MY daughter has hit me with a bit of homework. Research the theories dealing with the origin of the universe that do not use big bang.
So if anyone can suggest something...would love to know
Thanks Glen
Established Member
MY daughter has hit me with a bit of homework. Research the theories dealing with the origin of the universe that do not use big bang.
So if anyone can suggest something...would love to know
Thanks Glen
Member
The only commonly heard theory is the creationist theory. " God made it happen" There may be others but I can't recall hearing of them.
Member
The only other theory I've heard of is the "steady-state" theory, proposed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle in 1948.
Both the big bang and steady-state theories emerged from the discovery that the universe is expanding, and, as far as we can see, always has been. The big bang theory states that the universe is finite, began a finite time ago as a singular point, and has been expanding ever since. The steady-state theory stated that the universe is infinite, has existed for an infinite time, and has always been similar to the way it is today. In particular, it has always been expanding. The theory required matter to be continually created, but at a very slow rate (something like one hydrogen atom every 1000 years), so none of the experiments that indicate conservation of mass would be contradicted.
In fact, the name "big bang" was invented by a steady-state supporter (I forget who) as a way of ridiculing the rival theory. Funny how it's stuck.
The steady-state theory lost ground for, as our telescopes became better and we were able to see more distant objects, it became clear that the universe was a very different place in the past. The discovery of microwave background radiation in 1965, the `echo' of the big bang, is considered by most to be the conclusive refutation.
Googling for "steady-state" hasn't revealed much more than one-page summaries and encyclopaedia entries.
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...nal/steady.htm
seems more detailed than most.
Vulcan Administrator
The original competitor to the "Big Bang" was the steady state theory, but after finding the CMBR and other such results, only a few astronomers (Halton Arp, Tom von Flandern) still adhere to it. However, it's a very important part of the history of astronomy.
The newest alternative is "brane" theory, which is really just a variant explanation of how the initial "bang" occurred, in this case when two universes - or branes - collided.
You should be able to Google for information on either, though be careful because there are a lot of nutcases out there with anti-Big Bang websites.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Order of Kilopi
Technically, I don't think Creationism can even be considered a "theory." Which brings up the question, what IS the definition of a scientific theory? (I assume the teacher wants scientific theories, or he/she would have said "Research the myths dealing with the origin of the universe."Originally Posted by snake river rufus
A hypothesis graduates to become a theory when it has "considerable evidence" to support it.
What an extremely odd assignment statement. Currently there's really only one theory with "considerable evidence" dealing with the origin of the universe, and that IS the big bang. The big bang has been the reigning Queen of Cosmology for the last 30 years, and the "considerable evidence" just continues to grow. Certainly there are huge questions the current theory does not answer. That's why people go into astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. There have been stunning developments in these fields in our recent history, and there promise to be more in the near future.
Yes, the teacher must have meant historically. As previously mentioned, there's the steady-state "theory" (or was it always just a "hypothesis"?) Undoubtedly there's plenty of material about that, although most of it will just be describing why it is a failed theory, and how the big bang more perfectly accounts for what is observed.
In an odd parallel with the creationist movement, through the years the steady-staters have continued to try to tweak the model here and there so it better fits the observations. They won't give it up. So there are a number of iterations. I guess Arp's (et al.'s) ideas might be placed in this category. Some members of this board will assure you his is a bonafide theory, but I don't know if you can get the complete story unless you buy his book. That's because mainstream science is rejecting his work and won't publish his stuff. If your daughter's (high school?) teacher is steering her to research Arp, I'd ask the teacher why.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
try this and links. The static universe alternative is based on a non-doppler interpretation of the red shift. The sun for example has a non-doppler red shift.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
Vulcan Administrator
Oops, my bad! Add John Kierein to the list with Arp and Flandern.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
Thanks everyone who replied. To whoever commented this was a strange assignment - I agree.
MY first reaction to the question was - there is none. But thought I'd ask the brains trust just in case there had been something new come along.
Once again thanks - and yes the teacher is getting a note
Established Member
Where do you live Glen? I'm pretty sure that in some states in the U.S, schools are still required to teach that evolution and big bang are 'just theories' and that Creationist ideas are still viable. That may be what the homework was getting at.
Order of Kilopi
Glen...my guess is that most cosmologists feel very comfortable with the Big Bang theory and want to make better use of their time elsewhere or at least would rather spend more time looking at all it’s implications first. If a big snag comes along, then we might see more effort in alternatives. Scientists and engineers work best when a new discovery or new problem comes along. The evidence is very, very supportive for the Big Bang.
If you want to know what all the evidence is, you are in the right web.
8)
Oh...BTW, I’m a very strong believer in God and His Story as told in the Bible. I believe there is harmony in both scientific truth and Biblical truth without compromise. The Big Bang was His creation way to make what we have seen so far.
It is interesting to me that the Big Bang does serious damage to god-like beings other than a transcendent (outside the universe) creator.
Order of Kilopi
Glen Chapman,
With regard to Arp’s model, I can offer some assistance. First it is important to recognize that there are two levels to what Arp proposes - the empirical model and the theory.
