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.

 

[Jzz]

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.

This is an interesting conversation. If the Universe is really 80 billion light years across, as some calculations show, it offers some thought-provoking ideas. Overall, the idea of a Big Bang seems to dovetail in so well with observable evidence: including the fact that the hubble shift at 13.8 billion light years almost equates with speed of light, the age of our sun , the stars and the Galaxies and of course the earth itself, that it raises the question of if we live in a preferred part of the Universe, since a 13.8 billion: 80 billion ratio might indicate radically different circumstances in other parts of the Universe. Just a thought, I wonder if anyone has answers to these questions.

 

[Atlan0001]

The speed of time's passage is the constant of the speed of light . . . exactly!

Of course, that only delineates its speed of emission series sequencing and passage of photo-frame sequencing in a vacuum.

The emission of light may be the concomitant creation of its constant of vacuum. At once, one and the same vacuum energy. It quite possibly travels in and through its own continuous immediate creation of an immediate vacuum.

 

[SMyers]

it raises the question of if we live in a preferred part of the Universe

this would be my exact point regarding the cosmic microwave background. it seems awfully convenient that we reside in the exact center of a spherical map that surrounds us equidistantly..... very ptolemaic. the assumption that we are at the center of the universe is archaic and ego-centric. it implies we live in a 'preferred' part of the the universe.

it should have raised a huge red flag. the odds of the Milly Way being the center of the cosmos are slim to none, yet i suppose that is how "god" made it, right. as a scientist, that was the very first anomaly of the standard model that i questioned. yet it seems to be accepted by rote in the cosmology sciences.

instead it appears to me that the CMB is merely a 3-dimensional horizon, a line-of-site limit that stops our measurements of the universe as it curves out of our view. travelling towards it would simply move it away from us, just like moving towards our own horizon pushes it equally far away at the same speed we approach.

meaning there is no preferred part of the universe, it's all just universe. the answer is usually much simpler than four pages of squiggly math.

 

[Helio]

This is an interesting conversation. If the Universe is really 80 billion light years across, as some calculations show, it offers some thought-provoking ideas. Overall, the idea of a Big Bang seems to dovetail in so well with observable evidence: including the fact that the hubble shift at 13.8 billion light years almost equates with speed of light, the age of our sun , the stars and the Galaxies and of course the earth itself, that it raises the question of if we live in a preferred part of the Universe, since a 13.8 billion: 80 billion ratio might indicate radically different circumstances in other parts of the Universe. Just a thought, I wonder if anyone has answers to these questions.

The expansion rate becomes faster than the speed of light at only about1.5 billion lyrs., IIRC. The observed CMB is at 13.8 billion lyrs. But any location within the universe will agree with these facts, according to BBT.

There is no preferential location, ignoring the fantastic habitability circumstances found in our solar system favoring a rather unique Earth.

 

[SMyers]

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.

you are correct, it certainly doesn't. which is interesting since Time compounds exponentially (deterministically), i would have thought that component would play a prominent part in the science, yet it doesn't.

my only conclusion to that is, it is the source of Dark Energy/Matter. i'm not saying that either of those exist, because i firmly believe they do not. i'm saying that their 'necessity' is caused by the Time component Error of Omission being squeezed through the math equations until it has to pop out somewhere. Dark Fantasy is the result of a missing variable.

 

[Helio]

you are correct, it certainly doesn't. which is interesting since Time compounds exponentially (deterministically), i would have thought that component would play a prominent part in the science, yet it doesn't.

my only conclusion to that is, it is the source of Dark Energy/Matter. i'm not saying that either of those exist, because i firmly believe they do not. i'm say that their 'necessity' is caused by the Time component Error of Omission being squeezed through the math equations until it has to pop out somewhere. Dark Fantasy is the result of a missing variable.

Perhaps your time view for DD had some merit since both as indexation rate and acceleration due to DE are time dependent.

DM , however, is being mapped well.

 

[SMyers]

The expansion rate becomes faster than the speed of light at only about1.5 billion lyrs., IIRC. The observed CMB is at 13.8 billion lyrs. But any location within the universe will agree with these facts, according to BBT.

There is no preferential location, ignoring the fantastic habitability circumstances found in our solar system favoring a rather unique Earth.

how would you answer this question if the expansion wasn't accelerating?

i have observed that, no matter what the cosmological question trying to be solved, every single attempt starts with "because of the accelerating expansion".... i'm just curious when others are going to wonder, maybe it's the assumption of an 'accelerating expansion' that is causing all these anomalies that have to be solved.

or perhaps, by removing the errors that caused this assumption, suddenly the answers solve themselves.

how do you "know" that the expansion rate becomes faster than the speed of light at 1.5BLY?

