Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[hvargas]

For those interested in new lines of thoughts look up " RE - INVENTING GRAVITY " A PHYSICIST GOES BEYOND EINSTEIN BY JOHN W. MOFFAT. 2008. In his introduction he writes that " because of the smothness of spacetime in MOG( Modified Gravity Theory ), there is no actual singular beginning to the universe, although there is a spacial time equal to zero (t=0), as there is in the BBT. But in MOG, t=0 is free of singularities. The universe at t=0 is empty of matter, spacetime is flat, and the universe stands still. Because this state is unstable , eventually matter is created. Gravity asserts itself, spacetime becomes curved and the universe expands. In contrast to the BB scenario; the MOG universe is an eternal, dynamically evolving universe - which may have implications for philosophy and religion as well as astrophysics and cosmology ". Someone had said that if we empty all matter from Space that there is no Space or that Space will not exist but according to this physicist there are pre-condition prior to the existence of matter which requires the exitence of Space before matter is created. Of coure I know that Space is not a composition of matter but for the sake of the argument lets say that it is and if we take all matter away and Space no longer exist then " WHAT IS THERE ". I had just started reading this book and found some agreement with it as to my line of thoughts. Another question is Expansion, what is expanding are the contents of Space but not Space. The data may be misinterpreted and the relations which are given to identified such expansion is not accurate. There is that which has no beginning and I arrieved at that by the simple proccess of ellimination. There are no laboratory experiments to prove it cause SPACE cannot be created nor does it create itself. This physicist is in the right direction, I've just started reading his book and findings. Check it out.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Cliff notes:

Moffat and Magueijo have worked together on VSL theory, which proposes an alternative explanation for cosmic inflation, and Moffats work is looking at alternatives to dark matter and energy. He is involved in Quantum Field theory and supports the Big Bang, but is looking for an alternative to Lambda-CDM.

It seems like we might find evidence for or against his theory if we can get the LHC working - he proposes a different mechanism to the Higgs Field for imparting mass, and his QFT does not require renormalisation, which is a plus.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Hvargas

If you are interested in that field you may find this paper interesting.

Exotic-singularity-driven dark energy
Authors: Mariusz P. Dabrowski, Tomasz Denkiewicz
(Submitted on 30 Sep 2009)

Abstract: We discuss various types of exotic (non-standard) singularities in the Universe: a Big-Rip (BR or type I), a Sudden Future Singularity (SFS or type II), a Generalized Sudden Future Singularity, a Finite Scale Factor singularity (FSF or type III), a Big-Separation (BS or type IV) and a $w$-singularity. They are characterized by violation of all or some of the energy conditions which results in a blow-up of all or some of the physical quantities: the scale factor, the energy density, the pressure, and the barotropic index. We relate the emergence of these singularities with physical theories (superstring, brane, higher-order gravity, loop quantum cosmology). We show how the models involving exotic singularities may serve as dark energy by applying the observational data. In particular, we show that some of these exotic singularities (though being of a weak type according to relativistic definitions) may occur in the near future of the universe.

Our summarizing conclusions are as follows:
• Exotic singularities are related to new physical sources of gravity which can serve as the dark energy.
• First example source - phantom- produces an exotic singularity – a Big-Rip (type I) in which (a→¥ and r →¥)
and it is different from a Big-Bang/Big-Crunch
• Investigations of phantom inspired other searches for non-standard singularities (a Sudden Future Singularity
(type II), a Generalized Sudden Future Singularity, a type III (a Finite Scale Factor), a type IV (a Big-Separation),
a w−singularity) which, in fact, are not necessarily the “true” singularities (according to relativistic definitions),
as sources of dark energy.
• A Big-Rip and other exotic singularities are, in fact, motivated by fundamental theories of particle physics (scalartensor,
superstring, brane, loop quantum cosmology etc.).
• A Big-Rip which serves as dark energy may happen in 20 Gyr in future , while weak singularities (of tidal forces
and their derivatives) may serve as dark energy if they are even quite close in the near future. For example an
SFS may even appear in 8.7 Myr with no contradiction with data. A GSFS always appears later in future. Type
III (FSF) is possible in about 0.3 Gyr. Finally, a Big-Brake (which is also an SFS) in tachyon cosmology context
is at least 1 Gyr away from now.
• Exotic singularities may manifest themselves in the higher-order characteristics of expansion such as statefinders
(jerk, kerk/snap, lerk/crack, merk/pop).

