I concur although I would disagree with your resistance statement. As yet, there really are no voices against current cosmology thinking. Eric Lerner comes to mind as a solo voice. I think the universe is much simpler and most can be proven in a lab unlike dark matter/energy, expanding universe, etc.
In this physical universe multidimensional space can describe the atomic nucleus, my paper about to be submitted on this and also describes DM, wait a couple of months and I will quote from it. It is astonishing! soon!
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
A little common sense, and rejecting "infinite" division by zero in applying physics to perceived reality.
"Don't confuse me with observations, my mind is quite happy with myths, thank you"".
Cat
Modern cosmology is wrong because Hubble Constant is wrong. Redshift Doppler effect is not happening. Doppler is an illusion. In redshift there is an actual increase in wavelength over extreme distances. In Doppler there is only the illusion of change in wavelength. As a cars horn sound comes toward you the sound wave hits your ear more frequently raising the pitch and as it goes away it hits your ear less frequently which lowers the pitch but there is No change in the wavelength.
So Doppler is only a perceived change in wavelength an illusion. Therefore, if redshift had anything to do with Doppler it would be a perception/illusion only.
So, no Doppler, no expanding universe. Therefore, no big bang, no dark matter/energy required. The universe has no beginning and has no end. It is static. In my humble opinion.
So Doppler is only a perceived change in wavelength an illusion. Therefore, if redshift had anything to do with Doppler it would be a perception/illusion only.
So, no Doppler, no expanding universe. Therefore, no big bang, no dark matter/energy required. The universe has no beginning and has no end. It is static. In my humble opinion.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Of course you have. Sound has to move thru a medium ie. air, water, etc. The wavelength is longitudinal (ie, vibrate parallel to their path) and propagate thru which they travel.Then we hear only an illusion? Strange. Then I have heard many illusions.
Cat
Light waves are transverse (ie. oscillate perpendicular to their path) and do not require any medium thru which to travel. Light and sound are 2 different animals and perform differently.
Anyhow here’s another example of Doppler sound. Play your stereo in a completely bare room, then play in a totally padded room. The sound waves coming out of your stereo will be identical in both rooms but I assure you the sound will different as the first is being reflected and the second absorbed.
“What explains your redshift but expansion? A static universe would appear as white as stars if they're infinite in number.”
How? the farther the star the redder it is. That why we see the CMBR. It’s
just galaxies at a great distance redshifted to microwave. And you don’t need to explain redshift in a non expanding model. It’s a property of light. And proof that Einstein was wrong to, without evidence, say light was not a wave and that photons could not change frequency over distance.
“There is nothing to suggest any object exists that is older than 13.8 Gyrs.”
Just because it is too far away to see doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Particle physicists know better. Nucleosynthesis from stars became mainstream not long after Hoyle predicted the resonance for carbon, which was shortly proven correct by a lab. This was decades ago.
There is nothing known to argue for the redshift of light in a static universe. DeSitter's early GR model was able to show this for a static universe but to do so he had to remove all mass.
“Fritz Zwicky proposed, also long ago, that light might redshift naturally during travel in a static universe. This became known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis. It became discredited with further studies.”
It didn’t become discredited. Relativists pretended tired light couldn’t happen because it couldn’t explain where the energy went. But it didn’t go anywhere. Look at the facts. 10-20nm range = x energy. Redshift that to 20-40 nm range at z=1. Thats 1/2 the energy at the longer wavelength BUT twice the range. Which means that no energy is lost. It’s spread out over twice the range of wavelengths.
“So, any theory for a static universe isn't something new to consider, but a return to the old view that many tried very hard to hold on to, especially Einstein. With help from Eddington and DeSitter, Lemaitre's model finally made sense to Einstein, who reportedly praised Lemaitre during one of his presentations.”
Only because Einstein knew if he didn’t agree...his photon model had to be rejected.