 

[SMyers]

how do you "know" that the expansion rate becomes faster than the speed of light at 1.5BLY?

no worries, this question is rhetorical. i already know that the answer will be "because of red-shift the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate..." .... "hubble constant..." ..... etc.

the answer to every single question on this forum is red-shift. so i guess everyone better make sure red-shift is correct, because it is the lynchpin in the entire standard model.

 

[Helio]

how would you answer this question if the expansion wasn't accelerating?

i have observed that, no matter what the cosmological question trying to be solved, every single attempt starts with "because of the accelerating expansion".... i'm just curious when others are going to wonder, maybe it's the assumption of an 'accelerating expansion' that is causing all these anomalies that have to be solved.

Except for the “Hubble tension” , acceleration may not be a big issue for a conflict with GR.

Most don’t realize that the vacuum energy (ie DE) was included in Lemaitre’s model. He never dumped Einstein’s cosmological constant, which was an intrinsic force within spacetime itself.

how do you "know" that the expansion rate becomes faster than the speed of light at 1.5BLY?

Ned Wright has a website calculator for this GR math. I’m going on memory from a few posts from Rob.

(I’m boarding a plane else I would give you the link.)

 

[SMyers]

DM , however, is being mapped well.

i won't attempt to confirm or disconfirm this, only to suggest that the entire standard model is a progress trap.

a faulty assumption about the geometry of the universe has led to the 'necessary' hunt for Dark Solutions. the trap here is that you can only find what you are looking for. so as astrophysics combs its data pile looking for Dark Matter, anything at all that comes close to being the answer becomes the answer. whatever they are 'mapping' becomes Dark Matter because they are looking for Dark Matter and so they name it Dark Matter, regardless of whether it truly is or not.

people seem to forget that this is all numbers, nothing has been substantiated. it's not as if they are out in a spaceship collecting samples. all of the data is collected by instruments here on Earth and then CONCEPTUALIZED in a computer model. there is no such thing as Dark Matter, just numbers in a model that predict "something", and the humans running the model go "Eureka! we're so smart, we found Dark Matter!"

it doesn't even have to be exact, since everything is calculated within "statistical tolerances".... even the red shift-luminosity calibration was only "nearly linear". math can give you whatever answer you want, if massaged correctly within "statistical variance".

correcting the flawed geometry, on the other hand, removes the necessity of find Dark Farces altogether and suddenly the data collected gets called something else. this is a human conundrum, not a cosmic one.

 

[SMyers]

Except for the “Hubble tension” , acceleration may not be a big issue for a conflict with GR.

Most don’t realize that the vacuum energy (ie DE) was included in Lemaitre’s model. He never dumped Einstein’s cosmological constant, which was an intrinsic force within spacetime itself.

Ned Wright has a website calculator for this GR math. I’m going on memory from a few posts from Rob.

(I’m boarding a plane else I would give you the link.)

from what i understand, the entire cosmological constant was an attempt by Einstein to solve a dilemma in general relativity that he couldn't solve, specifically a static universe. so as is typical in science, he rolled all the remainder up and called it a "constant". and then dumped it. it seems even Einstein realized there was something pretty important missing in the theory. so it is difficult for me to accept GR math as the answer to this question, considering GR math is also flawed, as even Einstein saw it.

he also conceptualized space as being curved, and most likely a sphere, he just misinterpreted it as being static. then Hubble showed that it is expanding, but since then has been misinterpreted as accelerating. it's perfectly fine for these great thinkers to be somewhat wrong, deifying them gets us nowhere.

i'm curious how either of them would have done the math if they had considered the universe to be an expanding hyperball, with Time as the radius. this allows both einstein and hubble to be correct, just slightly incomplete.

 

[SMyers]

It may help to know that the original redshift data (Slipher) ...

thank you again. i did a deeper dive into Slipher and have come to the conclusion that, yes, he was the one who first incorrectly applied red-shift as a Dopler effect.

i've been incorrectly blaming Hubble, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Classical Motion]

Light does not alternate, it beats. It blinks. And the intermittence between the beats…… is YOUR sponge of space.

It’s a false sponge. An illusion of light. Space can not be stretched or compressed…...BUT the sponge of light can be stretched and squeezed.

