According to this link, anyway. Is the author right?

"The history the government hopes you DON'T learn"?

Ehh... Smacks of woo-woo. The science might be valid, but the paranoia ain't.

So what does he think happened, or is he just throwing stones?

__________________
Free speech is no problem
It's listening that costs

Things obviously wrong with this screed:

- Whether religious institutions embraced the Big Bang or not, they had little influence on astronomers.
- General relativity all but requires a Big Bang. It's very hard to get a stable, steady-state universe out of GR.
- The Big Bang was not a black hole.
- The CMBR may have structure, but it's also smooth to one part in 10,000. (Other Big Bang objectors make the claim that it's too smooth. They should get together and make up their minds!)
- Local debris would not create the near-perfect blackbody that is the CMBR.
- Redshift quantization was disproven some time ago by recent sky survey investigations.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The redshift quantization (0.062) is a physical result: studying the propagation of an UV rich continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, one obtains exactly the quantum observed a long time before in astrophysics: the Lyman alpha absorption produces excited hydrogen which redshifts the light until an absorbed Ly beta or gamma line stops the Lyman alpha pumping and the redshift, writing new lines; the redshift restarts from more excited levels populated while writing various lines and from low redshifts produced by the more excited levels. This produces the periodicities requiring no new physics or constant.

This quantization is very evident for the lines of the Lyman forest of the quasars whose number is very large.

With a decrease of UV energy, the restart of the frequency shift becomes harder and harder, so that the process of generation of the Lyman forest generally stops as writing lines, and the final redshift is often a multiple of 0.062.

__________________
JMB

The Universe expansion is confirmed not by Doppler effect only. There are Supernovae outbursts, galaxy age and others.
I believe in Big Bang as the beginning of the baryonic matter Universe.
I do not believe in singularity, space inflation, relict radiation.
You can see this – http://bencieszyn.w.interia.pl/antim...atter-ang.html

I think it is a little strong do describe the article as paranoid, Mr Gullible. No one any longer fears being burnt at the stake. Other methods are now available, as the article correctly points out.

I think the BB does have a certain psychological appeal, based on a human preference for stories to have a tidy beginning and end. And the Biblical creation myths fit nicely with BB abstractions.

The BB might not be dead just yet, but it's on life support and in a vegetative state. It's just a question of when we turn the machine off?

And just as soon as we do, there's a lot of text books that will need burning. Ah, book burning ... there's another religious parallel.

If you say so. But what matters is that it has a certain logical appeal. If the universe is expanding, as observations have shown, then it must have been smaller yesterday than it is today. I think this is pretty solid logic, and it eventually leads directly to the need for a big bang scenario.

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

???? The only parallel I see is 'something came from nothing', and even that can be discussed. Are you saying people stick to the BB because they are Christians? Are you serious or do you just want to stir things up a bit?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I was referring to the psychological. The truth is that we all like stories to have a beginning and an end, and preferably a happy end. This is engrained in to all cultures, from Classical literature to Hollywood and far beyond.

I think there is a strong possibility that the BBT has a powerful subconcious appeal on this basis. Of course, we don't know the ending yet, assuming there is any truth in the "Once upon a time there was a singularity," stuff to begin with.

I think the great man, Hans Alfven, sums the situation up nicely.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

"To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

But if there was no Big Bang, how -- and when -- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admitted, be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200" he noted. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Creation coming from the expansion of the universe from a super massive, universe containing black hole.

To me the "universe always existed" sounds more religious than the big bang theory.

Fair enough, but these are value judements, of course.

I suppose the Infinity stuff basically just sidesteps the issue, whereas the BBT calls on the supernatural.

David Bohm, the Plasma Theoretician and Cosmologist, said: "The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know."

It is not the theories which are religious, but the behaviour of some defenders (most bigbang defenders) who reject the alternative theories without any serious justification, refuse to make comparisons between the powers of the theories.

__________________
JMB

We observe the transformations of the energy, mass, particles, almost everything, even the space. Some people say our reference system is not eternal and have had a beginning. Some people say the systems changes, we are one of the multisystems only.
How may we be sure, that Steady State is eternal? If the conditions change it could collapse or diverge in other reference system.
We people observe everything by photons of the energy all kinds. We can't see the object moving faster then speed of light and object with very small energy moving slowly (h).
How this very fast and very small systems do influence our reference system?
We may say our Earth , Sun, Galaxy have had a beginning. From what did they began ? From other galaxy or just from the energy?

I've heard this idea before. In the interest of playing devils advocate:

What would have kept all the matter from collapsing into a massive black hole (as opposed to expanding out)?

I'm not trying to say the BB is wrong, theres to much evidence to the opposite, I'm just curios.

We could ask thoguh "why should it collapse into a massive black hole?"

If you mean to ask why wasn't there any signifcant (as far as is known) formation of black holes in the early universe despite the fact it was very dense, then the answer is taht the early universe was too homogenous and isotropic for black holes too form.

My problem with the infinity theory is it sounds like someone fed a cow a curry. I mean we know that the production of matter comes out with an equal amount of antimatter, I’ve yet to read any steady state theory actually mentioning this. If anyone has, please inform me.

The BBT offers an evolution to the universe, steady state doesn't. SST doesn’t explain CMBR, or the antimatter problem. For the SST to be correct then one of the most basic laws must be ignored and only matter could have been created. Or out there or 1/2 the universe is antimatter and one day will collide with matter.

Also i remember hearing that in steady state universe human life would in fact destroy the universe. We've already started shooting stuff out of our solar system, it's only a matter of time before we're moving heavy masses and disrupting gravity.

So for me to believe in steady state, there would be proof of god in itself :wink:

When science is unable to answer a question, the charlatans find answers. The power of science is accepting its (provisional ?) limits.

__________________
JMB

cyrek reply

To seek and other BB'ers
(excerpts)

- General relativity all but requires a Big Bang. It's very hard to get a stable, steady-state universe out of GR.

Reply
Physical nature normally opposes collapse. Gravity is opposed by the normal increases in orbital momentum to prevent collapse.

The hydrogen atom does not collapse because of the interacting magnetic interactions between the proton magnetic field and the electrons magnetic field.

quote
- Local debris would not create the near-perfect blackbody that is the CMBR.

reply
The atoms radiate the black body radiations in inter galactic space which is compsed of hydrogen, dust and the molecules.
The BB version as a left over remnant of this radiation cannot be a perfect BBRC because it supposedly happened during a transformation from plasma to matter. Therefore, there would be a mix of both plasma and matter radiation to refute the BB version of a perfect BBRC.

The Conservations laws all support a SSU because they all say that changes cannot be made to current conditions. In other words, you cannot add or suntract any new matter or energy.

Creation out of nothing violates the Conservation of M/E law.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

This is incorrect. The hydrogen atom doesn't collapse because the electron isn't orbitting in a classical sense.

Intergalactic space is not isotropic enough to allow for the blackbody isotropy observed.

When the hydrogen plasma recombined it was because the radiation field itself cooled down. It did so because it redshifted to 13.6 eV. It's been redshifting ever since. There is a misnomer out there that the CMB in Big Bang theory is due to the emission of 13.6 eV photons from the plasma. This isn't true. The CMB photons were actually created during baryogenesis.

The predominate SS theory that died in the 1960s stated that there had to be continual matter generation in order to account for observed redshifts.

Depends on what you mean by "nothing". Virtual particle tunnel out of "nothing" all the time.

A common error is that the electron collapses in the classical (or semi-classical) theory. The origin of this error is that the zero point field is considered as quantum while it is an old classical concept (the last fundamental step being the computation of its mean value by Nernst in 1916).
A spontaneous emission is an amplification of the zero point field. This amplification produces a component, the phase of which varies with the diameter of the orbit. For the stationary orbit, this phase is nearly (pi)/2, so that there is no amplification of the zero point field. As the zero point field fluctuates, the rough calculation must be corrected of the Lamb shift.
The CREIL effect transfers the energy of redshifts, nearly isotropically to the thermal radiation (exception : the amplification of the radiosignals of the Pioneer probes). It may transfer energy inside the very low frequencies, strongly because it is extremely resonant in this case, to thermalise the radiation better.

__________________
JMB

It's not the electron that collapses, but the classical orbit of an electron. The reason it spirals in is because of the Larmour formula -- it radiates away its energy.

Completely undecipherable.

No, a spontaneous emission is a creation operator acting on an excited state of an atom.

This, again, is undecipherable. I assume you're saying there is some mechanism by which the energy in your hypothetical static universe is lost to some CREIL effect isotropically. But if you lose energy isotropically, that doesn't give you an isotropic radiation field.

OK for the collapse.
The Larmor formula gives the emitted field, but not the emitted energy. To get the energy you must take the interference of the Larmor field with the zero point field into account. Remember: the zero point field exists in all theories (classical, semi-classical, QED).
Read Nernst
Does the laser exist ? As the field in an optical mode depends on a single real parameter (the amplitude), the zero point field is amplified just as a larger field : it is the spontaneous emission; you must only take care that if you compute the spontaneous emission by QED, the result must be multiplied by 2 .
I do not make any hypothesis about the Universe.

If thermodynamics allows it, the CREIL transfers energy from any beam to almost all beams which cross it in H*. Therefore, any volume containing H* amplifies the thermal radiation in all directions (from hot radiation propagating in all directions). Thus, for the thermal radiation, the regions containing H* are opalescent. In addition, a CREIL between very low frequency beams is intense (resonant), leading to a good thermalisation (isotropy included).

__________________
JMB

Patently untrue.

Again, patently untrue. Shaking a charge is an intial condition in Maxwell's Equations that lead to the emission of a light wave. Do you think Maxwell's Equations are incorrect?

Perhaps the physician should heal thyself.
Yes, it is stimulated emission process from collisional or radiative pumping.

There is no "zero point field" interaction as such. You can characterize everything in terms of Einstein A and B coefficients.

Well, that's nice. Most photons in space never interact with another photon, however.

The only way you can explain this is if you are getting neutral hyrdogen caught up in the 2nd energy level's S term since that can only decay by means of multiple photon interactions (usually two-photon decay). However, this still doesn't work because the energy density of photons isn't high enough for two to hit the same hydrogen atom at once.

The photon is absorbed by electron due to its absorption spectrum. That way a part of the stars light is absorbed and emited by clouds of hydrogen or atmosphere and we do not see completely, originally light spectrum.
The light from other galaxies comes to us through different gravity fields of our Milky Way. Some photons from outsides approaching to galaxy have relatively higher frequency , then the photons passing by the great mass.

Did you read/hear that photons don't hardly interact with matter? Those photons from the night sky, (i.e.: light energy from distant object in it's smallest form,) that come from distant objects, travel from the object to your retina without interacting with even the atmosphere...

__________________

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.

And the interferences ?
They are correct. Look at Einstein's work on the emission and absorption of light.
He should read the good, old authors
A lot of books (see Milonni for instance) say that the spontaneous emission is an amplification of the zero point field, therefore give a relation between A and B coefficients.
I agree, except with coherent processes which involve many molecules with a single photon: A single photon is refracted by a big prism: Easier to use the undulatory theory in coherent effects.
NO, the CREIL process is parametric, it does not change the state of the atoms permanently.

__________________
JMB

If the Universe expands adiabatic , there would be some energy absorbed in the Cosmic Voids?

Most of JMB's post was undicepherable to me. I have commented on the few bits I could actually understand.

Unfortunately, you don't need to appeal to the ZPF to do this. You can appeal to very mundane LTE physics. This is simpler than what you propose and so what you propose is unneeded and should be ignored by Ockham's razor.

Well, photons do not act with neutral atoms so the majority of the material in the universe does not have any coherent process effect. You might argue that the majority of the volume of the universe is made up of ions, which is true, but there the interaction length is much larger than the mean density. Therefore your formulation is incorrect.

Doesn't work. neutral atoms that emit and then absorb or vice-versa do not change the momentum or energy of scattering photons.

You cannot split the ZPF field from other fields (the fields in an optical mode depending on a single, real number, the amplitude). Therefore, you cannot subtract the ZPF from the EM field: a pure ZPF exists only in a beam at 0K temperature.
NO: the EM waves are refracted by the simplest coherent effect, the refraction. The CREIL requires that the interaction between the states of polarisation produced by the refractions does not destroy the coherence, therefore, only few molecules work (Read Lamb)
NO, in the practice only H* allows CREIL, because a CREIL by other molecules destroys the coherence, producing a ridivulously small effect.
You must conclude: the prisms do not change the directions of the beams !

Learn some coherent spectroscopy.

__________________
JMB