“The entire universe filled with light at 3000K is hardly a fair argument for distant galaxies. “
Why not. It’s redshifted blackbody radiation from distant galaxies. Ones even farther are even more redshifted and fainter. We just haven’t made a map of those wavelengtys yet.
“Galaxies aren't that great BB emitters, also. The WMAP study, and others superior to COBE, show how remarkable the CMBR matches a BB profile. No star matches this as close, including our Sun. [This is one reason scientists get its color wrong, btw.]”
Whyarent galaxies great blackbody emitters.? They are the ultimate BB emitter. And you forget the cmbr is closer to perfect because it is the average of trillions of various different emitters. Of course the sun wouodnt match a perfect BB Emitter. But combine a trillion different suns into one graph and almost certainly you would get a perfect BB curve.
“Your argument that suggests progress in science is unacceptable is strange, at best. Those early estimates did not have any age and distance refinements we have today. The Wright Brothers did not start with a jet airliner.”
My argument suggests that BBT always gets its predictions wrong. And ignores the opposing non expanding model when it gets its predictions right. As a non BBT model did in 1942 when Mckellar much more accurately predicted the CMBR for a non BBT universe would be 2.8. And when the JWST confirmed a non expanding model when it observed mature galaxies in its recent deep field.
“Wrong again. There are explanations for them, though they differ. Direct observations have been accomplished immediately following a GRB thanks to SWIFT and the network set-up by observatories. A lot is known, more will be known with time.
Please show us your reference for your claim of their apparent fraud.”
Did I say Fraud, sorry if I did. I meant fiddle, faked. And they did. Look at Knop landmark paper. He admits he fiddled the HST data to make it look like it fits an expanding model.
How? the farther the star the redder it is. That why we see the CMBR. It’s
just galaxies at a great distance redshifted to microwave. And you don’t need to explain redshift in a non expanding model. It’s a property of light. And proof that Einstein was wrong to, without evidence, say light was not a wave and that photons could not change frequency over distance.
“There is nothing to suggest any object exists that is older than 13.8 Gyrs.”
Just because it is too far away to see doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Particle physicists know better. Nucleosynthesis from stars became mainstream not long after Hoyle predicted the resonance for carbon, which was shortly proven correct by a lab. This was decades ago.
There is nothing known to argue for the redshift of light in a static universe. DeSitter's early GR model was able to show this for a static universe but to do so he had to remove all mass.
“Fritz Zwicky proposed, also long ago, that light might redshift naturally during travel in a static universe. This became known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis. It became discredited with further studies.”
It didn’t become discredited. Relativists pretended tired light couldn’t happen because it couldn’t explain where the energy went. But it didn’t go anywhere. Look at the facts. 10-20nm range = x energy. Redshift that to 20-40 nm range at z=1. Thats 1/2 the energy at the longer wavelength BUT twice the range. Which means that no energy is lost. It’s spread out over twice the range of wavelengths.
“So, any theory for a static universe isn't something new to consider, but a return to the old view that many tried very hard to hold on to, especially Einstein. With help from Eddington and DeSitter, Lemaitre's model finally made sense to Einstein, who reportedly praised Lemaitre during one of his presentations.”
Only because Einstein knew if he didn’t agree...his photon model had to be rejected.
“The entire universe filled with light at 3000K is hardly a fair argument for distant galaxies. “
Why not. It’s redshifted blackbody radiation from distant galaxies. Ones even farther are even more redshifted and fainter. We just haven’t made a map of those wavelengtys yet.
“Galaxies aren't that great BB emitters, also. The WMAP study, and others superior to COBE, show how remarkable the CMBR matches a BB profile. No star matches this as close, including our Sun. [This is one reason scientists get its color wrong, btw.]”
Whyarent galaxies great blackbody emitters.? They are the ultimate BB emitter. And you forget the cmbr is closer to perfect because it is the average of trillions of various different emitters. Of course the sun wouodnt match a perfect BB Emitter. But combine a trillion different suns into one graph and almost certainly you would get a perfect BB curve.
