big bang such a consensus choice is simply because a consistant interpretation, tied together, over different theories, with the same value error bars, matches many observations. What exactly are the error bars for Belrad's work?

There are also several observations which have to be shoe-horned in to keep the theory alive.

Which ones? And how does Belrad explanation do a better job?

Consider why Alan Guth had to come up with Inflation to begin with, for starters.

And why did he, according to you or Belrad?

And a question for you guys: Suppose for a moment that you were asked to play devil's advocate in a debate about this. What would you change about the theories Belrad puts forward to make them more 'palatable'?

Well, I would quit misreresenting and actually learn what the mainstream theories actually claim. Then I would add actual equations, showing how each of my claims are actually derived and how it all ties together. You know, like the link I gave you.

[Tensor]

If expansion were affecting the Solar System, we should be able to detect it in the orbits of some of the outer bodies. It would be highly implausible that every planet should be perfectly balanced between the sun's gravity and the expansion forces. Besides, gravity would have to be stronger than it actually is, just to simulate a negation of forces.

Why? How much expansion is expected, using lamda, within the solar system?

I hear a lot of 'expansion doesn't work inside a galaxy', but why?

Or within galactic cluster structures. How much expansion is expected across, say, our own galaxy or our own local group?

Galaxies are pretty big, after all. If expansion didn't affect them, and you watch time in reverse, you'll see space shrink and galaxies stay the same... you run out of space fairly fast that way.

So, you claim is that galaxies don't change through time? Can you pinpoint where galactic evolution theory is wrong about galactic growth though accretion?

More importantly, we can see that expansion isn't changing galaxies - to the best of our ability to determine, there is no sign of galaxies in the past being more compressed than ours.

Again, exactly how much expansion is expected within a galaxy?

Then there's distribution, brightness, IGM temperatures... it goes on and on. Expansion just does not work, with or without 'special exceptions' like not working on gravitational bodies.

Nice claim, perhaps you can produce the math that back up this assertion?

I would really like to see this. Probably unbeknownst to either you or Belrad, is that the term used for expansion is lamda. It is included on the energy side of the Gravitational Field equations. Feel free to back up your claims by showing us how much expansion, exactly, the term produces at the solar system, galactic and galactic cluster scales.