Cyrek1

BB Summation

The BB was originally based on just one observation and that was the Hubble redshift data. This obviously implied that the universe appeared to be expanding. Since all galaxies were receding from our point of view, this also implied that we were in the center of this universe.
Why the Doppler redshift implication was replaced by the ‘space expansion’ redshift currently being accepted is a question mark? Is it used to get around the limitation of the speed of light according to the Einstein velocity law? The Doppler redshift interpretation would have implied that the extremely distant galaxies would have exceeded the velocity of light as the distant redshifts increased?

The above implications of an expanding universe and our apparent central location should have immediately been suspect because of the probability factor. Especially the central location.
A more probable interpretation at that time would be the expansion of the light waves. The tired light hypothesis was suggested but that was refuted.
So now, I will supply the three most important reasons why the BB is illogical.

1 - The beginning. From a start up time of zero and zero space dimension, the BB originated out of ‘nothing’. This is not science since the ‘laws of conservation’ are violated here.

2 – The CMBR. This radiation supposedly is a remnant of the past evolution which occurred at a period of transformation from a plasma to the coupling of matter to allow the free flow of energy through space. Since this is a perfect BBRC of energy, this cannot be a remnant of the BB because at that time during this period of formation, there would have to be a partial mix of plasma radiation with the matter radiation.

3 – The Arp redshift anomaly. There are two excellent examples that are irrefutable to prove that the redshift cannot be the result of space expansion. They are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. There are other good examples to give further support.

Any comments?

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Careful - did you see this point I've made a number of times. If Arp is right, there is another factor that can contribute significantly to the measured redshift, but that does not rule out a portion of the redshift being from expansion.

I've also addressed this point with you before . Conservation laws are not a valid argument against BBT cosmology.

What do you mean by "expansion of light waves"? Why only light waves? How does that explain the observations?

That's a lot of observations.

Just because we don't know or understand what happened before the BB or what caused it does not make it illogical.

The Big Bang theory doesn't even try to describe t=0. It attempts to describe the physics that would proceed from the event that occured at t=0. t=Pt or Planck Time immediately after this event, there was a teeny tiny baby universe. (And, it was a cuittie, lemme tell ya )
It is absurd to think the theory could attmept to explain anything 'before' there were observable, or possible evidence. It would be conjecture. [add] But some people are still trying...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Why not? Because the laws do not work? However you look at it, the Big Bang implies that at t=0 there was nothing. And nothing begats nothing.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Actually not quite right. It implies that the universe is expanding from everywhere and that there need not be a single physical center.

The velocity of light may have been different in the past, or maybe not. However, "c" is very consistent now.

Actually there is no apparent central location. If all the major astronomers and scientists dealing with cosmology in the 20th century did not raise your question or assume we had a central location in the cosmos, that might indicate that your question is based on missing data or a misunderstanding. Again, the implications are that the universe is expanding from everywhere and that there is no physical center.

"Tired light theories" are refuted by most scientists. What does that imply?
A. There is a vast conspiracy. Every astronomy graduate is handed a diploma and given a secret handshake and guidebook outlining that science exists to discredit tired light theory.
B. Tests and observations based on tired light concepts are considerably weaker than BB theory. (If they were stronger, there would be a mad scramble to understand the better theory and win the appropriate grants, or even the Nobel prize.)

BB theory doesn't address "zero time". BB is about what happens just after. The "out of nothing" statement has been said before. I heard it as far back as the 1970s. If there was a "before", no information from it is apparent. Your other points about CMBR and Arp's theories have been addressed on the BABB, and other folks may wish to discuss them again. :wink:

My point to cyrek is that the Law of conservation of Mass/energy applies in the universe as it exists. We cannot use laws of the current universe to invalidate a theory that makes no attempt to describe what there was before all this existed. In other words, the current conservation laws only apply after the BBT. Before that nobody knows what would have been happening. I'm not saying the "before the BB" is not an unsettling issue, but conservation laws do not refute the BBT.

Any theory of origin, for the universe, is going to bump up against conservation laws, or entropy laws, or issues of infinity, don't you think?

Makes sense.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

This is incomplete. The redshift data had to be coupled with data from cepheid variable stars (reliable distance indicators) to confirm that greater spectral shifts were directly proportional to distance.
No. All galaxies are receding from ALL points of view, implying we are NOT at any "center".
There may have been a number of reasons. It was a paradigm shift in viewpoint. Scientists are rather conservative in their claims. Even today, spectral shifts are identified by their "z" value, which is not typically converted into a particular distance because of the inexact knowledge of the Hubble constant, the "constant's" variability, the rate of the expansion's acceleration, etc. Most published articles just report on the actual observation, and in this case that means the amount of spectral shift.
Incorrect. At the time just before the photon radiation was allowed to freely flow through space (resulting in what we see now as the CMBR) it was ALL plasma in perfect thermodynamic equilibrium. There were no atoms. The CMBR is one of the key pillars supporting the big bang theory.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

we haven't exactly observed that yet though

Irrefutable? Then perhaps you can prove to me that NGC7603 does not just contain a chance projection.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Well, OK, yes, it's difficult to actually set up observing stations in other galaxies. But we can visually understand this phenomenon by looking at an expanding balloon that's been marked with a bunch of dots. Pick a dot and watch all the other dots expand from it. Pick another dot and you see the same thing.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

But the point is you're treating expansion as an observation, not an interpretation.

Interpretation:

On the largest scales, comoving coordinates stay constant while the distances between galaxy clusters increases. All observers see galaxies appearing to move away as no galaxy is truly at a single (true) center of expansion. That all frames are equally valid viewpoints does not mean that one frame of view is more valid. The concept requires one to think of it as a summation over all frames within comoving coordinates. This is why the symbolic 2D balloon analogy is sometimes used.

Balloon analogies and comoving volumes are not what I'm talking about.

Spectral redshifting of nearly all galaxies is an observation. Redshift increases with increasing distance - another observation. Those observations are interpreted as resulting from expansion of the universe.

Hear, hear!

Now I have an unrelated question (sorry dgruss).

BBT is defended by looking at particle and elemental abundances. I mean, you look at the fraction of H, He, etc. in the universe, and the mainstream says these abundances are exactly right, exactly as can be expected if you _mathematically_ model the early universe on BB premises, modelling the temperatures, the rate of expansion (or inflation!), the matter/energy dissociation, etc.

(I know I'm sounding really uneducated here, and I am).

Uh, my question... I can't remember where, but I recall there being some controversy even on these points. That the abundances don't quite line up the way they are "supposed to," or that the abundances can also be explained just as easily in a "steady state" or "non-expanding / infinite age" universe. Can anyone point me to some links about this?

thanks,

Boris

__________________
"science is where culture rubs against nature" - Stanislaw Lem, His Master's Voice

That seems right to me.

Cyrek reply

Dgruss
Conservation laws are empirical evidence and they do apply to our current universe. Since they imply that matter always existed, I cannot see how you can ignore them. Empirical evidence is not time dependant. The creation of time and space is not physics.

I supplied evidence for the expansion of the light waves that proves that the EM fields expand in open space. The simple electric and magnetic field patterns in basic physics are the empirical evidence. These fields are responsible for all the waves in EM interactions. They create actions at a distance between similar charges or field orientations. Therefore, they do eliminate the ‘space expansion redshift’ because they are not intertwined with space and are a separate effect. Since they occupy space, the assumption is that space is the cause of the redshift. The electric field is presumed to be charged virtual particles. Since these virtual charged particles are of the same charge, they will repel each other. This is then the intrinsic force that would have the same effect on the photons.
As I have explained on other threads, this theory resolves the following:
Make us appear to be centrally located
Olbers Paradox
Dark energy problem
The Arp redshift anamoly

A 1000 P.
Separate observations do not create a separate experiment.

Normandy
The conservation laws are more logical than creation out of nothing.

Travis
Your opinion is conjecture. Quantum theory is the result of current observations and mathematical evaluations. QT could not exist if their was no matter to prove its existence.

Ian
Thanks

Chip
You say the Hubble data implies that the BB is expanding from everywhere. You are located here on Earth, so Baron Muchuasen asks ‘vas yu der Charly? (different locations)

I agree the VoL is consistent. Even when it goes through different densities like glass or other transparent matter.

The BB is not raisin bread baking in an oven.

The intrinsic expansion I propose is not a tired light hypothesis. However, this type of expansion would make it appear to be tiring because of the expansion (reddening) of the light.

Cougar
The Hubble observations are the precursers to the idea of an expanding Universe. Hubble, himself did not accept this idea.
Sliphers redshift observations preceded Hubbles but did not cause the idea of an expanding universe.

All galaxies are receding from all points? We only observe from one point. Our Earth. Guess I will have to repeat my answer to Chip.
Baron Munchausen says 'vas yu der Charly?(all points).

Regarding the CMBR, a plasma preceded the matter coupling. This transformation did not happen instantly. I am certain it would have taken a period of time to include some plasma mix during this transformation.

NGC 7603 cannot be explained logically as separate objects. The large galaxy with one fully star filled extension? Not logical.
The Quasar with one curved arm in deeper space as an isolated object?
Also not logical.

Chip
The balloon analogy is a 2 dimensional false analogy. The raisin bread is more applical to 3 dimensional space. This is ludicrous.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

I've asked this question before and the answer I got is that the universe is actually expanding in 4-D (i'm not sre is that how we describe it so correct me if I'm wrong). think of an expanding ballon and we are on the surface of it and called that point A and another point adjacent to us called point B. while the ballon is expanding point A and B are getting further apart but there is no central point on the surface of the ballon. it seems we are at the central only because of out point of view. if we move to point B it'll look like as if point B is the central point too.

__________________
"We live in a society where it's considered okay for intelligent people to be scientifically illiterate." -- Lawrence M. Krauss

I think the merit of the BB theory not only deal with how our current universe came into existence but also discards (or distroy) any data of what happened before the BB (if there was any). So what we say about the time before BB (say conservation of matter/energy) is merely a guess, albeit an educated guess, but nonetheless we probably will never find any empirical evidence to support what the law of physics would be like before the BB. therefore using our current law of physics to criticize BB solely because our current law of physics would be violated the time before BB is not a valid argument (not to mention our law of physics is not completed at the moment).

__________________
"We live in a society where it's considered okay for intelligent people to be scientifically illiterate." -- Lawrence M. Krauss

Well explained. Cyrek, do you understand kanon14's way of explaining this? Its the exact same point I've been trying to get through to you.

I think one point you're missing here cyrek is that the conservation laws apply to ordinary chemical and nuclear reactions involving matter that exists today. The conservation laws make no statement that matter always existed.

Expansion is more probable than Doppler effects of true motion precisely because it eliminates the central location problem.

Obviously an intrinsic (be it tired light or some other mechanism) redshift fits the redshift data as well as the expansion model does. The other predictions of each theory have to be examined to decide which one is more correct (perhaps “less incorrect” is better in cosmology? ) The Big Bang model predicts the CMB, as well as galaxy evolution. We’re just now getting sensitive enough instruments to thoroughly test these predictions, and the next few decades will either refine the model or refute it.

T=0 is not part of our universe, so the laws of conservation need not apply. Aside from which, an infinitely old “steady state” universe has to violate some laws as well, to be stable. Do you have a third alternative?


I won’t touch this one, as its beyond my current reading. However, the uniformity of the CMBR requires the “inflationary” epic of the BB model, which I personally find suspicious.

Arp’s results do not rule out expansion; it is possible (likely, in my mind) that there are non-expansion components to redshift, but that does not by itself invalidate BB models. In fact, it may help the BB model--if the anomalous acceleration shown in the Ia Supernova data can be attributed to intrinsic redshifts, we can eliminate Dark Energy and put the BB back on solid footing.

Of course there are comments. This topic is like throwing rocks at a hornets nest, around here…

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Wasn't me. You're the one that said it was just one observation.

I don't think so. Why would "intrinsic" redshifts increase with distance from us? If it's intrinsic, it should exist irrespective of distance. This alternative does NOT fit the observations "as well as" the expansion model. The expansion model contains a simple explanation why redshifts increase with distance. (Tired light has, of course, long been discounted because it leads to contradictions, and "other mechanisms" -- well, you'll have to specify before we can know whether it "fits the data".)

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Two things. First, you have a cosmological component to redshift that is not intrinsic. This is the traditional component indicated by some value of the Hubble Constant. The intrinsic redshifts are super imposed upon the cosmological component. Usually the intrinsic redshifts add to the cosmological component, but they can subtract from it. The point here is that in intrinsic redshift models redshift is expected to increase with distance because of the cosmological component.

In other words, the measured redshift is the sum of redshift from the Hubble Constant and the intrinsic redshift component (with smaller contributions from peculiar motions).

Second, the size of the intrinsic redshift component does appear to on average increase with distance. This is teaching us something about intrinsic redshifts that any proposed mechanisms will have to explain.


A pure expansion model without intrinsic redshifts does NOT fit the observations that well.

If there were some mechanism that redshifted light as it passed through IG space, it would have a cumulative effect. Thus, redshift would increase with distance. Notice the italics on the if. A time dependent component of light would also cause redshifting proportional to distance. Mathematically, these would be indistinguishable from redshift due to expansion.

Intrinsic redshifts are not popular with the mainstream because A) there is no generally accepted evidence of a mechanism for intrinsic redshift, and B) the expansion model fits other observations better (namely the CMBR).

Re point A, there is also no evidence of a mechanism for expansion either, aside from mathematics not ruling it out. That is why I'd entertain the possibility of non-expansion redshift, even though I think the BB model is a better fit at the moment.

Re point B, the BB model has already had to be tweaked (inflation) to account for the observed flatness of the CMB. Explaining large scale structures is one current challenge, while evidence for evolution of galaxies is still conflicting and incomplete. Future observations (namely ultra-long exposure data from the Webber space telescope) should resolve many of the gaps, but it is still possible that new evidence will contradict BB model predictions.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

So you agree that an "intrinsic redshift" explanation is not even close to fitting the observations as well as the expansion model?

The redshift-distance relation follows simply and naturally from the expansion model. With the intrinsic redshift idea, there is a complete disconnect with any rationality behind the argument. Sure, there have been attempts to connect up with some rationality, like "Maybe younger matter emits light differently." But every other observation indicates that an electron is an electron and a proton is a proton, regardless of its proximity to us or the big bang or a quark-gluon plasma.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.