The empirical model is what Arp has built up over the last 35 years based upon his observed redshift anomalies and the patterns indicated from those anomalies. It’s pretty straightforward. Arp’s evidence suggests that active galactic nuclei such as Seyfert galaxies can eject matter. This matter starts out as high redshift quasars that evolve to lower redshift quasars and eventually companion galaxies as they age. In this model there is an age-redshift effect and here is where there is typically a misunderstanding of Arp’s model. Those that deny Arp’s evidence often think that Arp is saying the entire redshift of a quasar is intrinsic. In reality, the expectation is that there will be a cosmological redshift-distance relation upon which the age-redshift relation is superimposed. The younger the object the more “excess” redshift the quasar or galaxy is expected to have.
In this thread we got into a discussion about NGC 7603 which is an example of the type of phenomenon Arp and others have identified. I gave a lot of explanation in that thread so I’ll move to some other points here.
It is important to understand that the empirical model is derived from observations alone. The intrinsic redshifts could theoretically be compatible with any number of models including the Big Bang.
However, the next level is to try to explain the cause of the intrinsic redshifts and here Arp enlisted the help of Jayant Narlikar who has proposed a variable mass solution which I describe briefly in the NGC 7603 thread. Here we encounter another misunderstanding of Arp. Most that bother to even listen to a description of the Narlikar&Arp solution to the GR field equations simply do not like it. In fact nobody has yet shown that the model is wrong, but let’s say that at some point in the future somebody actually makes such a case. That would not invalidate the empirical model. It would simply mean that a different explanation for the intrinsic redshifts has to be developed. This is no different than the current discussions about dark energy in which there is much speculation, but nobody is certain which of those theories is a correct explanation.
It is also important to note that Arp’s model is not a continuation of the Steady State model! This is another misconception. The microwave background was discovered just before Arp started identifying his redshift anomalies. The empirical model does not require the universe be steady state, expanding or anything else specific. Now the Narlikar&Arp solution (the theory) involves a non-expanding universe with flat spacetime geometry. But even that is not the old steady state model. In fact even the steady state models admitted expansion didn’t they? But people either assume or carelessly try to make Arp’s model out as the old steady state.
With regard to the publication of Arp’s papers, it is really necessary to do an ADS author search on Arp. You will see that he has 355 references in ADS and many of them published in the Astrophysical Journal which is one of the major journals for publication of astronomical research.
So in sum Arp’s model is viable despite mainstream claims to the contrary. Numerous examples of his redshift anomalies could be provided, but some here have already said that no number of examples is enough to convince them the anomalies are real. But I think this thread succinctly sums up the problem. The OP was asking for a reference to a two point angular correlation function study of quasars that supposedly would disprove Arp. Well, the only such study an ADS search revealed was published in 1995 and the result confirmed that the quasars in Virgo are associated with the Virgo cluster galaxies, but not associated with the background galaxies in the Virgo direction – a dramatic confirmation of Arp’s case that has not been refuted by further studies. The thread ended with the citation of that study. Nobody was willing to comment on the study.
Let’s contrast that with the Big Bang’s treatment. When WMAP results were presented everybody went nuts because it dramatically confirms the Big Bang concordance model. But does it? An analysis by Blanchard et al identified several ways in which the WMAP results do not fit well with the Big Bang concordance model. They comment that the temperature power spectrum is “rather poor – the probability that the model fits the data is only 3%, so strictly speaking the model is rejected at the ~ 2 sigma confidence level!”
They also go on to note that the amplitude of the quadrupole is small compared to the expectations of the concordance model. Simulations indicate that the WMAP results do not fit the concordance model expectations 99% of the time. So the WMAP results are sold to the public as proof positive for the Big Bang when they are not.
Then on this thread I pointed out a study by Rowan-Robinson that suggests that the Type Ia supernova results which supposedly indicate acceleration may be incorrect. The reanalysis of Rowan-Robinson has to do with sample selection effects and he makes some excellent points.
Then there is the recent results for elliptical galaxies in which it was found that many of them lack dark matter halos. We discussed this here . The point is that the cold dark matter models predict that all ellipticals should be surrounded by massive halos. Now that data on the question is becoming available researchers are finding that this is not the case, so the CDM are seemingly contradicted.
Another dark matter issue involves Baryonic dark matter which I’ve discussed on this thread . The point here is that there is some evidence that the dark matter in spirals could be entirely baryonic (normal matter) as opposed to the non-baryonic dark matter required by CDM models and Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As it stands, the full baryonic dark matter content of the universe has not been determined observationally – only theoretically. So the Big Bang has yet to pass that test and some observations are tentatively suggesting that it may not pass that test.
Another important result to come out in this past year was discussed here . As discussed toward the end of that thread the result is a “suprising” result that contradicts the predictions of the Big Bang – or rather contradicts one of the Big Bang’s invoked hypotheses that if correct (and the new observation says its not) would get the BB out of trouble.
I know this is long, but there were two major points I felt needed to be made and here’s the short version:
Arp’s model has enough supporting evidence that it could turn out he is right. The Big Bang has enough contradictory observational evidence that it is possible the model is wrong. Those are not final conclusions, but are a straightforward description of the current state of affairs – even though many will not admit either of them. Unfortunately many want to label honest discussion of viable alternatives such as Arp’s model as reckless speculation and label all problems the Big Bang faces as minor details that will certainly be resolved. Those that hold fast to those views are practicing dogma – not science.
It would be good to find out the point your daughter’s science teacher is trying to make. Certainly the Big Bang must be taught because it is the mainstream theory. The teacher may simply be looking for the students to find out the claims of alternatives so that the students can evaluate the claims of alternatives and the reasons why the Big Bang is the preferred model today.
Banned
Kebsis wrote;"Where do you live Glen? I'm pretty sure that in some states in the U.S, schools are still required to teach that evolution and big bang are 'just theories' and that Creationist ideas are still viable. That may be what the homework was getting at."
My major concern in writing on any topic in this forum is that sooner or later our children come under the influence of these concepts,most certainly our busy lives do not foster the time and patience necessary to go through all the details of why there is a creation/evolution debate at all but then you see that there is plenty of insincere deck stacking going on,for instance,if you don't go along with the big bang concept you must be a creationist.The ancient texts which would never have supported the so-called 'debate' in the first place but it is only a short step from there to directing it towards science/religion in general.
The parent is now faced with a quandry he/she does'nt want and frankly this dilemma is forced upon them by a broad section ( but thankfully not all ) of the scientific community who regard the ancient texts and the beliefs which are attached to them as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors in lieu of our enlightened scientific 'fact'.What do you tell your kids who cannot discriminate these things,how do you approach a teacher whoes education is a peer approved by the same community that supports concepts that determine that "we can know the mind of God".
Anyone can review the history of astronomical insights up to the recent past and recognise that there is no obsession with beginings,final theories and suchlike,that progress was achieved by a meticulous process or sorting and sifting observation.It is possible to diffuse problems with the big bang concept by being less intellectually aggresive and greedy and definitely by not adopting the what-you-see-is-what-you-get approach.
It is possible to infer a greater rotation than galactic rotation without having to invoke a universal 'center',rather than appeal to 'dark matter' to account for galactic structure and formation it should appeal to gravitational physicists as a greater rotation is easier to work with than an imagined quantity.If the creationists,wayward as they are,are accused of trumping up imaginary evidence to support their ideas what can be said for the opposition who resort to imaginary influences to support their ideas.
Again,I am a parent and I do not wish to children forced into making an artificial choice,it is bad enough that most of us have to do it for the convenience of modern living but from experience I can assure anyone here that the politics of the so-called science/religion 'debate' designs things to foster the conflict and at this level the insincerity emerges through the visible mouthpieces of science and particularily in the area of cosmology.All too often it is easy to force the misguided work of bishop Usher into the Genesis text but it seems that presently it is taken for granted that the Genesis author(s) were creationists when they themselves were forced to begin their narrative somewhere and only by going through the details of the mathematical facet of the genealogical chronology will anyone get to appreceate how the narrative is conditioned to reflect the Hebrew scribe's awareness of astronomy and that he would not have gone beyond what was known of the cosmos at the time in terms of daily and yearly cycles.
Here is a passage which reflects that forcing Usher's work into Genesis can be a terrible thing when taken as representative of the intents and purposes of the Hebrew scribes
"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. "
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
If just one other person gets to see the bigger picture here,they can trace the problem to its sourse and go some way to modify the situation,the ends to which these things tend are good and admit no grandstanding for left as it stands only those with the worst convictions thrive.
Order of Kilopi
One little comment on oriel's post, though don't want to detract from this thread too much. Okay, two comments. First, you are dark matter, so it does exist despite your use of quotation marks. Anything that doesn't shime is dark matter. Secondly, there is dark matter is galaxies--observations have shown this. There is something other than stars (which we could see) that rotates with the galaxy outside of the visible borders of the disks. What this dark matter is, we don't know, but it doesn't have to be something strange. It could simply be dust and failed stars and the like.
Order of Kilopi
Not necessarily. But the big bang theory is not something that one "goes along with." It's a theory - based on observations - that most reasonable people see the sense of when they review the observational evidence. There's nobody selling this theory. Most people who review the evidence say, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." And it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise.
Oh, please, the scientific community certainly does not "regard the ancient texts and... beliefs... as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors." I should think a reasonable person would regard such works as containing valuable life lessons and gems of timeless wisdom. But as far as taking the stories and detailed histories "literally," meaning actual in every sense, uh, no, that is not reasonable. When you start talking about "actual and real," you're entering the realm of science, where you have to "show me."The parent is now faced with a quandry.... this dilemma is forced upon them by a broad section ( but thankfully not all ) of the scientific community who regard the ancient texts and the beliefs which are attached to them as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors in lieu of our enlightened scientific 'fact'.
School curricula are very carefully developed.What do you tell your kids who cannot discriminate these things....
I don't follow. Science is just trying to make some sense of nature, and it appears to be succeeding to some degree. This would seem to validate the original assumption "nature can be understood." Maybe some things can't be figured out. Who's to know? But I wouldn't count anything out....how do you approach a teacher whoes education is a peer approved by the same community that supports concepts that determine that "we can know the mind of God".
A very false analogy if you think dark matter derives from "trumped up imaginary evidence." Astronomers aren't just making this stuff up! Stars orbiting within most galaxies are (measured to be) moving way too fast for the mass that we can detect within their orbits. Astronomers have a good estimate for the mass affecting the stellar orbits, and it's not nearly enough to keep such high velocity stars in orbit! I hope you agree that there must be some explanation. I guess it's fair to say that there are currently many hypotheses out there looking for observational support for their particular explanation. The jury is out, but WMAP apparently claims to provide some support for the nonbaryonic cold dark matter version, which also has some consistency with what we think we know about structure formation and early evolution of the hot big bang....rather than appeal to 'dark matter' to account for galactic structure and formation... it should appeal to gravitational physicists as a greater rotation is easier to work with than an imagined quantity.If the creationists,wayward as they are,are accused of trumping up imaginary evidence to support their ideas what can be said for the opposition who resort to imaginary influences to support their ideas.
Certainly they need not if the bible is not taught literally. Scientists don't necessarily discount the value of some spiritual belief, though some likely question themselves about the foundations of such belief.Again,I am a parent and I do not wish to children forced into making an artificial choice...
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Here's another link.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm
Banned
Cougar wrote;"Not necessarily. But the big bang theory is not something that one "goes along with." It's a theory - based on observations - that most reasonable people see the sense of when they review the observational evidence. There's nobody selling this theory. Most people who review the evidence say, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." And it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise."
For anyone who becomes familiar with the story of longitude and how clocks solved the problem,they too will end up saying - "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." .What will not make sense is that the only computation that was necessary to turn clocks into rulers namely the Equation of Time was jettisoned a century ago to make way for a concept that supposedly revolutionised our ideas of the cosmos albeit it was done via Newton's phrasing of the EoT as the difference between absolute time and relative time.
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured." Principia
When you do a hatchet job on Newton like that and there are no astronomers around to object you are basically free to say anything and couch it in language so vague that even a conman would be impressed.Anyone can go outside to night and verify that the last thing you would do is attach the path of Mars to the 'fixed stars' and then ignore the motion of the 'fixed stars' as the author requests,for goodness sake even a hasty glance at the instructions reveal that the man knew nothing of the method that converts direct observation into models with the Sun as the center like Copernicus and Kepler.
"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars". Einstein
That,my dear Couger,is called geocentricity,the same people who adhere to the above trundle in the big bang theory or the what-you-see-is-what-you-get method.
With clocks as rulers via the absolute time/relative time you can't have your 4D spacetime continuum.
"Oh, please, the scientific community certainly does not "regard the ancient texts and... beliefs... as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors."
The scientific community does not know or want to know its own history so it can hardly comment on matters of faith and the texts that convey the connection between the Infinite and the definite,everyone understands time but because it expression is beyond what people can say about it like the best things in life.When this relativistic nonsense bottled time up in a clock and decided it measured a dimension it severed the link that was fostered for millenia in that if you have to use clocks and time,these rely on the celestial cycles of a day and year.I can do no better than Longfellow -
What is time?
The shadow on the dial,
the striking of the clock,
the running of the sand,
day and night, summer and winter, months, years, centuries
- these are but arbitrary and outward signs,
the measure of Time, not Time itself.
Time is the Life of the soul.
Henry W. Longfellow (1807-1882).
"I should think a reasonable person would regard such works as containing valuable life lessons and gems of timeless wisdom. But as far as taking the stories and detailed histories "literally," meaning actual in every sense, uh, no, that is not reasonable. When you start talking about "actual and real," you're entering the realm of science, where you have to "show me."
You are fine in this respect but it remains that those who are Christian are faced with the dilemma that the Hebrew scribes intentionally left an intricate work of mathematical art that shortcircuits this creation/evolution circus and ultimately the science/religion one.Again,the tenets of faith are based on the connection between the Infinite and the definite and the highest faculties of man have always tried to express it in all those things from the smallest kindness to the greatest masterpiece of music and art but I guy came up with a concept based on a watch,a train and civil time and had mathematicians falling all over themselves because they seen that it was good for business and for what !,so men could say that if they went fast enough they could alter time !.
If people understood the subtleties of clocks in respect to the longitude problem they would be horrified at how the spacetime author defined time,it is almost brutish.
From the Kinematics section of the 1905 paper -
"If, for instance, I say, ``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I
mean something like this: ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch
to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.''
It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending
the definition of ``time'' by substituting ``the position of the small
hand of my watch'' for ``time.'' And in fact such a definition is
satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively
for the place where the watch is located;"
"I don't follow. Science is just trying to make some sense of nature, and it appears to be succeeding to some degree. This would seem to validate the original assumption "nature can be understood." Maybe some things can't be figured out. Who's to know? But I wouldn't count anything out."
The contemporary precepts are dangerous because the spacetime concepts exploit the ability of people to make to 2D representations look like 3D,anyone who watches tv or a movie can safely distinguish between the representation on the screen and real life but mathematically in the area of topology you can turn it into a grey area,a nightmare world if people really knew what relativity attempts to do.
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:32 am Post subject: Big bang, school curricula....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oriel36 wrote:
....for instance,if you don't go along with the big bang concept you must be a creationist.
Not necessarily. But the big bang theory is not something that one "goes along with." It's a theory - based on observations - that most reasonable people see the sense of when they review the observational evidence. There's nobody selling this theory. Most people who review the evidence say, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." And it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise.
Quote:
The parent is now faced with a quandry.... this dilemma is forced upon them by a broad section ( but thankfully not all ) of the scientific community who regard the ancient texts and the beliefs which are attached to them as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors in lieu of our enlightened scientific 'fact'.
Oh, please, the scientific community certainly does not "regard the ancient texts and... beliefs... as nothing but ignorance and superstition from our primitive ancestors." I should think a reasonable person would regard such works as containing valuable life lessons and gems of timeless wisdom. But as far as taking the stories and detailed histories "literally," meaning actual in every sense, uh, no, that is not reasonable. When you start talking about "actual and real," you're entering the realm of science, where you have to "show me."
Quote:
What do you tell your kids who cannot discriminate these things....
School curricula are very carefully developed.
Quote:
...how do you approach a teacher whoes education is a peer approved by the same community that supports concepts that determine that "we can know the mind of God".
I don't follow. Science is just trying to make some sense of nature, and it appears to be succeeding to some degree. This would seem to validate the original assumption "nature can be understood." Maybe some things can't be figured out. Who's to know? But I wouldn't count anything out.
Quote:
...rather than appeal to 'dark matter' to account for galactic structure and formation... it should appeal to gravitational physicists as a greater rotation is easier to work with than an imagined quantity.If the creationists,wayward as they are,are accused of trumping up imaginary evidence to support their ideas what can be said for the opposition who resort to imaginary influences to support their ideas.
"A very false analogy if you think dark matter derives from "trumped up imaginary evidence." Astronomers aren't just making this stuff up! Stars orbiting within most galaxies are (measured to be) moving way too fast for the mass that we can detect within their orbits. Astronomers have a good estimate for the mass affecting the stellar orbits, and it's not nearly enough to keep such high velocity stars in orbit! I hope you agree that there must be some explanation. I guess it's fair to say that there are currently many hypotheses out there looking for observational support for their particular explanation. The jury is out, but WMAP apparently claims to provide some support for the nonbaryonic cold dark matter version, which also has some consistency with what we think we know about structure formation and early evolution of the hot big bang."
Astronomers go along with the isolation of Mercury via spacetime so how can you count on them to know anything about cosmological evolution when they can't even sort out planetary motion, an impartial reading of the isolation of the elliptical orbit generates disbelief,neither you nor they will comment on it no more than you will comment on Newton's phrasing of the Equation of Time.
"Certainly they need not if the bible is not taught literally. Scientists don't necessarily discount the value of some spiritual belief, though some likely question themselves about the foundations of such belief."
The point is that contemporary models couched in linguistic fireworks are no better or worse than geocentric models,your community are the ones who get discounted in other words.The other response I received in this thread on 'dark matter' is a good indication that a mind is being destroyed by imitation of the words of his peers just because it sounds good, a sort of trickle down pretension that does nothing and goes nowhere.
Without a full appreceation of the history of geometry,astronomy and a generous heart that intuitively knows that the politics of science/religion effectively dilutes appreceation of both and that one is derived from the other,not as an act of describing the furniture of the cosmos but the connection between the Infinite and the definte,our temporal lives encompassed by the Eternal for I would not be a Christian if I said otherwise.
Established Member
I did not mean to say that anyone who doesn't agree with the BB theory is a creationist, if that is what you took from my post.
Established Member
I would add Paul Steinhardt's cyclic univers theory to that. It has some commonalities with the big bang, has the CMB and requires dark energy to work. It also makes predictions that differ from that of the standard big bang that can be tested observationall.
I don't claim to be an expert on this theory. I saw him give a talk on it at Fermilab...a talk by an astrophyscist for astrophyscists. It attracted a large crowd with a lot of questions. It was fun to see the back and forth exchange...science at its best!
Although technical, his page is at
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Rob
Order of Kilopi
oriel36, I am receiving indications that you have entered a worm hole and are no longer residing in this universe. (It'll be amazing if you can even receive this message!) If you ever make it back, please call.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
The quasars have “excess” redshift only in Arp's own model, which associates them with a "mother" galaxy (that has a very different redshift) mainly because of the coincidental positions in the sky.
What intrinsic redshifts? Which "intrinsic" redshifts? Redshift due to a compact body's own gravitational strength might be termed intrinsic, but such effects are calculated and found to be fairly insignificant compared to the object's redshift due to the expansion of space, particularly for more distant objects. Other than the additional contributor to redshift - that due to the object's motion relative to the observer, also usually insignificant, I don't believe it has been established that there is some additional "intrinsic" redshift that, according to Arp, is determined by the object's age.
Why would they? It's up to Arp&Narlikar to show that it's right.
If it's non-expanding, what's keeping it from collapsing under its own gravity?
Well, perhaps, but as I said, that has not been established.
....or else they're being careful not to fall for just any crackpot anti-big-bang theory that gets published on the internet.
Bingo.
I sorta doubt big bang cosmology is covered that much in the first place, so researching current, controversial, cutting-edge alternatives would seem a bit beyond the high school level.
Maybe the teacher wanted the student to discover all the crazed, whacked-out, patently false pseudo-theorems out there on the internet purporting to answer the ultimate questions of the universe, as so well exemplified by John Kierein's offerings. It is a rather interesting phenomenon.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
dgruss23 wrote: The younger the object the more “excess” redshift the quasar or galaxy is expected to have.Arp's model is what I was describing Cougar. I've already discussed on the other threads the reasons Arp's evidence goes beyond "coincidence". It will profit neither of us a bit for me to review them with you because you've already indicated that a billion example's wouldn't be enough to convince you.cougar wrote: The quasars have “excess” redshift only in Arp's own model, which associates them with a "mother" galaxy (that has a very different redshift) mainly because of the coincidental positions in the sky.
I'm not sure why you're asking this since you're the primary person that has debated Arp with me of late. You know exactly what I'm talking about unless you haven't been reading closely. And if you're familiar with gravitational redshifts and peculiar motions you know that they are unable to account for Arp's phenomenon.Cougar wrote: What intrinsic redshifts? Which "intrinsic" redshifts? Redshift due to a compact body's own gravitational strength might be termed intrinsic, but such effects are calculated and found to be fairly insignificant compared to the object's redshift due to the expansion of space, particularly for more distant objects. Other than the additional contributor to redshift - that due to the object's motion relative to the observer, also usually insignificant, I don't believe it has been established that there is some additional "intrinsic" redshift that, according to Arp, is determined by the object's age.
dgruss23 wrote: Arp enlisted the help of Jayant Narlikar who has proposed a variable mass solution.... nobody has yet shown that the model is wrong....Why haven't they is the better question? The problem which you so nicely illustrate is that many simply want Arp to go away and want to wish away the observational model he has put together. But in science you have to show that a competing theory is wrong. That has not been done. Instead it is largely ignored. That doesn't really bother me, but when people make statements regarding Arp's theory on this board. I will respond.Cougar wrote: Why would they? It's up to Arp&Narlikar to show that it's right.
The fact is that Arp's model is viable.
That's explained in the 1993 Narlikar&Arp paper: section 3.1.Cougar wrote: If it's non-expanding, what's keeping it from collapsing under its own gravity?
dgruss23 wrote: Arp’s model has enough supporting evidence that it could turn out he is right.Yes it has. The model has evidence supporting it - more than enough to establish that it could be right. That's not the same thing as saying that it is proven that it is right. Once again a good example of this is the Two Point Correlation Function thread.Cougar wrote: Well, perhaps, but as I said, that has not been established.
It was agreed on that thread that the 2-point corr. function was an important test. It turns out the only study any of us could find clearly supports Arp's claims. The model is viable. People can choose to ignore and hand-wave if they wish, but that doesn't change the reality that right now Arp's model is not disproven and has considerable empirical evidence of many different forms behind it.
dgruss23 wrote: Unfortunately many want to label honest discussion of viable alternatives such as Arp’s model as reckless speculation and label all problems the Big Bang faces as minor details that will certainly be resolved. Those that hold fast to those views are practicing dogma – not science.Anyone that has not provided a refutation of Arp's evidence and is aware of the current contradictions to the Big Bang which I've pointed to above (results found by mainstream Big Bang astronomers) which cannot at least acknowledge that the Big Bang could be wrong and Arp could be right is being dogmatic and close minded. Period.Cougar wrote: ....or else they're being careful not to fall for just any crackpot anti-big-bang theory that gets published on the internet.
Label Arp, Burbidge, Narlikar, Bell, Chu, et al as "crackpots" if you wish. That's a nice tactic when evidence to refute a theory is lacking.
dgruss23 wrote: It would be good to find out the point your daughter’s science teacher is trying to make. Certainly the Big Bang must be taught because it is the mainstream theory.Funny thing. I've repeatedly shown myself to be open minded, fair, and willing to debate evidence:Cougar wrote: Bingo.
I've defended the Big Bang against false creationist claims that it violates the law of conservation of energy despite my view that the theory is probably wrong.
I've stated here that I think the Big Bang should be taught in schools - despite my view that the theory is probably wrong.
I've stated on other threads that I think the pursuits of Big Bang researchers are valid science - despite my view that the theory is probably wrong.
Wow - I must be a crackpot among crackpots Cougar. Have you ever heard of a crackpot theory supporter that doubts the validity of a mainstream theory which actually will publicly defend that mainstream theory?
Order of Kilopi
Hey, I wasn't referring to you or any of your buddies. Now, Kierein's references fit the bill.... You must admit there are a plethora of crackpot cosmologies out there on the web.Those that hold fast to those views are practicing dogma – not science.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
Oops. I misinterpreted because this was what I said in full and I've bolded what I considered an important word:Hey, I wasn't referring to you or any of your buddies. Now, Kierein's references fit the bill.... You must admit there are a plethora of crackpot cosmologies out there on the web.Those that hold fast to those views are practicing dogma – not science.
Since I had said “viable” theories it seemed to me that you were including Arp’s since you know I consider that viable. Kilopi was right when he pointed out that there is a fine line between cutting edge and the lunatic fringe.Unfortunately many want to label honest discussion of viable alternatives such as Arp’s model as reckless speculation and label all problems the Big Bang faces as minor details that will certainly be resolved. Those that hold fast to those views are practicing dogma – not science.
Consider the expanding-earth hypothesis. When it was first mentioned on this board my reaction was that it was a ridiculous idea (not very open minded of me). But then Kilopi made some points that made me realize that the expanding earth has proponents that come at it from a solid scientific point of view. As such there is worthy discussion to be had with them. At this time I see no reason to accept the expanding earth hypothesis. In particular I think the evidence for convergent boundaries is a difficulty the expanding earth model has not explained. But I’m willing to read those threads and pop in a few comments here and there. That can only be healthy.
But I have to wonder if the current state of cosmology discussion is as healthy as it was back when the Big Bang and Steady State models (again not Arp's model) were truly in competition. People are correct when they point out that in order to present a case against a theory you must first understand the theory. What the viable alternative’s offer (whether it be theories such as Arp’s or gravitational revisions such as MOND) is an opportunity to explore our understanding of the universe from a different point of view. Sometimes a discovery that the mainstream view can accommodate is made more easily through exploring those alternatives even if the alternatives themselves turn out to be wrong. That is because the scientifically pursued alternatives are truly examples of “thinking outside the box”.
I’ve read here, read other places, and heard people say that they think that it would be great if something better than the Big Bang came along. But certainly we must ask if scientists are really living by that sentiment if they view alternatives as a nuisance rather than as an opportunity to look at the evidence from a different perspective.
Cougar, I think for the most part we've been pretty polite toward each other. But I'd like to see our discussions become less contentious than they have been. My overall point with the various forms of evidence I've pointed to is that Arp has a scientific and viable case which for the most part astronomers are only vaguely familiar with while the Big Bang does have some contradictory observations which if not resolved will invalidate the theory. I have supported those points with Journal references. I have acknowledged that Arp's model is not proven either, but I stand firm that he has accumulated enough evidence that it is improper to just hand-wave away his claims.
That's where I'm coming from. If we can agree that there is nothing unreasonable in that then I suspect we could both learn a lot from openly discussing the issues we've clashed on.
Order of Kilopi
I'll vouch for all of this. I think Arp is probably mistaken, but dgruss23 has been one of the most educated, rational people I've had the pleasure of disagreeing with. At some point, I really need to finish reading some of the material he's pointed me to, and see if I can find holes in it.
Dgruss, I'm confused by something that you might be able to explain easily. Narlikar and Arp don't believe in a Big Bang, but you say that there is a cosmological component to the redshift. If the universe is in fact expanding, why wasn't there an initial point, and if the cosmological component isn't based on recession velocity, what is it based on? You've also said that it's not a steady state model. So if the universe didn't have an initial starting point, but it hasn't been around forever either, I'm confused as to how the heck Arp thinks it got here.
Order of Kilopi
No, a billion would indeed be enough. 8)
I just wanted to make clear that I don't believe it has been established that there is some additional "intrinsic" redshift that, according to Arp, is determined by the object's age. I guess it's not that the jury is still out, but rather there never was any jury. :-?
I'm sure you know the theory quite well. Were you actually defending it, or were you correcting someone's misunderstanding of what the theory claimed?
Hey, I agree.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Banned
Cougar
If you cannot understand that the Newtonian difference between absolute time and relative time is the Equation of Time, which was once the most practical computation known to all astronomers and navigators you can be forgiven for then you are simply brainwashed.
Otoh,if anyone does recognise why it is a really bad idea to tamper with fundamental definitions as the one above and the tampering will show up with exotic and nonsensical things like 'wormholes' perhaps it will be possible to do astronomy again.
Only on rare occasions can the brainwashed be helped and I do recognise that if you looked at the way Einstein isolated the motion of Mercury,where I and most others see complete and utter nonsense,you think it was a supreme human achievement.It is not,it is the worse form of geocentricity I have ever witnessed and oh so easy to see.
Those who adhere to relativity in terms of cosmologicxal structure and motion are the dumbest people ever to set foot on the planet,truly !.
Order of Kilopi
Oriel36, the equation of time is just not the all-important Earth-shattering thing that you think it is. A few posts back you posted your quote from the Principia for the seventh time! Give it a rest! But after answering a few questions, please.
I am on a spaceship heading for Alpha Centauri at 0.1 c. My sundial is, of course, useless. #-o However, I do have a really spiffy atomic clock on board. What is my relative time and my absolute time? Does my atomic clock keep either of these? What is my equation of time if my atomic clock keeps relative time? If my clock keeps absolute time, how can you be sure that it keeps the same absolute time as an atomic clock on Earth?
I see, and you are the Savant who will lead us back to Wisdom and Purity and cleanse us all with the Holy Writ of Newton's Principia. Sorry pal, but Time Marches On. Newton's theories, as good as they were, could not explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Einstein explained that and so much more. By dismissing Einstein you also cut yourself off from a true understanding of the physics of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Established Member
There are lots of ignored intrinsic red shifts. The sun's red shift is certainly larger than any red shift from expansion of space between us and the sun. And its variability with the solar cycle and center to limb variation is unexplained by a gratiational redshift.
Marmet points out many other examples including binary stars that are obviously rotating around each other because they have spectra showing the correct cyclical doppler shifts, but one of the objects has a red shifted offset. I think this is sometimes called the "K" effect. If they are co-rotating they can't be at different distances.
All quasars energy problems can be better explained if they are much closer than their cosmological red shift distances; so if this interpretation is correct their red shift is intrinsic. Hercules A is much better explained as being nearer than it's red shift would indicate; otherwise it is anomolously large in intrinsic extent.
Order of Kilopi
Thanks Grey!Grey wrote: I'll vouch for all of this. I think Arp is probably mistaken, but dgruss23 has been one of the most educated, rational people I've had the pleasure of disagreeing with. At some point, I really need to finish reading some of the material he's pointed me to, and see if I can find holes in it.
Keep in mind that in their model there is an age-redshift effect. So as we look back to truly greater distances we are seeing galaxies when they were younger. Since it is expected that younger galaxies should have excess redshift, the Narlikar&Arp model expects that the greater the distance the lareger its redshift.Grey
I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well. So let me try this way. If all galaxies in our universe were the same age, then in the Narlikar&Arp solution there would be a tight hubble relation in which the reason for the redshift is really a "lookback time" effect in which we are seeing the galaxies when they were younger. That is the cosmological component of redshift in the Narlikar&Arp model and the Hubble Constant is defined by the age of the Milky Way.
Their model then readily allows deviations from the tight Hubble relation for younger or older galaxies. The younger objects should have a redshift excess superimposed upon the cosmological redshift while older objects would have a redshift deficit superimposed upon the cosmological redshift.
It might be helpful to take a passage directly from their paper:
I hope that helps. As I've said, nobody has explained to me what is wrong with this solution to the GR equations. But I also think it is important to keep in mind what I said above to glen chapman about the difference between this theoretical model and the empirical model. This is Arp's attempt to explain the why behind his empirical model. If someone can show it is wrong, then its back to the drawing board for a "why", but the empirical model still needs to be verified or refuted on different grounds.Narlikar&Arp: We have here a flat spacetime cosmology in which light waves travel without spectral shift. How then do we explain redshift? Consider a galaxy G at a given radial coordinate r, the observer being at r=0. A light ray leaving the galaxy at t0 -r/c reaches the observer at time t0. Since the masses of all subatomic particles scale as t^2, the emitted wavelengths go as m^-1 (proportional) t^-2. Hence we get the factor
1 + z = t0^2/[t0 - (r/c)]^2
as the ratio of the wavelength actually emitted by the galaxy to the wavelength emitted in the laboratory of the observer. As such the observed cosmological redshift is the consequence of the systematic increase in particle masses with the t-epoch.
I've never read anything that suggests he has offered a reason. My main point about it not being a steady state model is that the steady state models admit expansion whereas this model does not. The model also involves evolution - ejected quasars evolving into normal galaxies. So it doesn't seem to fit with the ideas of a steady state model.You've also said that it's not a steady state model. So if the universe didn't have an initial starting point, but it hasn't been around forever either, I'm confused as to how the heck Arp thinks it got here.
Keep in mind though that the Big Bang really does not explain where the universe came from either. We've had discussions here about the fact that nobody knows what was there before the Big Bang. So if the universe did begin that way then we really don't know where the singularity that formed the Big Bang came from - at this time. So I wouldn't say that any model has an edge in that regard.
Here is one thread where it came up and I made the point twice as you'll see if you read down. I don't see where its relevant whether I was defending the Big Bang as being right or defending the Big Bang against faulty logic. In fact it was the latter. My committment is to honest and accurate discussion. The laws of conservation are an invalid reason for doubting the Big Bang. I will point that out as readily as I point out mischaracterizations of Arp's model.Cougar wrote: I'm sure you know the theory quite well. Were you actually defending it, or were you correcting someone's misunderstanding of what the theory claimed?
Order of Kilopi
You're welcome. And don't worry, in addition to enjoying our conversations, there's a selfish reason for waning to review Arp's ideas. The best way to really understand a theory and its implications is to be able to see how it fares against its competitors. So by discussing these things with you, I understand things better.Thanks Grey!
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks!
Oh, it's not a question of wanting to explain where things came from ultimately; this isn't a problem or criticism of the theory, I just want to know how to categorize it. I'd consider there to be two possibilities - either the universe had an origin of some sort, or it has been around forever. Unless you can suggest another possibility, any theory has to pick one of these, and I wanted to know which category Arp's model falls into. I still don't have quite enough information to answer that question, actually. He has evolution going on, but it might still be a steady state model. For example, if galaxies everntually fade away, to be supplanted by a new crop of quasars-turned-galaxies, then although galaxies individually evolve, the universe as a whole continues to look about the same. In that case, I'd consider it a steady state model (though different from some of the original models proposed, which included expansion).
If, on the other hand, the universe had a definite starting point and changes with time, that's not a steady state model. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Big Bang model either, I can think of other possibilities, but I'd say that any model in this category should at least talk about the origin of the universe, since it presupposes one. For example, if I decide that the mechanism by which new particles are created is that big particles can occasionally "give birth" to less massive versions of the same particle, then perhaps the unvierse was originally flat empty space when the first generation of quarks and leptons suddenly appeared, with just one of each type (sort of a "little bang").
Hmm, I suppose that this might be a question about the theory's validity after all, althugh I expect that again it's one that Arp has already considered and suggested a possible answer to. In the former case (the universe as a whole doesn't really change through time), there should be some reason why the structure of the universe seems to be different when we look back farther in time (more quasars and AGN's, for example). In the latter case, the "origin story" that goes with the theory should perhaps explain observations such as the CMBR (or other things that are very distant and hence happened close to the beginning, if there's a different explanation for the CMBR), or come up with its own suggestions of observations that should result from the origin.
As you point out, these are issues with the theoretical model. However, given the relative dearth of correlation studies between quasars and galaxies, and my distrust of statements like "just look at it, it's obvious that these objects are interacting", I think it's premature to say that there isn't a less radical explanation for the objects that Arp cites as examples. We need bigger budgets for more advanced telescopes!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote