Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[yevaud]

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I have to say noblackhole, I do on most occassions disagree with your methods of criticizing people and the theories they believe in. In this instance I have to give the devil his dues. I read this over and it is very well put together. Awesome work on your part. You never attacked anyone, just the mere scientific aspects to contradict the most popular theory. Hence, what this thread is actually asking (Big Bang, or no Big Bang). In your opinion, and after having stated the above; What is your take on how the universe came to exist as we see it today if the Big Bang did not occur? (Just opening the floor for your ideaolgy of the universe). I think your theory may turn out to be quite fascinating. Of course, anything is possible.

 

[noblackhole]

I have to say noblackhole, I do on most occassions disagree with your methods of criticizing people and the theories they believe in. In this instance I have to give the devil his dues. I read this over and it is very well put together. Awesome work on your part. You never attacked anyone, just the mere scientific aspects to contradict the most popular theory. Hence, what this thread is actually asking (Big Bang, or no Big Bang). In your opinion, and after having stated the above; What is your take on how the universe came to exist as we see it today if the Big Bang did not occur? (Just opening the floor for your ideaolgy of the universe). I think your theory may turn out to be quite fascinating. Of course, anything is possible.

I think it premature to advance my philosophical views on the cosmic ontological question. Such a discussion would deflect attention from the issue at hand, and the aim of this thread, and would delve into matters that are not strictly science. My previous posts have provided demonstration of the falsity of the big bang cosmology, on both theoretical and experimental/observational grounds (and the falsity of the black hole theory). The arguments I previously presented must be fully digested. So far only one person has acknowledged the facts (TheOneRaven). Defenders of the phantasmagorical big bang (and black hole) have not acknowledged the facts (not a surprise to me - silence is still golden, it seems).

I have no theory. I report the work of Crothers and Robitaille, and some others. My last post was essentially an extract from a recent long and detailed paper by Crothers, the one before that the papers of Robitaille. Crothers gives the theoretical arguments, Robitaille the experimental and observational facts and detailed analysis of the WMAP and COBE teams cooking of the data books. Here is the paper by Crothers from which my last post was extracted:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/AMS-paper.pdf

The cited papers demonstrate that big bang (and black holes, and Einstein gravitational waves) are nonsense, and that Einstein's field equations violate the experimental evidence, and therefore fail.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I like looking at both sides of the coin noblackhole. Hence why I asked for your insight based upon IF what these papers of yours say are true. As I mentioned before numerous times, I research to find answers to what I don't know. I have to say honestly, the equations are above my understanding, however I do understand the explanations given within the papers. I have found that Crothers and others are not criticized because they criticize the greats of astronomy and science, but rather in other aspects as seen in this equally interesting link http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html

I also though with your insight and strong opinions noblackhole, there might be some sort of reasoning to explain how things came to be in the universe as we see them today, but I didn't expect one to be honest.

 

[noblackhole]

I have found that Crothers and others are not criticized because they criticize the greats of astronomy and science, but rather in other aspects as seen in this equally interesting link http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html

But you did not cite Crothers' response to Bridgman's trivial comments:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/bridgman.pdf

which is on the site you refer to. Bridgman is way out of his depth. He has no idea and his knee-jerk remarks are futile.

In any event, what I have reported is not my opinion, but the facts, theoretical and physical. The evidence speaks for itself, and it demolishes the big bang and the black hole and Einstein's field equations.

Here is another example of Bridgman's incompetence (see the contribution by 'fromthesideline' in particular, which reveals Bridgman's lack of fundamental knowledge).

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... sents.html

No, Bridgman's scribblings do not prove Crothers is mistaken, far from it. Crothers has wiped the floor with Bridgman, who is not even in the race. And as I said in my previous email, the detailed posting I made is straight out of the paper by Crothers, which you acknowledge as 'awesome', and moderator yevaud describes as 'excellent'.

I invite defenders of the big bang (and the black hole) to address the papers I have cited and my previous postings. Isn't this supposed to be a discussion of the scientific facts here? The big bangers and black holers have been very quiet !

 

[yevaud]

Well, actually, I was referring to your posting in some depth and sticking around to debate the topic as "excellent." That being said, there is a great deal of meat on the bone there to debate. I for one am not antithetical to ideas, even if I were to disagree with them. Otherwise, there is no scientific discourse, and nothing is ever resolved.