And some think space is breathing. But it’s the string of light that is yo-yo-ing, not space.

Imagine concentric spheres. Each surface is ½ wavelength thick. And each space between spheres is ½ wavelength thick.

As the emitter moves……. only the space between the spheres changes, not the thickness of the spheres.

Only the space between them. Only the blank part of light changes.

 

[SMyers]

Light does not alternate, it beats. It blinks. And the intermittence between the beats…… is YOUR sponge of space.

It’s a false sponge. An illusion of light. Space can not be stretched or compressed…...BUT the sponge of light can be stretched and squeezed.

And some think space is breathing. But it’s the string of light that is yo-yo-ing, not space.

Imagine concentric spheres. Each surface is ½ wavelength thick. And each space between spheres is ½ wavelength thick.

As the emitter moves……. only the space between the spheres changes, not the thickness of the spheres.

Only the space between them. Only the blank part of light changes.

this seems to coincide quite a bit with my own analogy, that light is instantaneously stationary in 3D and only moves in the Time vector. in your example, Time is the 'Sponge of Light'. the Spheres, as you describe them, are then infinitesimally thin, making the entire "distance" the light travels the sum total of the blank parts.

this makes Time the 'Sponge', as it is the material existing inside the Hyperball universe. since this 'Sponge' is denser than the Void of the 3D cosmos, it requires energy to push through it. this slows the light, as it is now traveling through the Spongy Medium of Time, causing a measurable Time-Dilation per Special Relativity. this Time-Dilation and energy expenditure directly translates into a reduction of the photon frequency: ie Red Shift.

nice analogy, thanks.

 

[Atlan0001]

Every point of an infinity of universe points is the exact center point of infinity and the closed up collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC) (BB) 'Mirror Event Horizon' of Infinity. Thus, every universe always [curves this way from] the Horizon . . . and/or [curves this way to] the Horizon. Curving from..., curving to..., (in Newtonian terms, straight lines (straight line from..., straight line to....)).

Infinity is always a point Horizon . . . thus, always it's own center point (part and parcel, so to speak).
-------------------------

"Slay enough dragons, become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back."

 

[Jzz]

this would be my exact point regarding the cosmic microwave background. it seems awfully convenient that we reside in the exact center of a spherical map that surrounds us equidistantly..... very ptolemaic. the assumption that we are at the center of the universe is archaic and ego-centric. it implies we live in a 'preferred' part of the the universe.

it should have raised a huge red flag. the odds of the Milly Way being the center of the cosmos are slim to none, yet i suppose that is how "god" made it, right. as a scientist, that was the very first anomaly of the standard model that i questioned. yet it seems to be accepted by rote in the cosmology sciences.

S.Myers, it is astonishing how easily you seem to be able to forget exactly how privileged we are, granted with this kind of philosophy where Alan Guth suggests that the Universe reached its present size in a time frame lasting from 10^-32 to 10^-36 seconds it is inevitable that such ideas arise. But think about it, we are truly privileged to live in a Universe made from just 100 different types of atoms, each one contributing to a spectacular diversity that springs from such simple building blocks. It’s almost mind-boggling to think how the complex beauty of the world we see — from the wings of a butterfly to the intricate patterns of a snowflake — arises from such a limited palette. In another reality, if the fundamental elements of the Universe were any more complex, things could easily have been chaotic or even hostile, but instead, we find harmony and balance. Maybe you would prefer to live in such a complicated Universe, it certainly sounds like it, and I have nothing against that! To each his own!

Take the lyre bird, for example — a creature whose astonishing mimicry and intricate songs reveal a kind of inexplicable beauty that feels almost too perfect. Or the rainbow, where light, so pure and simple in its essence, bends and transforms into a breathtaking spectrum of colors, each hue distinct yet part of the whole. These wonders not only delight us; they give us a sense of awe because they are not random, but the result of deep, underlying principles that we can actually begin to understand. It is as if the Universe is showing us its secrets, and we, in turn, are gifted with the ability to comprehend them — a remarkable privilege in itself.

So, when I propose that the Universe might not stretch out across 80 billion light years, but only 13.8 billion light years, it’s not to defy the improbable, but to invite wonder at the possibility that perhaps even the vastness we see is far simpler than we think. It is a figure based on experiential reality rather than on esoteric theories. What makes us so certain that it’s improbable? The very fact that we can ask these questions, seek answers, and understand the principles governing this incredible Universe, suggests that the boundaries we’ve set might be just one piece of an even greater puzzle we are yet to fully uncover.