“Your argument that suggests progress in science is unacceptable is strange, at best. Those early estimates did not have any age and distance refinements we have today. The Wright Brothers did not start with a jet airliner.”
My argument suggests that BBT always gets its predictions wrong. And ignores the opposing non expanding model when it gets its predictions right. As a non BBT model did in 1942 when Mckellar much more accurately predicted the CMBR for a non BBT universe would be 2.8. And when the JWST confirmed a non expanding model when it observed mature galaxies in its recent deep field.
“Wrong again. There are explanations for them, though they differ. Direct observations have been accomplished immediately following a GRB thanks to SWIFT and the network set-up by observatories. A lot is known, more will be known with time.
Please show us your reference for your claim of their apparent fraud.”
Did I say Fraud, sorry if I did. I meant fiddle, faked. And they did. Look at Knop landmark paper. He admits he fiddled the HST data to make it look like it fits an expanding model.
A couple of comments:
As for "even inventing new forms of matter", my comment is based on the current invention of "dark matter", which does have some hard to explain characteristics. My comment is that those can probably be overome by "inventing" several forms of "dark matter" which behave however the theorists need them to behave to match observations. That would still be "within" the Big Bang Theory, so it blocks attempts at "falsification" that are based on showing that the theory does not match observations. The point is that the theory already doesn't match observations unless it adds about 20 times more mass and energy than we can currently account for. So, all I am saying is that, with all those free parameters, it isn't too hard to match observations. And, if more observations make more problems, well, it is already "accepted practice" to add more types of "energy" or "matter" that we can't detect, instead of falsifying the theory.
Regarding the comment about "how time could speed up": That is really no more strange than the current theory that space can expand at whatever rate is needed to make the theory work. So, the real questions are more like:
A. Why can't time "speed" uniformly change over the entire univeres, similar to the current assumption that space does change uniformly over the entire universe?
B. Why do we think that only the "space" part of "space/time" changes, instead of expecting them to change together by a similar metric?
As for "even inventing new forms of matter", my comment is based on the current invention of "dark matter", which does have some hard to explain characteristics. My comment is that those can probably be overome by "inventing" several forms of "dark matter" which behave however the theorists need them to behave to match observations. That would still be "within" the Big Bang Theory, so it blocks attempts at "falsification" that are based on showing that the theory does not match observations. The point is that the theory already doesn't match observations unless it adds about 20 times more mass and energy than we can currently account for. So, all I am saying is that, with all those free parameters, it isn't too hard to match observations. And, if more observations make more problems, well, it is already "accepted practice" to add more types of "energy" or "matter" that we can't detect, instead of falsifying the theory.
Regarding the comment about "how time could speed up": That is really no more strange than the current theory that space can expand at whatever rate is needed to make the theory work. So, the real questions are more like:
A. Why can't time "speed" uniformly change over the entire univeres, similar to the current assumption that space does change uniformly over the entire universe?
B. Why do we think that only the "space" part of "space/time" changes, instead of expecting them to change together by a similar metric?
Last edited:
Thank you for your lengthy response.
You should read my thoughts again.
If redshift was Doppler it would have to behave like sound waves but in reverse. You are saying stars and galaxies are moving away from us because the wavelength is increasing. Therefore as light moves past earth, the wavelength has to get shorter and moving towards a blueshift..so the star or galaxies must now be moving towards us. That doesn’t make sense. So Doppler is wrong for redshift.
Redshift is attenuation-meaning that the further light travels over extreme distances, the greater degree to which it’s frequency slowly diminishes as its wavelength correspondingly increases. All light redshifts over distance. But equally important is knowing it’s frequency at source.
Last edited:
Well said but I will only say this. Either the universe was created from nothing which seems pretty ridiculous or it was never created. It always was, is and will be forever. It has been difficult to change the collective invested minds on current cosmology thinking but I’d bet a potful of money that James Webb telescope will destroy the big machine. Big cracks are showing up every day.
Last edited:
(Im not sure quite how one replies to a reply So I’ll just type here in the space below your reply. I notice you were able to highlite relevent quotes from my earlier post but I’m not sure how to do that.)
Regarding your above interpretation of my redshifting light comments. Were you responding to my tired light or my GRB explanation? I assume you mean “tired light” theory:
I wasn’t suggesting that anything is moving away or towards us. Don’t forget It is a non expanding model I refer to. Light in a non expanding model can still redshift without Doppler. Evidence Is....Hubble redshift. Best proof ever supplied that light redshifts over distance. It is only BBT supporters who pretend this redshifting is due to Doppler. And the only reason they-were forced to arrive at a Big Bang conclusion was because Einsteins photon model had just won the Nobel prize and theorists were not allowed to say the obvious. Which is that the evidence from Hubble shows that light decreases in frequency over distance.
And there is no energy lost over distance even when redshifting occurs without Doppler inducing expansion . *Because10-20nm is 1/2 the range of 20-40nm where the former is redshifted to the latter in a tired light model. So although at each specific frequency (Ie 10nm compared to 20nm ) the energy is 1/2. What you forget is that you recieve DOUBLE * the range of wavelengths when it’s redshifted by 1/2 in a non expanding model.
Heres a chart of distances for redshift in a non expanding model
z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe
z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A
z=3 (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA
z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA
z=15 (8000 to 16000)=distance 4xA
z=31 (16000 to 32000)etc..
z=63 (32000 to 64000)
z=127 (64000 to 128000)
z=255 (128000 to 256000)
z=511 (256000 to 612000)
z=1023(612000 to 1224000 ie Microwave)=distance 10xA
z=2047(1224000 to 2448000)
Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1
Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen
Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen
Perhaps it is I who should have read your thoughts again. In any case I think we’re much on the same page. Building a universe theory is like building a house of cards. Pull the bottom card out and everything else collapses. My thoughts only and I do respect what you have to say.
Hubble certainly dropped clues, but James Webb is the nail. I’ve figured there were two big tests. Do we see primitive disorganized galactic neighborhood at 1 billion years before the Bang? And is stuff out there made only of hydrogen helium and lithium. In our very first DATA these past few months the answers so far are “no, “ & ”no, “. RIP BBT, The galactic neighborhood at 13 billion years is apparently similar to the one right around here.
A) Why does it even have to be uniformly across the universe? i don't think it would be. i think it probably is mostly, since there is an even distribution of matter/energy , but all the matters is that all local measurements are under the same speed of time degradation. It just has to be uniform from within our measurement environments.
Once you leave the local frame of reference (the local cluster?) the universe may no longer appear to be expanding at the same rate we observe here in this frame.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Astrostoner
I agree with you. How can anyone suggest uniformity (even over a small volume of the Universe?) when it patently IS NOT uniform at all.
Maybe a few singularities (mass approx = infinity) in uniformity with volumes of 'empty' space (mass approx = zero). Now, that does make sense????? {JOKE}
Maybe another of these wonderful assumptions we seem to need to make the BB work?
I agree with you. How can anyone suggest uniformity (even over a small volume of the Universe?) when it patently IS NOT uniform at all.
Maybe a few singularities (mass approx = infinity) in uniformity with volumes of 'empty' space (mass approx = zero). Now, that does make sense????? {JOKE}
Maybe another of these wonderful assumptions we seem to need to make the BB work?
I think I can answer the original question. The mainstream of Cosmology will reject the BB theory when and only when Time-dilation of distant events (Super Nova's mainly) has been definitivly DIS-proven. Time-dilation is a NESSARY prediction of BB theoy, the theory absolutly fails without it with out any possibility to be saved.
Since this thread was created, the James Webb Space Telescope has made a shambles of the BB model. I've collected probably 100 articles about scientists being shocked, flabbergasted, stunned and just plain annoyed by the "early" universe's refusal to conform to BB predictions. The most distant galaxies are too big and too orderly for BB enthusiasts to handle. I think this is just the beginning of the chaos. I post again the prescient predictions of the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, whose musings are well worth revisiting again and again: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm.