Please continue.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Thank you yevaud,

As I mentioned noblackhole I like to look at things from both sides of the coin. However as you and I both know observations of distant galaxies and quasars show a redshift. Without the Big Bang theory, how do we explain the redshift? or the recessional velocities? (Hubbles Law). If I'm not mistaken Hubbles constant was measured to be 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe. Could this be wrong as well? Both Friedmann & Lemaitre utilized General Relativity to predict the universal expansion before Hubble's observations. I'm just wondering IF Einstein were incorrect in his General Relativity, wouldn't it have been picked up on by the numerous famous names in mathematics, astrophysics, etc... who have utilized his equations?

Though to my knowledge the earth would have to exist at the center of the universe for our observations to be explained without the Big Bang. Am I wrong in assuming this to be true? I know noblackhole, I looked at other theories other then the Big Bang, however it does seem it is a one-size-fits-all theory to explain what we see. I don't see where Crother's is going with his work. What is his outcome on how the universe came to be the way we see it today. I don't believe I've seen that in his papers, or I could have missed it.

 

[yevaud]

As I mentioned noblackhole I like to look at things from both sides of the coin. However as you and I both know observations of distant galaxies and quasars show a redshift. Without the Big Bang theory, how do we explain the redshift?

There are those who would argue, "Tired Light," though I for one do not buy into the hypothesis.

Both Friedmann & Lemaitre utilized General Relativity to predict the universal expansion before Hubble's observations.

If you get right down to it, Einstein predicted universal expansion in his own work; that's why he introduced a fudge factor. He didn't like the concept of an Aether, and required something to explain it away. But damned if many decades later, we didn't discover Dark Energy, which means (yet again) Einstein's theories have predicted something only seen now.

One thing we know for fairly certain is that space is expanding.

 

[10_stone_5]

... fraud is revealed ... big banger ... frauds committed by the WMAP and COBE ... no way out for these fraudsters ... dead ducks ... Einstein's pseudo-tensor ... meaningless concoction ... relativists ... Bye-bye big bang ... deliberate falsifications ... facade of correspondence ... big bang and the black hole are scientific frauds

Definately not examples of "How to win Friends and Influence people".
You may want to take a look at this book --- Dale Carnegie.

 

[noblackhole]

As I understand the title of this thread the central issue is big bang or not. In my relevant post I provided the evidence that proves big bang a fallacy. The facts there need to be digested and acknowledged. This has not been done by the defenders here of the big bang (and the black hole). Thus far only deafening silence.

TheOneRaven: "As I mentioned noblackhole I like to look at things from both sides of the coin. However as you and I both know observations of distant galaxies and quasars show a redshift. Without the Big Bang theory, how do we explain the redshift? or the recessional velocities? (Hubbles Law). If I'm not mistaken Hubbles constant was measured to be 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe. Could this be wrong as well? "

Since the big bang is fallacious, it can't be used to explain the Hubble redshift. Thus, some other explanation must be found for it. Just because it can't yet be explained does not mean that the demonstrably false big bang theory can be utilized. Big bang is dead, so some other explanation must be sought. In this light it should also me remembered that the Hubble-Humason relation was proposed by them as a redshift/distance relation, not as a redshift/recessional-velocity relation. The relativists hijacked the Hubble-Humason relation and reinterpreted it as a redshift/recessional-velocity relation by means of Doppler shift in order to make it match their fallacious big bang theory, with its alleged concomitant expansion of the Universe, of which the CMB is alleged the remnant, allegedly measured by COBE, WMAP, etc, which Robitaille has shown to be false, with a deliberate cooking of the data books by the WMAP and COBE teams to get what they wanted.

TheOneRaven: "Both Friedmann & Lemaitre utilized General Relativity to predict the universal expansion before Hubble's observations. I'm just wondering IF Einstein were incorrect in his General Relativity, wouldn't it have been picked up on by the numerous famous names in mathematics, astrophysics, etc... who have utilized his equations?"

