Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

RodBrett wrote:
"...I have read some of the interesting theories, but once Hubble was launched my whole view changed. I believe the universe is infinite and under no circumstances can true depth and breadth be determined..."

I'm not sure that the Big Bang theory precludes an infinite universe. I believe that it proposes that everything that we can observe is expanding and, if time were to run backwards, it would all condense into a (very small) volume - perhaps the volume of a single atomic nucleus. I think the generalization is that parts of our universe that are outside of the part we can observe would act the same. If those parts comprise an infinite universe, the sum of all those "compressed" observable universes would still be infinite.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes, that sums up the situation nicely. Even if the universe had a beginning in time, it might have been infinite as soon as it began. Our observable part of the universe might be an infinitesimally small part of the universe.

 

[csmyth3025]

SpeedFreek wrote:
"...Our observable part of the universe might be an infinitesimally small part of the universe..."

To digress, if the universe (in whole) is infinite then the probability that there are an infinite number of civilizations such as ours elsewhere in the universe is 100%.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello rodbrett:

What yu say is down to Earth and real.

As for the BBT and start of time, that's fantasy thinking. Imagine the term to create time?

Time is just a measure of motion. Motion cannot create time. If you say Time had a start, you are actually saying there was nothing before and that "GOD" created "ALL".

As for the BBT and start.

Maybe this paper is of interest.
Big bang theory under fire.
Jun-97
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhyEs..10..370M

The very old big bang (BB) problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer BB problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the "decoupling" ("smearing" of blackbody spectrum), a contrived BB chronology, the abundances of light elements, and redshift anomalies; and problems, newer yet regarding inconsistencies of redshift interpretation, curved space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a BB universe, and some additional logical inconsistencies of BB theory are presented.

 

[SpeedFreek]

This is for anyone interested in the range of redshifts in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, which we were discussing earlier in this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PTnbHETWU[/youtube]

The redshifts in the HUDF range from z~1 up to z~7, and NASA/ESA used them to build the animation above. If we forget about recession speeds and such, and simply use the light-travel time for these redshifts, we find that the light from the closest galaxies in this view has been travelling for something around 7.5 billion years, whilst the light from the most distant galaxies has been travelling for nearly 13 billion years. That means that this image is around 5.5 billion light-years deep.

To put this into context, the Milky way is part of our local cluster of galaxies which, along with hundreds of other clusters, is part of the Virgo Supercluster, which is only around 110 million light-years across.

 

[SpeedFreek]

As for the BBT and start of time, that's fantasy thinking. Imagine the term to create time?

Time is just a measure of motion. Motion cannot create time. If you say Time had a start, you are actually saying there was nothing before and that "GOD" created "ALL".

No, all you are saying is that whatever caused the universe, it happened a certain time ago. It might have been caused by a previous universe contracting, for all we know. All scientists really mean is time in our universe as we know it. It is thought that the universe, as we know it, has not been around forever, because we see the structure changing as we see light that has been travelling for longer and longer times. Even if the redshifting of that light wasn't due to the expansion, but was due to some other mechanism that occurred whilst the light was travelling towards us, why does the structure of the universe seem to be getting simpler, the further back we look? Galaxies were not so clustered together in the past as they are today (yes, that is apparent even without considering expansion, see my post above). The composition of the stars in galaxies also seems to have changed as time has progressed.

In a nutshell, everything in the universe was more evenly distributed, and had a simpler structure, the further back we look. It is more "clumpy" today!

But even if we forget all that, why do we see only a certain distance in all directions (however you choose to define distance, be it from luminosity, redshift or whatever)? Why do the galaxies not go on forever, filling the sky with light?

Is it because light has only been travelling for a finite amount of time, and so we have only seen the same distance in all directions so far? Or is it because light has been travelling forever, but the universe is only a finite size, and we are at the centre?

