Big Bang or no Big Bang and Creation Theory

[SMyers]

what i gathered from this thread is that if red-shift is not actually a Dopler Effect, than Hubble was wrong and the entire Standard Model is incorrect.

this entire thread is built from the red-shift paradigm and creates the necessity of fancy math to solve what is otherwise probably a basic concept, per Occam. i propose that red-shift is not a Dopler Effect, therefore has nothing to do with the velocity of a star or the age of the universe.

 

[Classical Motion]

Everything, all of our science is based on the principles of light. I happen to think those are invalid principles.

It's easier for me to believe we have made a mistake, and not the universe.

Especially when what we believe about light has only been indirectly proven, not directly measured.

A flux is always an average. A statistic. No firm value.

 

[SMyers]

It's easier for me to believe we have made a mistake, and not the universe.

Especially when what we believe about light has only been indirectly proven, not directly measured.

yes, agreed. we have no means at all to calculate the age of the universe except indirectly through the use of red-shift. therefore, if there is a mistake in red-shift then the entire standard model disintegrates.

 

[Helio]

what i gathered from this thread is that if red-shift is not actually a Dopler Effect, than Hubble was wrong and the entire Standard Model is incorrect.

It may help to know that the original redshift data (Slipher) of spiral nebulae (galaxies) were taken to be due to Doppler motion; these supposed galaxies were simply seen as moving away from us very quickly.

These results, however, were not necessarily contradictory to both a static model (de Sitter, but not Einstein) or an expansion model (Lemaitre). The problem came later when it was apparent that redshift observations of galaxies beyond much more than a billion light years cause the Doppler equations to go nuts.

Today, as a galaxy glides along through space (peculiar motion) then the redshift of this particular motion would be considered a separate, Doppler motion, and the cosmic expansion rate at those galactic locations would be the cosmological redshifts. At least as I understand it. The cosmological redshift values quickly far exceed any Doppler motions, if indeed they somehow could determine them.

this entire thread is built from the red-shift paradigm and creates the necessity of fancy math to solve what is otherwise probably a basic concept, per Occam. i propose that red-shift is not a Doppler Effect, therefore has nothing to do with the velocity of a star or the age of the universe.

This, surprisingly, was a huge issue in the late 1920s. Einstein and de Sitter were the two big hitters for their a GR cosmological models. The possibility that the redshifts represented an expanding universe was not even given consideration, in spite of Friedmann's brilliant mathematics that argued that it might be possible.

As I've mentioned, it was controversial enough so that Hubble avoided favoring either the static or the expansion model.

It took Lemaitre to make the jump and, as happens in science, there came a thundering silence. He was ignored. But once he visited with Edington, then Edington had him translate his published 1927 paper into English. Edington immediately saw this as a very reasonable solution and he had no trouble winning de Sitter over to Lemaitre's expansion model. The two of them eventually won Einstein over.

But it took decades of observations before the vast majority of astronomers and cosmologists were convinced of the expansion model. Even its name "Big Bang" was a pejorative, which came from Hoyle who, with Gold and Bondi, presented a static model called the Steady State Model.

The best evidence for BBT is found in the discovery of the predicted CMBR, and it all but killed the SST model, though Hoyle never relinquished.

Any alternative model proposed today, *cough*, must be capable of offering reasonable explanations for the many favorable observations already established.

Go to the Big Bang Bullets, which present most of the key tests for any wantabe theory.

 

[SMyers]

Today, as a galaxy glides along through space (peculiar motion)...

thank you ! your explanation is great, but again falls squarely within the existing paradigm. if you already believe the existing definition of red-shift is correct then the existing definition of red-shift is the correct answer, here's all the proof, by using red-shift as the proof.

i'm not disagreeing with you if in fact the galaxies move through space. what i'm suggesting is that, beyond local interactions, they don't move at all. Space-Time is expanding as more Time fills in the spaces of Space, spreading them apart in relation to each other.

 

[SMyers]

It may help to know that the original redshift data (Slipher) of spiral nebulae (galaxies) were taken to be due to Doppler motion; these supposed galaxies were simply seen as moving away from us very quickly.

thank you, i agree. there is a gravitational dopler effect that is different from the time-decay red-shift we see exhibited in older light. if the prior is larger than the former, it will be the dominant factor.

 

[Helio]

thank you ! your explanation is great, but again falls squarely within the existing paradigm. if you already believe the existing definition of red-shift is correct then the existing definition of red-shift is the correct answer, here's all the proof, by using red-shift as the proof.

i'm not disagreeing with you if in fact the galaxies move through space. what i'm suggesting is that, beyond local interactions, they don't move at all. Space-Time is expanding as more Time fills in the spaces of Space, spreading them apart in relation to each other.

Mainstream view does support space-time expansion. Time may be playing a bigger role than originally thought. I’m not a physicist so I can’t address this. I’ve read that homogeneity, somehow, allows separation of space from time, making the theory less complex.

 

[Helio]

thank you, i agree. there is a gravitational dopler effect that is different from the time-decay red-shift we see exhibited in older light. if the prior is larger than the former, it will be the dominant factor.

Yes. This is another redshift component but a very small one in most cases. Einstein was aware of the Sun’s slight redshift and this, apparently, was one of three tests he gave his model before publishing. Explaining Mercury’s orbital anomaly was his biggest test. When his model (ie GR) nailed it, he had heart palpitations from his excitement.

His third test was the extra bending light has when passing by the Sun, about double that of Newton’s theory. When Edington measured it during an eclipse, Einstein became a huge celebrity worldwide, though 100 prominent Germans signed a letter stating GR was false.