That is one of the points I made in my previous post - the "numerous famous names in mathematics, astrophysics, etc." have not in fact picked up the errors, being themselves part of the problem, reproducing the same errors over and over again in their works. For instance, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols for the fact that the assumption of it validity implies, by contraction, the existence of an invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. But such invariants do not exist, proven in 1900 by the pure mathematicians Georgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus. And so, reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is meaningless. Nevertheless the "numerous famous names" use it, all the time, oblivious to the fact that it is utter nonsense. I note that not a single defender of the big bang and black hole on this site has acknowledged this fact. Similarly, since Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, neither Einstein's Principle of Equivalence nor his Special Theory of Relativity can manifest in the spacetime of Ric = 0; but Einstein and his followers require that his Principle of Equivalence and his Special Theory of Relativity must manifest in small regions of his gravitational field. The "numerous famous names" you speak of did not pick this up either. Similarly, since Ric = 0 is inadmissible, according to the very physical principles of General Relativity, Einstein's field equations must form an identity with zero, so that the total energy of his gravitational field is always zero; so that the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor must vanish identically; so that it is impossible to localize Einstein's gravitational energy (i.e. Einstein gravitational waves are impossible); and so that the field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and are therefore in direct conflict with the experimental evidence. The "numerous famous names" you speak of have failed to see this. And they failed to see that their "Schwarzschild solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution, and they failed thereby to see that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. And in their so-called "Schwarzschild solution" they call the quantity 'r' therein various names, e.g. a distance, the radius, the radial coordinate, the coordinate radius, the radial space coordinate, the radius of a 2-sphere, the areal radius, the reduced circumference, a gauge choice which defines what 'r' is, amongst other things. A particular value of this 'r' they call the "Schwarzschild radius". They can't make up their minds as to what this 'r' is. The mere fact that they have so many different notions of what 'r' is betrays confusion as to the geometric identity of this quantity 'r'. And the irrefutable fact is that all their different notions of what 'r' is are easily proven wrong, because 'r' therein is not even a distance in the "Schwarzschild solution". The "numerous famous names" you mention are ignorant of this fact too. Here is another example of the errors of the "numerous famous names". They use linearization of Einstein's field equations all the time, writing out the linearized form and assume that they can do so meaningfully. Then they play around with it and get themselves gravitational waves, and other things. They linearize the field equations because the field equations are highly non-linear and so become intractable. However, their assumption of linearization is false. The celebrated German mathematician, Hermann Weyl, proved, in 1944, that linearization of Einstein's field equations is inadmissible because assumption of the validity of linearization implies the existence of a tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist! Thus, reductio ad absurdum, linearization is inadmissible. The "famous names" you speak of are ignorant of this fact too. Here is Weyl's 1944 paper (but it is very mathematical):

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

These are just a few examples of what the "numerous famous names" did not pick up. So the "numerous famous names" you refer to cannot be relied upon for the truth. Since they don't even know the geometric identities of the mathematical entities they are talking about they don't know what they are talking about. People how have not had training in the relevant mathematical apparatus, by and large, just believe what they are told by the astrophysical scientists as to the mathematics involved, perhaps understandably, but the fact is that the astrophysical scientists at large are in violation of the rules of mathematics and so they are wrong. I have cited papers which deal with the mathematical issues in detail.

Once again, the defenders of the big bang (and the black hole) here have been silent on these matters, most of which I raised in my previous post. It seems that when confronted with the facts they think their silence will save the big bang (and the equally ridiculous black hole) from oblivion. They are gravely mistaken. The big bang, and the black hole, are dead ducks, because they were always dead ducks. I request the Defenders of the Realm to prove that the Principle of Equivalence and the Special Theory of Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (e.g. Ric = 0). I request them to prove that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is not a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. I request them to identify the geometric character of 'r' in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" and provide their proof. I request them to prove that linearization of Einstein's field equations is admissible (i.e. prove H. Weyl wrong). I request them to prove that the COBE and WMAP reports are not falsifications, in the light of the papers by Prof Robitaille. I request them to engage in scientific discussion of the facts, for all to see, so that interested persons can decide for themselves on the balance of the evidence, what is right and what its not.

TheOneRaven: "Though to my knowledge the earth would have to exist at the center of the universe for our observations to be explained without the Big Bang. Am I wrong in assuming this to be true? I know noblackhole, I looked at other theories other then the Big Bang, however it does seem it is a one-size-fits-all theory to explain what we see. I don't see where Crother's is going with his work. What is his outcome on how the universe came to be the way we see it today. I don't believe I've seen that in his papers, or I could have missed it."

On what evidence do you base your idea that the Earth (without the big bang fairy-tale) must be the centre of the Universe? On what evidence do you maintain that the Universe has a centre? What do you mean by centre of the Universe? You can't use the big bang theory to explain anything since it is demonstrably false. Crothers' papers are mathematical in nature, and so readers without training in the relevant mathematics can't follow it all. But there is much in his papers that can be understood without mathematics. Already you have understood and acknowledged as 'awesome' arguments that I have taken right out of the paper by Crothers, which I previously cited. There is much in that paper of a similar nature and so can be fully understood without recourse to mathematics. I recommend that paper to you once again. Crothers has no theory, and has never claimed to have one. He therefore offers no alternative answer to the cosmic ontological question. His work just demonstrates that big bangs, black holes, Einstein gravitational waves, and indeed, Einstein's field equations, are fallacious, using the mathematical apparatus and physical principles of General Relativity itself. That he has demonstrated the falsity of the usual claims places no onus on him to invent some alternative theory. But one cannot rely upon a theory that is proven false. So you have not missed in Crothers' papers anything on the cosmic ontological question - there is nothing in his papers on it other than the demonstration of the falsity of the big bang, on theoretical grounds (General Relativity).

The claim that space is expanding is just that, a claim. It was conjured up by an invalid theory and the physical data has been subsequently deliberately misconstrued in order to forge a match with that invalid theory. WMAP and COBE, as Robitaille has shown, do not support the alleged expansion of space and its associated big bang. The COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately tampered with the data to get for themselves their desired result. That is not science: it is fraud.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Sorry for being away, missed out on the discussion.
The Hubble constant can be explained by alternative theories such as cyclic events.
This is an interesting paper, If I have posted it before, its an oops.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0384
Thoughts on the cosmological principle

Authors: Dominik J. Schwarz
(Submitted on 4 May 2009)

Abstract: The cosmological principle says that the Universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic. It predicts, among other phenomena, the cosmic redshift of light and the Hubble law. Nevertheless, the existence of structure in the Universe violates the (exact) cosmological principle. A more precise formulation of the cosmological principle must allow for the formation of structure and must therefore incorporate probability distributions. In this contribution to the Memorial Volume for Wolfgang Kummer, a great teacher and mentor to me, I discuss how we could formulate a new version of the cosmological principle, how to test it, and how to possibly justify it by fundamental physics. My contribution starts with some of my memories of Wolfgang.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Quote:
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Thank you noblackhole. Yes, the discussion is most definately for or against the Big Bang. When you mentioned that the relativists hijacked the Hubble-Humason relation and reinterpreted it as a redshift/recessional-velocity, I was certain that in 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a spiral galaxies, and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth, hence the first mention of the recessional-velocity of galaxies. Doesn't sound like the idea was hijacked, but rather originated as a recessional-velocity to begin with. Much in between, but then there is Hubble's observations, etc... Not to redicule you or anything, but what I'm looking at is all the work done by these people as a whole point to a universal expansion.

My mention of the earth needing to be at the center of the universe without the Big Bang is because the recessional-velocities of all measured nebulas seems to be moving away from the earth according to Hubble and others who followed his work, including measurements with todays technology seemed to verify the recession.

When I look at any reasoning behind one of great astrophysical intelligence to cover up errors only to prove bogus theories, I can not rationalize the purpose. Science is about learning and discovery. Every scientist that I know about wants to learn, and to come to accurate result to better understand what it is their studying. No one ever learned anything by making falsifications in their experiments, only that one cannot have self-satisfaction nor accurate results. It is elementary that anyone utilizing equations to prove their theories would ensure those very equations are accurate to begin with, and ensure their pupils following in their foot steps would also adopt these methods.

If as you say the WMAP and COBE are inaccurate, what sort of technology would you suggest to gain accurate data. I know I couldn't imagine one. That line of technology is beyond me. It just seems that we have these theories of all these great minds, then we create technology to examine from space to see if these theories are indeed true. The technology provides positive results, but again the question remains "Is the technology accurate?" Besides the one source you mentioned, which neutral party would have these answers?

At this moment in time I believe there are strong arguements either way for a Big Bang or no Big Bang. It could be looked at as either way, however our understanding of the universe is still minimal. Of course your right noblackhole in saying if the Big Bang is false, that there must be some sort of other explanation for the Red-shift. I don't debate that with you. I also have to say this is the best discussion I have had with you. Your interaction with people and posting your points of view without ridicule of the individual is getting better. Thank you. Yes, I read well into Crother's work (at least the wording within his papers), and yes I could probably understand more if I understood the mathematics. If we could leave the Black Hole topic in that long past thread, that would be great. I don't mind you sharing your understanding of Crother's and why certain theories of the universe may be wrong, it's the whole purpose of this topic. Your a very knowledgeable individual in this perspective.

I also wondered why no publisher for the Annalen der Physik picked up on ANY of Einstein's errors before. There are only a select few that challenge Einstein's theories. I would also be certain that if Crother's paper prove beyond shadow of doubt that Einstein, Friedmann, Hubble, etc... that the IAU (International Astronaumical Society) or the RAS (Royal Astronaumical Society) would have picked up on it, and accepted it. Discovering errors is only one part of science. The other is learning from them.

But this brings me to another point. If light can be bent as Einstein proved during a solar eclipse in his younger years, then would light also not exhibit the same "drag" as say... I guess the example that comes to mind at present is a jet. As a jet banks left or right at a high rate of speed; it's momentum is slowed. Could the momentum of light on the larger scales exhibit this same affect and cause a red-shift of sorts?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Errors are overlooked, are we too lazy to question or its easier just to agree.
How can we look at the images of deep field and local and not see expanding universe but a clustering universe.

Title: Statistical and systematical errors in cosmic microwave background maps.
Authors: Hao Liu and Ti-Pei Li.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4493
Statistical and systematical errors in cosmic microwave background maps

Authors: Hao Liu, Ti-Pei Li
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2008)

Abstract: Sky temperature map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is one of the premier probes of cosmology. To minimize instrumentally induced systematic errors, CMB anisotropy experiments measure temperature differences across the sky using paires of horn antennas with a fixed separation angle, temperature maps are recovered from temperature differences obtained in sky survey through a map-making procedure. The instrument noise, inhomogeneities of the sky coverage and sky temperature inevitably produce statistical and systematical errors in recovered temperature maps. We show in this paper that observation-dependent noise and systematic temperature distortion contained in released Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) CMB maps are remarkable. These errors can contribute to large-scale anomalies detected in WMAP maps and distort the angular power spectrum as well. It is needed to remake temperature maps from original WMAP differential data with modified map-making procedure to avoid observation-dependent noise and systematic distortion in recovered maps.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I of course suspect paradoxes in an ever expanding universe. Perhaps it's just beyond our understanding, or there is another explanation that is as well beyond our knowledge. I don't have a lot of time to post today as I am on a first aid course. But in the little time I do have over lunch, What is your take on these abstracts harrycostas? I know you posted them, but I'm just wondering what your analogy is?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

I want to see scientific evidence and not emotional thoughts.

I want to see Astrophysics and Cosmology scientists becoming better scientists.

I want to see evidence that cannot be disputed.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Okay, that is a good start. I just didn't really understand your views on all the abstracts you posted. Yes, there are evident opinions within these papers that contradict popular understanding and belief's. I was just wondering what your views were. Do you agree with them, follow present belief's, or have some theories of your own. Science must always look at both sides. If the is evidence that proves current theories are wrong, then research must be conducted to find an alternate solution. The Evolution of Science can only be done by accurate research. Maybe these papers have been proven wrong? Or there right? Only neutral research can tell us that. Though in my mind ALL research should be considered neutral and conducted without prejudice one way our the other. Ever watch CSI where Gil Grisom says "The evidence never lies." It's the same with astrophysics. There are many great minds out there that get on a one-way track, and forget this vital key to true science. When challenged with a new or alternate theory, (if the new theory has not already been dis-proven) then I were a scientist I would see this as a personal challenge, get my game face on and say "Bring it on" and get to work to see if what the new or alternate theory states is true.

I don't know if noblackhole's Mr. Crother's falls into this issue of present researchers one-way track or not, honestly. All I can say is that there has been a lot of time and effort put into this on both sides. However there shouldn't be any "sides" to this. But one collective effort in the name of good science.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

You hit the nail on the head.

I do not want to waste your time and mine on emotional ideas.

The links that I posted are scientificly sound.
The writers have written other papers

Liu H
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Li ... /0/all/0/1
and
Yurij V. Baryshev
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Barys ... /0/all/0/1


My opinion I try to avoid. I now know how little I know even though I read many scientific papers per day. So I try to keep out of my own way.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Well, I strongly believe even the less knowledgeable of us can make a difference with our idea's. If say many researchers wish to continue their squabbles and the general public which are not familiar with all the knowledge they posses can work together to set measures in place that the professional's act like professional and work collectively. As such, a person like you or I could suggest a point of view that they may have not explored in their work for whatever reason, and may have overlooked had it not been for our opinion. Suggesting something that has either already been tried, or not tried at all is always better then remaining silent. Nothing ever get accomplished with silence. Look at amateur astronomy for instance, and how many discoveries have been made in that field by amateurs. I'm sure the same concept applies to ANY aspect of science and discovery.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

Nothing is done in silence

Some of these papers that I read go back to the early 1900's

There is alot of work done by many scientists, but! Cosmology is a funny field and sometimes it is looked upon as a religion.

I had several people question my reading and after some time they become free to read out of their comfort zone.

You got to have fun with it.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

That's what I mean. You can't worry if your opinion is wrong or right if you have a strong enough feeling about it, or maybe even supporting evidence. But as we are not the experts, they shouldn't have a problem (notice I said shouldn't) providing the answers. lol, now it's time for sleep. 2:49am here and got a First-Aid exam tomorrow. Will check back tomorrow.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzz

This link by
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

1 --- Introduction.
We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

Have a look at this paper, sound science. I can see in the near future that WMAP and redshift data are going to be overhauled and will have explain a few oops.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2513
Spectral variation of the WMAP 5-year degree scale anisotropy

Authors: Bi-Zhu Jiang, Richard Lieu, Shuang-Nan Zhang
(Submitted on 16 Apr 2009)

Abstract: The black body nature of the first acoustic peak of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was tested using foreground reduced WMAP 5-year data, by producing subtraction maps between pairs of cosmological bands, viz. the Q, V, and W bands, for masked sky areas that avoid the Galactic disk. The resulting maps revealed a non black body signal that has two main properties. (a) It fluctuates on the degree scale preferentially in one half of the sky, producing an extra {\it random} noise there of amplitude $\approx$ 3.5 $\mu$K, which is $\gtrsim$ 10 $\sigma$ above the pixel noise even after beam size differences between bands are taken into account. (b) The signal exhibits large scale asymmetry in the form of a dipole ($\approx$ 3 $\mu$K) in the Q-V and Q-W maps; and (c) a quadrupole ($\approx$ 1.5 $\mu$K) in the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W maps. While (b) is due most probably to cross-band calibration residuals of the CMB COBE dipole, the amplitude of (c) is well beyond systematics of the kind, and in any case no {\it a priori} quadrupole in the CMB exists to leave behind such a residual. The axes of symmetry of (a), (b), and (c) are tilted in the same general direction w.r.t. the axes of the Galaxy. This tilt prevents the immediate `trivialization' of (a) and (c) in terms of known effects or anomalies, including and especially those of the foreground. In particular, should future attempts in demonstrating the non-cosmological origin of (a) continue to prove difficult, it would mean that degree scale departures from the acoustic model of perturbations is occurring on the last scattering surface at the 4 -- 5 % level, and moreover the behavior varies significantly from one half of the universe to another.

 

[csmyth3025]

This is a very long thread. It's loaded with a lot of technical jargon, obscure math, and more than a few side issues. The basic question: "Big Bang or No Big Bang?" seems to draw the same sort of emotional intensity as the debate between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. I'm not sure why this is so.
In this thread there's disagreement over the observation that raises the subject question - namely, the claim that the Universe is expanding. A theory that explains why and how the Universe is expanding must seem nonsensical to someone who believes that the Universe is not expanding but absolutely vital to someone who believes that it is.
There are numerous citations in this thread to authors who dispute the data purportedly "proving" that the expansion of the Universe is real, or who at least dispute the interpretation of that data. Claims have been made that the entire mainstream scientific community is engaged in some sort of collaborative effort to bamboozle the public into thinking that the Universe is expanding when, in fact, it isn't. I don't understand what possible motive would drive such an effort. I suspect that if the newspapers came out tomorrow with front page headlines: "Scientists Agree - The Universe Is Static!", most people would yawn and turn to the sports page without reading the article.
In order to address the "Big Bang or No Big Bang" question in this thread I think, first, we must settle the question:"Is the Universe expanding?". Indeed, I suggest that debate on the former question requires a presumption that the Universe is expanding. Obviously, if the Universe is static there is no need for a Big Bang explanation - or a debate about it.
I further suggest that the debate about whether the Universe is expanding or not deserves its own thread, since this thread - as I see it - is intended to debate whether the Big Bang is a satisfactory theory to explain the observed (or presumed, if you will) expansion of the Universe, or whether there are other credible theories which can account for this phenomenon.
Getting back to the original question - and presuming that the expansion of the Universe is a real observation - I do have a few problems with the Standard Model in its present form. Most particularly, the Inflationary period seems to me to be one of those ad hoc devices thrown into a pre-existing theory for the sole purpose of making it fit - somewhat like Einstein's notorious Cosmological Constant. I'm at a loss to understand how this inflationary "force" can suddenly cause an exponential expansion of the embryonic Universe for a few minutes, stop, and then go on to produce an accelerating expansion for billions of years.
Another problem that puzzles me is the idea of "winding the clock back", as was done to establish the age of the Universe. As I understand it this was done when the expansion of the Universe was thought to be decelerating. If expansion is accelerating (as new observations seem to indicate), what would be the age of the Universe if that accelerating rate of expansion were run backwards? Is there some non-zero "size" for the Universe where the decelerating shrinkage comes virtually to a halt?
I'm sure I'm not the first person to pose these questions about the current Standard Model. I welcome any comments that can shed some light on these puzzling (to me) aspects of the Big Bang theory. Please keep in mind that I've chosen to accept the expansion of the Universe as a precondition of my inquiry.
Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

I'm just waiting for someone to come up with an explanation for the observed angular diameter - redshift relationship if the universe is not expanding. As far as I am aware, nobody has managed it so far.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

The information is out there, self dicovery is OK

Here are two papers that may be of interest. Showing a direct relationship between CMBR anisotropy and astrophysical structure.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0147
The spatial distribution of galaxies within the CMB cold spot in the Corona Borealis supercluster

Authors: C.P. Padilla-Torres, C.M. Gutierrez, R. Rebolo, R. Genova-Santos, J.A. Rubino-Martin
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2009)

Abstract: We study the spatial distribution and colours of galaxies within the region covered by the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) recently detected by the Very Small Array (VSA; Genova-Santos et al. 2005, 2008) towards the Corona Borealis supercluster (CrB-SC). The spot is in the northern part of a region with a radius ~1 degree (~5 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) enclosing the clusters Abell 2056, 2065, 2059 and 2073, and where the density of galaxies, excluding the contribution from those clusters, is ~2 times higher than the mean value in typical intercluster regions of the CrB-SC. Two of such clusters (Abell 2056 and 2065) are members of the CrB-SC, while the other two are in the background. This high density intercluster region is quite inhomogeneous, being the most remarkable feature a large concentration of galaxies in a narrow filament running from Abell 2065 with a length of ~35 arcmin (~3 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) in the SW-NE direction. This intercluster population of galaxies probably results from the interaction of clusters Abell 2065 and 2056. The area subtended by the VSA cold spot shows an excess of faint (21<r<22) and red (1.1<r-i<1.3) galaxies as compared with typical values within the CrB-SC intercluster regions. This overdensity of galaxies shows a radial dependence and extends out to ~15 arcmin. This could be signature of a previously unnoticed cluster in the background.