The Big Bang theory as a religious dogma

vidar · Mar 13, 2006

Phenobarbara: For many years, the debate revolved around the big bang versus the steady-state theory. The evidence favored the big bang, ... ------------------------------ What evidence favoured the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory?

bonzelite · Mar 13, 2006

and let us bow our heads in prayer.

CalliArcale · Mar 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What evidence favoured the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory?<hr /></blockquote> A couple of big ones are Olbers' Paradox and the Hubble Constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

unlearningthemistakes · Mar 13, 2006

What evidence favoured the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory? steady state theory is also known as continuous creation theory: that the universe has always existed at a uniform density that is maintained because new matter is created continuously as the universe expands. --- /> that on one contradicts with the priciple that matter/energy can not be destroyed nor created--only transformed. next: quasars steady state theory is braced to the idea of perfect cosmological principle---- /> "everything looks essentially identical from every point and time in this universe" the discovery of quasars had shaken the foothold of steady state theory. it only means that the points in universe are not the same. each point is different from the rest. next: cosmic background radiation the discovery of this faint echo of the explosive birth of cosmos favors big bang very well. detected during the 1960's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

vidar · Mar 13, 2006

As far as I can see, there are particularly three phenomena that support the Big Bang theory. This is how I understand them and how they could be counter-argued. Hublers law says that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. However, the galaxies and stars could be reddish by nature, and there are bluish galaxies that should indicate that they’re moving towards us instead. Cosmic Microwave Background radiation says that there is a background radiation that stems from the BB. However, couldn’t it stem from some ‘not-so’ BBs of collapsing galaxies, like supernova stars? That would surely make background radiation as well. The Obler’s Paradox says that a static infinite universe the night sky ought to be bright, when it obviously is dark. However, the light from the most distant star cannot have traveled a further distance, measured in light years, than the star itself is old.

unlearningthemistakes · Mar 13, 2006

However, couldn’t it stem from some ‘not-so’ BBs of collapsing galaxies, like supernova stars? That would surely make background radiation as well. it would "sound" different. CBR has a very faint and deep "tone" ( for lack of better metaphor ). also, they "sound" the same wherever you focus your reciever on the sky. whereas any other collapsing "sound" would be distinguishable from CBR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

kmarinas86 · Mar 13, 2006

there are bluish galaxies that should indicate that they’re moving towards us instead. This is wrong, because blue is a color and not a tendency towards higher frequencies (i.e. blue is not blueshift). A galaxy emitting high frequency radiation contains big, hot, young stars. The high freqeuncy radiation is redshifted towards lower frequencies, such as blue. Infrared R O Y G B I V Ultraviolet During intense redshift, ultraviolet can shift to blue, blue can shift to green, yellow can shift to orange, orange can shift to red, red can shift to infrared. All of these are redshift. This is not a reddening of the light, but the tendency of a higher-frequency spectrum towards lower frequencies such as orange, red, infrared, microwave, radio, etc. That means either that the blue-colored galaxies (at the edge of the universe) are moving away from us, or that they are trapped in a very low gravitational potential energy close to -.5mc².

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Wrong. That means either that the blue galaxies (at the edge of the universe) are moving away from us, or that they are trapped in a very low gravitational potential close to -.5mc². A blue-shift indicates an approach velocity, not a reccessional one. This is distinct from the color/temperature of the stars contained within the Galaxy. The final part of your post, e.g., the "low gravitational potential" part is obscure and not science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Mar 13, 2006

A blue-shift indicates an approach velocity, not a reccessional one. Correct. This not new information. This is distinct from the color/temperature of the stars contained within the Galaxy. That's exactly what I was telling vidar (in different words). I said vidar was wrong, and I corrected him, so either vidar is wrong or I am wrong.

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Pardon me, but if you read your own post I am responding to, you claim: That means either that the blue galaxies (at the edge of the universe) are moving away from us, or that they are trapped in a very low gravitational potential close to -.5mc². The first bolded part is completely backwards. And object with a recessional velocity does not blue-shift, it red-shifts. The second is not science, it's from your Cyclical Universes concept. Don't blame *me* for responding to *your* not getting it right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Mar 13, 2006

The first bolded part is completely backwards. I thought the blue colored, but redshifted, galaxies were moving away from us! A galaxy can be both blue and redshifted (note, if you read between the lines, this means the color of the galaxy is blue and it is redshifted from a higher frequency blue, violet, ultraviolet, whatever). There are blue galaxies at high redshifts. That is not very paradoxical.

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

No, that's true. But the way you worded it didn't exactly state it that way; it implied simply that all ancient, blue galaxies are simultaneously receding from us, but are blue-shifted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

plutocrass · Mar 13, 2006

Can light lose frequency with the distance it travels? "Hi, Bill, what's new?" "c over lambda"

buzzzsaw · Mar 14, 2006

Frequency of light can be changed due to gravitational influence such as passing a large planet or sun. The terms redshift and blueshift have to do with the frequency shifts due to the velocity of the stars involved. Atoms give off specific frequencies of light when electrons are excited then decay. Those frequencies are always the same depending on the atom giving off the light. When atoms (stars) are moving very fast toward us the frequencies appear to be higher (shorter wavelength) we call this blue shifted. When atoms are moving away from us the freqencies appear lower and therefore longer wavelength, we call this red shifted. It has nothing to do with the color of a star but rather the error in measured frequency of a particular frequency of emitted light compared with what it should be. The whole concept of the BB is simply the idea that since all galaxies are moving away from each other at one time the had to start out together. Unfortunately recently the whole concept has been put into question since recent measurements indicate that the galaxies may be actually increasing in relative speeds, which would be completely opposite of what you would expect with a BB starting out the universe.

yevaud · Mar 14, 2006

recent measurements indicate that the galaxies may be actually increasing in relative speeds, which would be completely opposite of what you would expect with a BB starting out the universe. Exactly. The last part of that being one of the reasons the concept of "Dark Energy" was hypothesized. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

derekmcd · Mar 14, 2006

"Can light lose frequency with the distance it travels?" If you mean uninterrupted travel in a vacuum, then no... A photon will travel an infinite amount of time/distance without losing frequency/energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

plutocrass · Mar 14, 2006

buzzzsaw:"Frequency of light can be changed due to gravitational influence such as passing a large planet or sun. " Let's say the gravitational source is the galaxy from which the light is eminating. Wouldn't the gravitational source have any effect on the frequency of light over time?

Saiph · Mar 14, 2006

Yevaud: Kmar's post was fine, a little unclear (lots of blue things being redshifted...etc) but it's actually correct. Vidar: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Hublers law says that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. However, the galaxies and stars could be reddish by nature, and there are bluish galaxies that should indicate that they’re moving towards us instead. <hr /></blockquote> It's been addressed for the most part. Red does not equal redshift. Blue does not equal blue shift. There are some blueshifted galaxies, but they are very, very close to us in the scheme of things (our immediate neighbors). No other proposed mechanism for the redshift to distance ratio has panned out. Even the selective quasar "intrinsic" redshift arguements have severe limitations. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Cosmic Microwave Background radiation says that there is a background radiation that stems from the BB. However, couldn’t it stem from some ‘not-so’ BBs of collapsing galaxies, like supernova stars? That would surely make background radiation as well. <hr /></blockquote> It could...except it wouldn't be nearly so uniform. We'd see variances far beyond what we observe. As it is, the CMBR is smooth to geez, on part in a million? Anybody remember the figure? The WMAP studies show a mottled pattern, but the actual variance from the high to the low points is incredibly small. If the CMBR was caused by lots of individual events everywhere, it wouldn't be so smooth (and people have looked at that possibility). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Obler’s Paradox says that a static infinite universe the night sky ought to be bright, when it obviously is dark. However, the light from the most distant star cannot have traveled a further distance, measured in light years, than the star</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yevaud · Mar 14, 2006

Yes, sure. But he appeared to state that all ancient blue galaxies are receding from us - yet are not blueshifted. That was the problem. He was stating the case backwards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Mar 14, 2006

But ancient blue galaxies....are receeding from us...and thus not blueshifted. Those blue galaxies, in his post, are redshifted versions of higher frequency sources (x-ray, UV galaxies, redshifted down to blue). It wasn't that clear, but his blue galaxies are receeding thus redshifted. And as he says, it's due either to cosmological expansion, or everything is sitting in a gravitational potential. Now I don't remember if ancient galaxies were more blue (there's a blue bump in the distribution curve ~4 billion years out IIRC)...but he's not wrong on the redshifting count...just confusing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yevaud · Mar 14, 2006

Sorry, said that backwards. Rather, he implied that they *would* be blueshifted, yet are receding. Sorry. I was very busy when I posted that, last evening. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Mar 14, 2006

He mentioned a couple of times in the post that blue objects can still be redshifted (i.e. they used to be UV objects)...so I figured that carried over into the confusing statement where that implication could be noted, thus overriding it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yevaud · Mar 14, 2006

Something like that, yeah. It was a hectic and confusing evening, all things considered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

buzzzsaw · Mar 16, 2006

The specific color of a star or group of stars is a totally different issue. The color of a star depends on the energy (heat) of the star, specifically the energy excites elementry particals and kicks them to a higher energy state. When the particals drop to a lower state photons are emitted, the more energitic the state the bluer the light because they release more energy faster and therefore higher frequency and shorter wavelength. The velocity a star is moving toward us or away from us can modify the apparent wavelength A LITTLE. Seldom IF EVER can the velocity make red wavelength look blue or blue wavelength look red. The relative velocity would have to be very near C in order for this to happen. There are some observations where the emitted wavelength was so modified it took a while to figure out what was happening, but the shift while extreme wasn't that extreme.

Saiph · Mar 16, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> you're right, except in the claim that there aren't extreme redshifts in astronomy. When dealing with various jets (from BH's or neutron stars) we can get velocities nearly equal to C. When dealing with cosmological redshift, we can easily hit that limit as well. That, and you forgot to include the acts of collision and "thermalization" of light emitted in a star to produce the black body curve. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

The Big Bang theory as a religious dogma

vidar

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

vidar

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

yevaud

Guest

plutocrass

Guest

buzzzsaw

Guest

yevaud

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

plutocrass

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

buzzzsaw

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page