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

What is dark energy and dark matter?

Is it defined differently by the BBT compared to Quantum Loop Cosmology or any other theory. In other words are they talking about the same thing?

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's not defined by either. It's based on observational data.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

I have read the observational matter.

It is unexplained.

Can you give me observational data that is evidence that explains what Dark Matter and Dark energy is?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Can you give me observational data that is evidence that explains what Dark Matter and Dark energy is?

No, we have no evidence as to what DM or DE actually are, we only have evidence of the effects they have on other things. This is exactly the same as the case for gravity. We cannot explain what gravity is, we can only use observations of its effects.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

What observations?
What effects?

We know that Santa comes at Xmas and we see the effects, does this make santa real?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Great harrycostas. That adds a lot of credibility to your argument.

:roll: :roll:

All your questions have been answered with real science. Yet you resort to foolishness.

A+ Dude!!!

 

[SpeedFreek]

What observations?
What effects?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... darkmatter
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/darkmatter.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... darkenergy

We know that Santa comes at Xmas and we see the effects, does this make santa real?

We know that apples fall from trees, does this make gravity real?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

In a game of tennis the ball serves a funtion to go from one side of the court to the other side.

If the ball is never served then there is no game.

I posted this in link and Metorwayne reponded by saying its "fluff"
I responded by stating that we need to look at the science and not be too quick to critisize.

Re: Reading papers on Supernova
by harrycostas » Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:59 pm

G'day
Although this paper is in favor of a static universe. We still have the contraction and expansion explained by the physical nature of the object. Clusters of galaxies may show contraction over millions of light years and also sho expansion over millions of light years via observational huge giant jets (solitons) that reform galaxies near and far. NASAand others images show such effects.

http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0009
Discovery of a New Dimming Effect Specific to Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts

Authors: Thomas B. Andrews

Because type Ia supernovae (SNs) are anomalously dimmed with respect to the at (qo = 0.5) Friedman Expanding Universe model, I was surprised to find that the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) are not anomalously dimmed. Based on the absence of anomalous dimming in BCGs, the following conclusions were reached:

⋅ Since the light from the SNs and BCGs traverses the same space, the current hypothesis of an accelerated expansion of the universe to explain the anomalous dimming of SNs is disproved.
⋅ The cause of the anomalous dimming must be specific to the SNs.

The first conclusion is important since current research in dark energy and the cosmological constant was initiated based on the accelerated expansion hypothesis. The disproof of this hypothesis, therefore, casts serious doubts on the existence of dark energy and the cosmological constant. The second conclusion indicates that the occurrence of anomalous dimming depends on a basic difference between the SNs and BCGs. The only difference besides the obvious - that SNs are exploding stars and the BCGs are galaxies - is that the light curves of the SNs are limited in duration. Due on this difference, I discovered that SNs light curves are broadened at the observer by a new Hubble redshift effect. Since the total energy of the light curve is then spread over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity is reduced at the observer, causing the observed anomalous dimming of SNs. I also show that BCGs are not anomalously dimmed because their absolute luminosity is approximately constant over the time required for the light to reach the observer. The above conclusions also apply to Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) since gamma-ray "light" curves are limited in duration. Finally, the light curve broadening effect can be used to determine if the universe is expanding or static. In the expanding universe model, a light curve broadening effect is predicted due to time-dilation for the SNs, GRBs and BCGs. Consequently, if the universe is expanding, two light curve broadening effects should occur for the SNs and GRBs. However, if the universe is static, only one light curve broadening effect will occur for the SNs and GRBs. Fortunately, Golhaber has measured the width's of SNs light curves and conclusively showed that only one light curve broadening effect occurs. Consequently, the expanding universe model is logically falsified.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

I have read these links before.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... darkmatter
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/darkmatter.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... darkenergy


What part do you wish to discuss?

Also can you explain, what you think dark matter and dark energy is?

 

[SpeedFreek]

I have read these links before.

What part do you wish to discuss?

What part do you wish to discuss? If you have read the information in those links, you know what the evidence is for dark matter and energy.

Also can you explain, what you think dark matter and dark energy is?

we have no evidence as to what DM or DE actually are, we only have evidence of the effects they have on other things.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

I know that Darkmatter and dark energy is contextual.

In saying that.

I do not want to add to the chenese whisper.

So! again please explain your idea of Dark matter/energy

 

[SpeedFreek]

So! again please explain your idea of Dark matter/energy

They aren't my idea... :roll:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

I'm not saying it's your idea.

What I want to know is your opinion?

What you think?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The more I think about it the more I feel that this subject is at home in the UNEXPLAINED FORUM.

 

[SpeedFreek]

What I want to know is your opinion?

What you think?

I think the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that there is a lot of unseen matter out there.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

Many think that the universe is accelerating and yet the evidence is theoretical and that people have taken this to be a fact.

The term Universe is sometimes taken to be the observable universe or a a unit of it. Explaining the motions.

What is observable?

Galaxies cluster forming local galaxies such as our own.

These local clusters move towards a larger cluster of galaxies. Such as our own that move towards the great attractor.
and form a clsuter of local groups of galaxies.

These larger clusters, cluster once again and form a larger cluster a super cluster and it goes on.

This is reality that can be observed.

Now what we have is a so called space/time expansion that is very theoretical and not actual.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Many think that the universe is accelerating and yet the evidence is theoretical and that people have taken this to be a fact.

Yes, theoretical evidence, such as the evidence for gravity, which we take to be a fact but can only see the effects it has on other things.

The term Universe is sometimes taken to be the observable universe or a a unit of it. Explaining the motions.

The universe is larger than our observable part of it. What does "explaining the motions" mean? It seems to be only half a sentence.

What is observable?

Galaxies cluster forming local galaxies such as our own.

How do you know the local galaxies are clustering? We cannot measure their actual motion. The evidence is theoretical, from the shifts in their spectra - red or blue. The evidence for the local clustering is just as theoretical as the evidence for overall expansion.

These local clusters move towards a larger cluster of galaxies. Such as our own that move towards the great attractor.
and form a clsuter of local groups of galaxies.

How do you know the local cluster is moving towards the great attractor? We cannot measure the actual motion of galaxies in the cluster. We use theoretical evidence derived from measurements of their spectra. The evidence for motion towards the great attactor is just as theoretical as the evidence that the universe is expanding.

These larger clusters, cluster once again and form a larger cluster a super cluster and it goes on.

This is reality that can be observed.

Totally and utterly wrong. The distance between the superclusters is too large to be considered "clustering". The superclusters are not clustering up into a larger clusters. Using the same theoretical evidence as all the cases above (shifts in spectra) we find the superclusters are actually separating. This is the reality that can be observed, theoretically.

Now what we have is a so called space/time expansion that is very theoretical and not actual.

It is ALL theoretical.

Show me evidence that the superclusters of galaxies, throughout the observable universe, are all clustering up, i.e. getting closer together. (Hint - there is no evidence of this).

I'm not sure how you got such a skewed view of cosmology. We cannot measure the movements of any galaxy by observation - we cannot actually see them moving. We can only infer their movement by comparing things like redshift, luminosity, surface brightness etc and applying our theories to those observations.

I repeat, it is all theoretical. We take our observations and try to find a theory to explain them.

If redshift/luminosity equates to light-travel time, as we theorise, then local groups of galaxies are clustering and forming superclusters, as the universe expands between the superclusters.

After all these pages in this thread, you are still stuck on this "clustering" issue, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

If all the superclusters in the universe were themselves clustering up, the universe would be getting smaller, rather than larger. In reality, what we see is that, with redshifts higher than z~1.5, galaxies look closer and closer to us, as if everything was closer together in the past, so the universe must have been smaller and must be getting larger.

A galaxy at redshift z=7 has a size in the sky that shows it was only 3.5 billion light-years away, whilst the redshift and apparent luminosity tell us the light was emitted 12.9 billion years ago. A galaxy at redshift z=1.4 has a size in the sky that shows it was 5.7 billion light-years away, with redshift/luminosity telling us the light was emitted only 9.1 billion years ago. We receive photons from these objects at the same time. If redshift/luminosity is an indicator of light-travel time, and photons all move at the same speed, and therefore photons never overtake other photons, then the z=7 galaxy must be further away than the z=1.4 galaxy. So by the time the light from the z=7 galaxy was passing the z=1.4 galaxy, the z=7 galaxy was a lot more distant than the z=1.4 galaxy. The light from both reaches us today.

So, if photons never overtake other photons, the z=7 galaxy would be part of a cluster that was 3.5 billion light-years away, 12.9 billion years ago, but was a lot further away than 5.7 billion light-years, 9.1 billion years ago. How then, can that cluster be moving towards our cluster? How can that supercluster be clustering up with our supercluster?

As light-travel time increases, so does redshift increase and apparent luminosity decrease. The higher the redshift, the dimmer the object, the longer the light has been travelling. The apparent recession speed is derived using these theories, which, when combined with the surface brightness or angular diameter data for the original distance the light was emitted at, shows us a universe where all the distant galaxies are becoming more distant, over time.

This really is pretty basic logic. The longer the light has been travelling for, the dimmer the object looks. The closer the object was when the light was emitted, the larger the object looks.

 

[Jobiwan]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Now that we know harrycostas is from the land of ozzz, we can understand why his veiw of the big bang is not like ours. The big bang in ozzz must work different than in this reality. So it's not his fault.

CommonMan - please don't put all Australians in with this slightly strange man! He is in a rubber-wallpapered room all by himself! :!:

Harrycostas - no offense but it's true :?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Hello Speedfreek, mate what I gave you is common info. Please research the information, its out there. I would post links if I thought you would read them. There are a number of Cosmo maps out there and many papers on clusters of galaxies, even the NASA site is a great one. If you still need info, I do not mind going out of my way.

Hello Jobiwan

What is truth?

The information that you have or the information that you do not have. Too many people are too quick to give their opinion as truth. One only needs to look at the common man in history forming their little groups of so called truths for "NOW".

I do not take offence I just expect better from people.
As for the BBT give it a couple of more years and it will be known as the biggest crank pot theory based on ad hoc theories.
Thats my opinion.

 

[origin]

G'day

Hello Speedfreek, mate what I gave you is common info. Please research the information, its out there. I would post links if I thought you would read them. There are a number of Cosmo maps out there and many papers on clusters of galaxies, even the NASA site is a great one. If you still need info, I do not mind going out of my way.

So the bottom line appears to be you did not understand anything that Speedfreak took the time to post for you. That is odd because it speedfreak's explanations seemed very clear to me and I am sure they was very clear to anyone else that read them. That means your arrogant reply does not help your case, in fact it greatly hurts it by making your already low credibility diminish even more.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day origin

May I ask, what was very clear?

 

[origin]

G'day origin

May I ask, what was very clear?

Yes, you may ask. However, given that you would ask such a strange question leads me to the conclusion that you are not payng attention or you have a closed mind and therefore it just ain't worth wasting my time.