Wow
We have been neglecting such profound papers for 20 years!
This shows the INERTIA we acquire by following like a herd of Sheep.
All I am saying in support of views like Robotron, quoted author namely, Tom Van Flandern, and many others whose voices are not being heard because they are proposing ideas against mainstream.
We need to respect dissent and especially when there is logic or evidence associated with.
Now my personal view is (currently - as we are allowed to change views based on new evidence or by enhancing our knowledge as we internalize understanding) that Local big bangs are possible as well as seen in perhaps galactic or such scales as also seen by stellar and astrophysics observations, but there is no need for a global Big Bang.
Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma
We have been neglecting such profound papers for 20 years!
This shows the INERTIA we acquire by following like a herd of Sheep.
All I am saying in support of views like Robotron, quoted author namely, Tom Van Flandern, and many others whose voices are not being heard because they are proposing ideas against mainstream.
We need to respect dissent and especially when there is logic or evidence associated with.
Now my personal view is (currently - as we are allowed to change views based on new evidence or by enhancing our knowledge as we internalize understanding) that Local big bangs are possible as well as seen in perhaps galactic or such scales as also seen by stellar and astrophysics observations, but there is no need for a global Big Bang.
Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma
What would it take to falsify the Big Bang (as I term it, the Planck (Horizon) / Big Bang (Horizon) / one and the same 'Horizon')? NOT the current "Once upon a time" magical 'CREATION' beginning theory, but a collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck/Big Bang 'Mirror Horizon' (t=0)?
It would take falsifying the very idea of "infinite 'potential' in finites", "superposition", and "global sets" (all of them, finite and infinite, reduced to one stereotypical "global set")! The reduction in [close up] to/in superposition global set (to an "Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U) point-density/vacuum") of infinities of horizon universes (u)!
Again. It would take falsifying the microcosmic Planck Horizon (the universal Planck limit in point-portal) at the same time you falsify the macrocosmic Big Bang Horizon limit (falsifying that "naked singularity" of Horizon "limit" to an intersecting pyramidical apex superposition "point," "portal", and "set" (one "Verse", one ring -- in symbol 'infinite' -- to round (rule) them all)).
---------------------------------
1.) "An ever-continuing perfect ending is in endless beginning . . . and vice-versa." -- Atlan0001
2.) The first and foremost "lesson of history": "History always repeats itself in large aspect ('Deja vu'), though rarely if ever in fine details" (the accelerating expansion of life in the universe (to infinities) is infinitely mitigated by the accelerating expansion of everything else in the universe (to infinities). 'Set'! and, 'Reset'!)
3.) "Brevity may be the soul of wit but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
It would take falsifying the very idea of "infinite 'potential' in finites", "superposition", and "global sets" (all of them, finite and infinite, reduced to one stereotypical "global set")! The reduction in [close up] to/in superposition global set (to an "Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U) point-density/vacuum") of infinities of horizon universes (u)!
Again. It would take falsifying the microcosmic Planck Horizon (the universal Planck limit in point-portal) at the same time you falsify the macrocosmic Big Bang Horizon limit (falsifying that "naked singularity" of Horizon "limit" to an intersecting pyramidical apex superposition "point," "portal", and "set" (one "Verse", one ring -- in symbol 'infinite' -- to round (rule) them all)).
---------------------------------
1.) "An ever-continuing perfect ending is in endless beginning . . . and vice-versa." -- Atlan0001
2.) The first and foremost "lesson of history": "History always repeats itself in large aspect ('Deja vu'), though rarely if ever in fine details" (the accelerating expansion of life in the universe (to infinities) is infinitely mitigated by the accelerating expansion of everything else in the universe (to infinities). 'Set'! and, 'Reset'!)
3.) "Brevity may be the soul of wit but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
Last edited:
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Winter solstice 2024 brings shortest day of the year to Northern Hemisphere today- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram