What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
It takes more than observations, of which many are needed, and "facts" which are extrapolated from observations to confirm that a theory is wrong. There is always resistance from the scientific community when a theory is so widely accepted. It will take time and much scientific observation and analysis to reject this theory. Modifying it is a bit easier but that is also difficult because James Webb has the power to seriously undermine current thinking...
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
 
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
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.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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.

only the illusion of change in wavelength

Then we hear only an illusion? Strange. Then I have heard many illusions.

Cat :)
 
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
Then we hear only an illusion? Strange. Then I have heard many illusions.

Cat :)
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.
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.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
“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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
“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.
Thank you for your lengthy response.
“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.
You should read my thoughts again.
“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.
“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.
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:
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
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:
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
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.

(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
 
Feb 18, 2023
37
3
535
Visit site
Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen
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.
Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen
(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
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.
 
Mar 3, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
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.
 
Oct 31, 2022
64
5
535
Visit site
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?


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

Why does it even have to be uniformly across the universe?

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?

:)
 
Nov 30, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
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.
 

TRENDING THREADS