Maybe this paper is of interest.
Big bang theory under fire.
Jun-97
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhyEs..10..370M

Interesting abstract. Where's the paper? Have you read it?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek thank you for that link my son will use it for his homework.

This may interest:

Atlas of the Universe
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

and

News Release - heic0701: First 3D map of the Universe's Dark Matter scaffolding
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0701.html

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes I regularly refer people to the atlas of the universe. I have read that article about dark matter and the large scale structure of the universe before too.

You do understand that the largest scale pictures at the atlas of the universe are estimated using co-moving distance, don't you? They show what they think the large scale structure would be like today, not what we currently see on our light-cone.

And that the dark matter map actually confirms the mainstream view of an expanding universe.

So what is your point?

 

[wildfremd]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

Thanks for that bit of information. That speaks volumes.

I must agree with MeteorWayne. That bodes ill. IMO Progress in Physics is not a legitimate physics journal, and Crothers is not a legitimate scientist.

If all of this guy's papers have been Published in Progress in Physics it is probable that he has been rejected as a result of the peer review process by journals that are legitimate.

So I guess that the peer review process to which I referred earlier has probably done its job, and this stuff has been evaluated and found wanting. In that case I won't waste time trying to understand and critique it.

I don't know that Crothers has singles out most of the legitimate physics community by name, but only by proxy. If I recall the individuals that he has labeled as incompetent are limited to --'tHooft, Hawking, Einstein, Weinberg, Penrose, Thorne, Kerr, Schwarzschild, and Hilbert (did I forget any ?). Oh, yeah, as a result of this forum I think I joined the club, along with MetorWayne. But then if I get to choose my fellow club members I will take MeteorWayne, Einstein , 'tHooft .... so I don't feel very bad about the label considering the source.

the real Einstein wasn't a legitimate physicist either until he told other people what he knew, and got attention. Maybe this author has a pretty good idea that not a lot of people have caught onto yet. Do you ever notice how brilliant minds aren't credited until AFTER their death? Because it takes so long for the general public or peer reviewers to change their way of thinking and say "what if this guy is right?". It's INCREDIBLY difficult to get an article published and be considered "credible" unless you know the right people...it's a popularity contest. I have many friends who've tried...and many who have failed. The guy definitely gets my respect.





http://www.blackduvetcover.net

 

[noblackhole]

"I am not at all frustrated or desperate, I am simply saddened that people without the requisite knowledge feel they can reject the basis of pretty much all of modern classical physics. Such arrogance! Did Crothers get his PhD, or did he fail to get his PhD? He failed. Why? Because all the major theoretical physicists insist he is wrong about General Relativity. My assertion was certainly not false."

 

[SpeedFreek]

the real Einstein wasn't a legitimate physicist either until he told other people what he knew, and got attention. Maybe this author has a pretty good idea that not a lot of people have caught onto yet. Do you ever notice how brilliant minds aren't credited until AFTER their death? Because it takes so long for the general public or peer reviewers to change their way of thinking and say "what if this guy is right?".

You make a fair point in principle, but I should point out that the real honest to goodness, bona-fide Einstein was given a nobel prize in 1921 and died in 1955.

But as you say, we might find that some of what we think we know is wrong. But we also think a lot of what we know is pretty accurate. For instance, Einstein's equations predict black holes, and we have seen a lot of evidence that leads us to believe they exist. We have tracked the motions of the stars in the centre of our galaxy and they seem to be orbiting something with a lot of mass, but that is unseen. They act exactly as they would if they were orbiting one of Einstein's black holes. I am unsure what Mr Crothers thinks is going on at the centre of our galaxy.

 

[noblackhole]

"I am not at all frustrated or desperate, I am simply saddened that people without the requisite knowledge feel they can reject the basis of pretty much all of modern classical physics. Such arrogance! Did Crothers get his PhD, or did he fail to get his PhD? He failed. Why? Because all the major theoretical physicists insist he is wrong about General Relativity. My assertion was certainly not false."

First, it is not arrogant to question the claims of the astrophysical scientists. SpeedFreek's assertion is preposterous. And the balance of evidence does not support the astrophysical scientists.

Second, SpeedFreek claimed that Crothers is a failed PhD. He did not fail his PhD, as SpeedFreek's assertions seek to convey. He was expelled for questioning the black hole dogma, and the professors at UNSW condoned the alteration of his work by Prof. C. Hamer, who, based upon that alteration, claimed that Crothers was wrong and should not be allowed to submit his PhD thesis. So SpeedFreek's assertion is in fact false. Here again is the full report, by Crothers, with all documentation in evidence:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

SpeedFreek "My question was why Robitaille, who has had papers published in respected journals, could only get his paper on the WMAP and COBE "fraud" published at PTEP, a journal whose editors reject the current gold standard theory in physics, General Relativity. A journal that claims to be free from censorship, but itself refuses to publish papers that refute Crothers work."

I note that in the recent issue of Progress in Physics there is a paper that claims the existence of black holes. As for refusal to publish refutations of Crothers SpeedFreek presents flimsy evidence at best (only a silly letter by G. Bruhn). And let's not forget that the "mainstream" journals censor papers every day. Furthermore, Progress in Physics has published papers that the "mainstream" censored.

SpeedFreek "I do not refuse to think for myself (what a slanderous comment, take it easy there), I simply don't have the knowledge to challenge all these theoretical physicists. I wouldn't even try, as I am not a theoretical physicist myself. Are you? I think not. You have simply chosen to blindly believe Crothers, and I seriously doubt if you even understand why."

Well that's not what SpeedFreek previously stated (see his previous post).

SpeedFreek "But if I am wrong and you think you do understand why, then you should easily be able to refute the following:

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... Views.html

I will await your refutation. If you cannot refute the above, then why are you so sure that Crothers is right?"

I don't have to offer a refutation; Crothers has already done that himself, in detail, on his website. But SpeedFreek chose not to mention this. So here it is:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

And here is a recent video conference in which Crothers appeared:

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=More&tab1=Media&tab2=Display&id=180

And I note that SpeedFreek himself has not addressed the contents of Robitaille's papers and has himself never addressed the contents of Crothers' papers. All SpeedFreek has ever done is vilify the journal Progress in Physics and regurgitate the "mainstream" claims. That is not scientific method, and quite disingenuous.

COBE and WMAP are history. Their alleged "data" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Anybody who studies Robitaille's papers will see that for himself. The black hole is history - anybody who studies the papers by Crothers will see that for himself. The plaintive cries of the "mainstream" are futile.

 

[noblackhole]

But as you say, we might find that some of what we think we know is wrong. But we also think a lot of what we know is pretty accurate. For instance, Einstein's equations predict black holes, and we have seen a lot of evidence that leads us to believe they exist.

No, General Relativity does not predict black holes at all, and that is the point, which Crothers has proven. And nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. All claims for the "discovery" of black holes are wishful thinking. All alleged "black hole" solutions pertain to a Universe which contains only one mass. There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be claimed that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. And since the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity, one can't claim, by an analogy with Newton's theory, that black holes can exist in multitudes and interact with one another and other matter. Upon what solution to Einstein's field equations do the astrophysical scientists rely for the existence of black holes in multitudes? None! Upon what solution to the field equations do the astrophysical scientists rely for one black hole interacting with any other matter? None. This paper by Crothers covers all the salient facts:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Budapest09-b.pdf

It is on his website:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

 

[noblackhole]

NoBlackHole wrote in an earlier post:

"...And I'm still waiting for the Defenders of the mainstream Realm here to prove that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (i.e. Ric = 0): after all, the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter...."

I apologize if these seem like lame questions, but what does "Ric=0" mean? Also, what does "...the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter..." mean?

Chris

Hi Chris. Your question is not a lame question at all - it is a very important question. Ric = 0 are Einstein's field equations for Schwarzschild spacetime, from which the black hole was conjured up. It is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

"Black holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein’s field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of General Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC
Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre....of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy.pdf

Now the astrophysical scientists claim that such black holes are all over the place and have been found all over the place, interacting with one another and other matter. But they mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! So the astrophysical scientists have to prove to us that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Well, that's a tall order! And they also have to prove to us that the mass of their alleged Schwarzschild black hole, alleged to cause the gravitational field of this black hole, is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Obviously the astrophysical scientists are talking nonsense.

Crothers explains the falsity of black holes, with little math, in these articles:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/article-1-1.pdf

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

Crothers explains with math in, for example, in this article:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Budapest09-b.pdf

All Crothers papers are here:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

And he explains the fallacies here, on video:

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=More&tab1=Media&tab2=Display&id=180

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Speedfreek said
Yes I regularly refer people to the atlas of the universe. I have read that article about dark matter and the large scale structure of the universe before too.

You do understand that the largest scale pictures at the atlas of the universe are estimated using co-moving distance, don't you? They show what they think the large scale structure would be like today, not what we currently see on our light-cone.

And that the dark matter map actually confirms the mainstream view of an expanding universe.

So what is your point?

Mate I think you missed the point: I said thank you and I was sharing the other links for others to be awear of.

================================

G'day noblackhole
Mate you are a free thinking person, you are on track and I agree with what you say.

 

[noblackhole]

G'day noblackhole
Mate you are a free thinking person, you are on track and I agree with what you say.

Hi Harry. The facts speak for themselves. One only has to be willing to think about things, instead to passively absorbing and regurgitating what the astrophysical magicians tell everybody. Contemporary physics and astronomy is in a sorry state of intellectual decrepitude, and the astrophysical magicians are corrupt beyond redemption. They simply have to be brushed aside by a new and younger breed of thinking scientist. There is no other hope for science.

Perhaps you could send Crothers a note - he is in your neck of the woods.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Smile,,,,,,,,,,, there are many old dogs that think non main stream.

The problem with the young is that they float down mainstream thinking they are on a winner.

This following paper was disputed by main stream and it will come back and bite them on the behind.

Anomalous redshifts in the spectra of extragalactic objects.
May-96
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A%26A...309..335H
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... =AST&high=

In this paper we show that strong statistical evidence has been available for many years showing that QSO redshifts in at least some cases are not caused by the expansion of the Universe. In a complicated world the number of unexpected associations that can be subjected to statistical test is very large and somewhere among the entire ensemble of such associations a few may seem of significance, if taken separately, which are only chance effects, however, occasioned by the profusion of cases in the ensemble. False associations of this kind show up readily as new data become available, since the original chance effects are unlikely to be repeated in the new data. An example was an algebraic formula for the sunspot number which caused a considerable stir early in the present century, the formula agreeing with sunspot numbers over many years with seemingly uncanny precision, only for the agreement to disappear as soon as new sunspot numbers came along. This well-known statistical trap cannot be claimed against the proposition that QSOs of high redshifts are sometimes physically associated with nearby galaxies. This proposition has now been exposed to statistical test for almost thirty years, and it survives in new data just as well as in old data. Additionally, a number of cases have come along with the years where actual physical connections have been detected between QSOs and nearby galaxies. Six of these cases are discussed in detail in the present paper. It is consistent with standard physics for redshifts to arise from doppler motions and also in radiation emitted by matter in a gravitational field, as well as from the cosmological expansion of the Universe. These other possibilities have been examined repeatedly over the years but have never been found to give convincing explanations for the QSO-nearby galaxy associations described above. One is therefore left with the non-standard possibility that different samples of matter can have different mass scales. No theory of how the QSO mass scale could be different from the usual galaxy mass scale has hitherto been found acceptable, with the consequence that most astrophysicists and cosmologists have felt justified in ignoring the evidence for anomalous redshifts, the thought being that what is known to be impossible remains impossible no matter how strong the evidence for it may be. The main purpose of the present paper is to question this mode of thinking. We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

In the last few years we have gained more information on jet formation from so called blackholes and other compact matter from normal stars and exotic stars such as Neutron and Quark stars and in line with such thought.

The following paper becomes very important in anomalous redshift data.

Anomalous redshifts of quasi-stellar objects
Sep-80
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240..401N
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... =AST&high=

This paper is based on the assumption that the observational evidence to date does point to the possibility that high-redshift quasars are physically associated with low-redshift galaxies. It is first argued that the excess (or anomalous) redshifts of the quasars in such associations are unlikely to be either of Doppler or of gravitational origin. A new source for this excess redshift was suggested by Narlikar on the basis of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation which is based on Mach's principle. This idea is applied to the hypothesis that quasars may have been ejected from galactic nuclei. The dynamics of such an ejection and its observable consequences are discussed. In particular, it is shown that quasar alignments and redshift bunching which have been observed recently can be understood within the framework of this theory. Further tests of this hypothesis are discussed.

 

[SpeedFreek]

SpeedFreek "But if I am wrong and you think you do understand why, then you should easily be able to refute the following:

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... Views.html

I will await your refutation. If you cannot refute the above, then why are you so sure that Crothers is right?"

I don't have to offer a refutation; Crothers has already done that himself, in detail, on his website. But SpeedFreek chose not to mention this. So here it is:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

You do realise that the claims Crothers makes on that page are exactly what Bruhn refutes at he link I posted, don't you? It is exactly those equations that Bruhn is addressing. :roll:

Bruhn shows exactly where Crothers is wrong. Crothers unfortunately does not understand the nature of a coordinate singularity.

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... 41008.html

If black holes don't exist, what exactly is the massive but invisible thing that the central stars in our galaxy have been observed to be orbiting?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Mainstream seems to have a hold on the way information is accepted, regardless of scientific evidence that is given.

The danger in this is a repeat in Histroy of the dark ages.

The solution is to allow science evidence to control the path of information.


Easier said then done.

So does a singularity exist?
Does a black hole exist?

 

[MeteorWayne]

harry, you last few papers have been too recent, 12, 13 and 29 years old. Try and find something from the 30's...then you can ignore ven more of recent discoveries...

{-----------------sarcasm shield--------------------}

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

There are some critical papers written in the 20's and 30's

The papers that you stopped will become important.

Knowing past papers allows us to know how scientists thought in the past.

 

[ramparts]

Hi all - I'd been staying clear of this thread, but someone brought up noblackhole's abuse of science in another thread and I just had to step in.

Noblackhole, there's a very simple answer to your question about vacuum solutions of the Einstein equations ("Ric = 0" as you call them, presumably having picked up your math on Wikipedia). Using a vacuum means your solution applies where there's not matter - but it can still be affected by matter from elsewhere! The caveat is that you can't use it at points where there is matter, only outside. This is one of the neater things about solutions like the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics (which describe non-rotating and rotating spherically symmetric spacetimes, respectively). Einstein's equations don't become meaningless in a vacuum, and a 0 Ricci tensor doesn't mean the spacetime is flat - the equations are still valid for describing how matter curves spacetime!

So when we derive, for example, the Schwarzschild solution, we assume there to be no matter, but there are still some free paramaters that decide whether or not the spacetime is flat, or whether it's curved by a distribution of matter somewhere else. As it turns out, those free parameters are related to Newton's constant, G, the mass, m, etc., of something spherically symmetric at the origin of the solution.

Anyway, that's more information than is necessary to answer your question, but hopefully some will find it interesting Vacuum solutions (like one describing space outside the Sun) are still affected by matter from elsewhere - they just can't be examined where there actually is matter (like in the interior of the Sun).

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Can you further explain what you mean please.

 

[yevaud]

Oh, I can interpret for you: "Noblackhole has no idea what he's referring to."

Hope that helps.