Big Bang Busted (Again)

[dmjspace]

The latest observation in the long list of failed "big bang" predictions is the discovery of a young galaxy eight times the size of the Milky Way.<br /><br />According to the SDC article, Massive Distant Galaxy Calls Theory into Question, <br /><br /><i> One of the most distant galaxies ever studied is more massive and mature than expected, astronomers announced today. The finding suggests some galaxies grew up much more quickly than conventional wisdom held. </i><br /><br />This, of course, is a huge problem for the "big bang" cosmology. How do you grow a galaxy that immense in so little time?<br /><br />The answer is simple, though most astronomers would rather be dragged screaming to their graves than admit it: <b> redshift does not always indicate distance. </b><br /><br />The "young" galaxy is not as far away as its redshift indicates. Therefore it need not be so massive. The same is true of quasars, which are said by astronomers (with a straight face, usually) to sometimes produce energy equivalent to trillions of suns.<br /><br />But admitting redshift doesn't always indicate distance requires that the illusion of an expanding universe (and the big bang) be abandoned. <br /><br />That's not likely any time soon, even though Occam would've demanded it.

 

[thermionic]

Ha! That's pretty bold! Rather than recognize that our understanding of the dynamics of the early universe is incomplete, you suggest throwing out a cornerstone of cosmology. I would think Occam would have come to the opposite conclusion. May I ask what leads you to this opinion?

 

[dmjspace]

Thermionic said: <font color="yellow"> Ha! That's pretty bold! Rather than recognize that our understanding of the dynamics of the early universe is incomplete, you suggest throwing out a cornerstone of cosmology. </font><br /><br />Are you suggesting that scientific "cornerstones" have not been thrown out before?<br /><br />And, yes.<br /><br />That's the great thing about science. All it takes is one contradictory observation to rule out a falsifiable model, even if millions of scientists swear on their mothers' graves that it can't possibly be wrong.<br /><br />Check out some of Halton Arp's work. He shows definitively that radio galaxy/quasar pairs with widely differing "redshift" values are actually connected to each other.<br /><br />Abandoning the redshift-as-distance rule would instantaneously solve a large number of scientific puzzles, from the unanticipated mind-bogglingly large calculated energy output of quasars, to the anomalous appearance of immense, complex structures in the "early" universe.<br /><br />Instead of examining the fundamental assumptions that go with an expanding universe, however, astronomers are content to invent new hypotheses for every observational contradiction that rears its ugly head.<br /><br />Occam certainly would have frowned on that practice.<br /><br />Where do I get these ideas? From Halton Arp, Tom Van Flandern, and a host of other scientists who still believe in letting observation, not mathematical theorizing, guide scientific progress

 

[jatslo]

Maybe that galaxy's velocity relative to US is slower. With respect to length contraction, the illusion would make it look bigger, even though it might not be.

 

[alokmohan]

The matter is serious.Not matter of whacko websites.

 

[raghara2]

Tenchi Muyo is often translated as no need for Tenchi. <br />We have no need for Big Bang. It was just a theory, and poor at top of that, that had poor predictive ability. And a static universe is better for computer simulations anyway. In fact continual creation theory is even better for computer simulations.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

WHAT ABOUT ALTERNATE THEORY LIKE STEDY STATE THEORY?

 

[dmjspace]

alokmohan said: <font color="yellow"> WHAT ABOUT ALTERNATE THEORY LIKE STEDY STATE THEORY? </font><br /><br />All known theories have problems. The "big bang," however, appears to have several insurmountable flaws. Many of them arise out of the insistence that redshift is always a distance indicator.<br /><br />Illustration of the kinds of egregious errors this assumption leads to is simple. If you think you're looking at a light 100 miles away, you're going to assume it's a really energetic light. In reality, what if it's a firefly 10 feet away? Your calculations are going to be way, way off.<br /><br />Based on Arp's work, this is what appears to be happening in cosmology today.

 

[alokmohan]

Any of you fan of steady state theory?

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">Check out some of Halton Arp's work</font><br /><br />Arp does not declare that the Big Bang never occurred or that Hubble's Law is wrong.<br /><br />He just compiled a listing of peculiar quasars and galaxies which call the entire concept of redshift into question.<br /><br /><br />You're grasping at a piece of straw and trying to tell us its gold !

 

[alokmohan]

Steady state thoery is well estalished theory.

 

[yevaud]

<i>But admitting redshift doesn't always indicate distance requires that the illusion of an expanding universe (and the big bang) be abandoned.</i><br /><br />You're mixing metaphors here. What is meant by this is that the <b>magnitude</b> of the red shift calculated in several of the "standard candles" is off.<br /><br />That's not the same as saying that expansion isn't still occurring - by definition, if you obtain a red-shift from virtually everywhere, the universe is still expanding...merely at a different rate than previously expected. <br /><br />Or are you arguing then that the Doppler effect doesn't even exist, and so every red-shift seen deriving from anywhere is utterly false information? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

You are possibly correct.But dont forget steady state theory.

 

[yevaud]

True. Although with steady-state (Thanks, Fred Hoyle!), we'd still see red-shifting.<br /><br />Hmm... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

It was thought in the early part of last century that light could not change its wavelength except for Doppler, because there was no known physics for doing otherwise.<br /><br />But that is changed. There is PROVEN lab experiments since about the mid eighties that light can and does change it’s wavelength due to various means of interference.<br /><br />So the red-shift we see in the distant universe is valid, but the reason given for it is bogus. Some day, cosmologists will put the red-shift on their own faces. <br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">But that is changed. There is PROVEN lab experiments since about the mid eighties that light can and does change it’s wavelength due to various means of interference.</font><br /><br />It can also blueshift that way. Those are very, very special circumstances which may or may not be the cause of redshift of the galaxies. I think that negative curvature of space-time can explain a part of the redshift. However, I looked many places and yet had not found any information on how light redshifts and disperses in negatively curved space and whether or not the photon must return to its original frequency when arriving at gravitational potentials equal to the gravitational potential at its point of emission.

 

[kmarinas86]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm<br /><br />iffy.

 

[alokmohan]

Its latest.

 

[alkalin]

KM,<br /><br />Thanks for the link.<br /><br />There are at least two reasons I do not agree with Ed Wright’s analysis.<br /><br />One is that there is appearing more and more that the universe is not a very good vacuum. But it is something we yet do not have the ability to see, except under special or indirect means. But it is being shown to be there. So in my view, whatever it is worth, we must look at the universe as if it has an optical index, and this is known to slow light. The further away the object is in the universe, the more slowing will occur. So Wright’s prediction of tired light is bogus.<br /><br />Second, since there is matter in between galaxies, contrary to the fiction of modern cosmologists, this has effects on light other than index; it also has absorption. So his blackbody data is also bogus.<br /><br />Over great distance the matter in the universe has effects on light that become important, even though the matter is very tenuous in short distances. Those effects result mostly from correlation, but some could come from Compton as well. And yes, Doppler effects also occur, and maybe many more things going on we are not even aware of yet. If you narrow your view of a very complicated picture, then you are likely to misinterpret what is going on. And you invent all sorts of math to ‘correct’ the situation.<br /><br />Another point is that his balloon model tends to hide the fact that expansion/inflation in the local universe has not been detected.<br /><br />And last, just where does Mr. Wright think the energies from the stars and galaxies are going? Pouring into some black hole somewhere, no doubt.<br /><br />Is anyone game to try to fit the universe into some simple equation? Try E = MC2? Not even close, but hey, don’t I have as much right to delusions of grandeur as anyone else?<br />

 

[bonzelite]

redshift as a measure of ONLY distance and recessional velocity needs to be flushed down the cosmological toilet just like black holes and dark matter and the 11th dimension. all of it is mathematical mas%turba$ion full of gaping black holes that tax dollars are forever pumped into to sustain the positions of a few bureaucrats. <br /><br />discover magazine is toilet paper. some of the "most distant objects" are probably across the street. has anyone ever remotely considered that the universe never began? to have a beginning is a biblical reference to genesis, as the big bang theory was first proposed by a priest. science and religion are one and united today, yesterday, and forevermore. <br /><br />you want to break new ground, get out of the paradigm of gravity worship and go home. there is no quantum theory of "everything." nor was there any big bang.

 

[bonzelite]

ok, mr. pseudo-intellectual. <br /><br />i better get cracking those modern fanstasy science text books that you must think i have to recycle on here. i suppose you're going to call me a heretic, too? and have me flogged and stoned to death. <br /><br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Would you like to provide evidence that the Big Bang is right? I imagine that Hawking will retract his Big Bang Theory soon, because of the acceleration aspects of reality, don’t you think?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="black">You don't know what you write about. Having stated bunch of wild assertions without any substantiation to any of it, nor with any specific evidence that the current evidence supporting the Big Bang is wrong, leads to one conclusion.<p><hr /></p></font></p></blockquote>

 

[bonzelite]

and as well, isn't it funny that people who are so in love with the big bang assume that it is unequivocally true? even though it is antiquated and full of blaring refutations? <br /><br />talking with someone who will not back down from the big bang is the SAME as talking to a religious fundamentalist --both are equally as closed minded and rigid against myriad other explanations for things. anything outside of that rigidity is a threat to their comfort zone. <br /><br />the next thing we will see are big bang suicide bombers walking into groups of people who have alternative views. this way, they will have their big bang no matter what!

 

[jatslo]

Well, I can break the big bang theory easy. Stevehw33, thinks the big bang is a current event, because of time dilation; however, he will not concede to the possibility that matter can exceed the speed of light in an instant, so either way look at it: stevehw33 does not have a case PERIOD Your reference to "suicide bombers" was extreme, so be mindful that it is.

 

[bonzelite]

..."Your reference to "suicide bombers" was extreme, so be mindful that it is."<br /><br />point taken. i will back off. <br /><br />but to be pro-big bang is even more extreme:<br /><br />the premise, as, perhaps, poetic and interesting as it is, assumes that you must break every sacred rule of physics to be at the beginning of existence. then everything thereafter is quantum-physically "ok" and mathematically reverse-engineered back to a silly premise because all of the super-human cosmologists say so. <br /><br />when looked at this way, the big bang theory is on the same level of serious believability as noah's ark and adam and eve as literal people. and many (not all) of the rest of the exotic objects and particles that shoehorn this idea into a presumed-to-be-true-in-every-institution-and-published-work are accomplices to the crime. as are the bureaucrats who sustain the lie. <br /><br />variable light speed does not prove the big bang.