[EDIT: erroneous EGT reference removed]

Some problems I have encountered concerning Big Bang
cosmology and Relativity:

1) [removed]

2) ~13.7BY age of universe derived from Hubble time

This is very unsettling to me, and makes me think that I am wholly misunderstanding something important (which is often the case). Would this assumption imply that we can only observe ~13.7BLY into space? Are the coming onslaught of super powerful space telescopes expected to be limited to viewing this distance, and no further? Will we soon be able to observe Heaven and Creation itself? Which epicycles will be invented to explain-away our ability to see 20, 30, or 50BLY, should we discover this to be possible?

3) Observations of the most distant known objects show nothing different than what we observe nearby

The further back in time we look, the more it becomes apparent that the universe looks just as it does nearby! Could this be a further misinterpretation of redshifts-as-distance, implying these objects are really not so far as we have assumed? Or, more likely, are our ideas concerning of the age of the universe erroneous?

4) Evidence of expanding space consistent with SRT that in no way relies on a Doppler interpretation of redshifts

Does such evidence exist?

5) Quantized redshifts

A consistent problem with no clear winner that I can discern. Favor seems to be towards non-Doppler interpretations, given the consistency of the various quantization studies, and the incredible inconsistencies of Doppler models (Virgo's Fingers of God, geocentric quasars at extreme distances, etc). There appear to be several ways in which light may be redshifted while travelling through space (bremsstrahlung, Compton effect, gravity, etc), so the apparent lack of consensus concerning alternate causes of redshifts seems to make clear the inherent bias of Big Bangers to shutter their eyes to such blasphemy.

BTW, the thread with this title made me laugh, with Astronomer claiming that a single Sky and Telescope article, in addition to some vague anecdotal appeals to seniority, was definitive proof that the quantizations don't exist, in spite of the many researched papers to the contrary. Astronomer also made the claim that Hubble 'propose[d] an expanding universe' in his 1929 radial-velocity-to-distance relation paper, which of course is nonsense and makes other claims appear equally misinformed.

BB cosmology certainly appears to be the epicycle of the times. It is probably the most ad-hoc explanation ever paraded as infallible truth. The general effort seems to be highly concentrated on finding the 'missing' evidence that would fix obvious flaws to make BB fit observation. It is most telling, to me, that even in spite of the large and obvious bias in selection and reporting, this missing evidence still remains completely elusive!

Language can never define Nature no matter how hard we try!

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I struggle to understand the complexities of SRT and Quantum mechanics, But I do know this. We can observe, measure and predict gravitational effects, we can observe, measure and predict magnetic effects, EM behavior, etc.

Can we observe, measure and predict behavior Aether has on the universe? I was under the impression that in order for a theory to be valid, is has to be able to allow for accurate predictions in behavior. Observation is not in itself enough. There are mushrooms out there that can cause you to observe a great many things. Measuring and predicting are every bit as important.

SRT can be loosely observered with the thought experiement of bouncing a ball on a train. TO the person doing the bouncing on the train, the ball only moves up and down on the same spot, to an observer outside the train, the ball hits every 50 feet along the track (and appears to slow down in it's up and down motion as well). Hence the observation being dependant on the position of the observer relative to the ball. Pehaps that has nothing to do with what your referring to, but it is an clear yet simple observation of SRT than can mathematically be used to predict the balls location in space at any point along the track.

Regarding the Clock example, I thought Time dilation had been observed using cesium clocks on planes? According to wikipedia, they are only (HA!) accurate to within 10 -9. There is still a margin of error there. According to SRT, I am not sure one could make the perfect clock unless one could develop a Perfectly Motionless state in relation to the entire universe. A Benchmark if you will to measure everything else from. (I wonder, would something completely motionless have a mass of 0?)

Besides, if one was to solve all the other issues with makeing a benchmark in time/space, would it be possible to do given that we believe the universe is expanding? Wouldn't the expansion in turn appear to be movement? The only way I can even think of that this would be possible would be for the clock to jump back in time to the point of it's last tick, so to speak.

Or did I completely miss the point of this post?

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

This was discussed here with Ron Hatch participating.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Ahhh exactly the sort of discussion I was looking for, thanks

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Hmm.. don't think I understood that the EGT site was implying that the speed of light was anisotropic somehow. Woops.

The rest of the observations stand, however.

Is there any non-Doppler evidence for space expansion?

Our we truly limited in observation to < Hubble time?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I can't imagine why. Of course, nature is not too concerned about what you personally think.
Only? Do you realize how LONG 13.7 billion years is? Do you realize how FAR light could travel in that time? Light travels pretty quickly, you know.

If we look in one direction, we can detect "light" coming from all sorts of distances - nearby stars, distant galaxies.... (more accurately, we detect electromagnetic waves that may have shifted out of the visible light range). The cosmic microwave background that we detect emanated from the surface of last scattering, and that EM radiation has been traveling for somewhat less than 13.7 billion years. But then we can look in the opposite direction!
Yes, a limit is definitely expected. Only a neutrino telescope could penetrate the surface of last scattering, and we are far, far from having such technology.
Uh, no.
Why the dim and unflattering generalization about scientists?

This is incorrect. The cluster story you link to, which is NOT the most distant known object, had roughly four billion years to form. Do you realize how long four billion years is?
I think if you look into this more rigorously, you'll find that there is abundant evidence that the early universe is considerably different than our local universe.

Do you have an even faintly rational alternative explanation for all of the observations that support this view?

It's not a lack of consensus. It's a lack of evidence. At any rate, I'm not sure what you're talking about in much of the above paragraph. Fingers of God? Geocentric quasars? Pardon my ignorance, but what's that have to do with redshift?

Many researched papers establishing the reality of quantized redshifts? Cites, please.
First, big bang cosmology is not "paraded as infallible truth." If you can be so wrong about this one point, how credible does that make anything else you say? Second, the big bang theory is the Reigning Queen of Cosmology. You'll need a lot more evidence than "This is very unsettling to me" to dethrone her.

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

akira...

I find it interesting to follow alternative trains of thought, no matter whether I think they are well founded or foolish. But one thing that will detract from such expression more than anything else is this. A snide and sarcastic attack on opposing views does nothing to bolster your own views. In fact it tends to make the arguments sound less sophisiticated.

If one just wants to vent, fine, but if one wants to generate a sympathetic audience, it pays to be respectful of all points of view.

Just my opinion of course.

Hmmmmm, not all and some are open to interpretation. See below

Yes, but it depends on what you mean by doppler. The cosmological redshift is not doppler. See below.

Well, yes. See below.

Although quite a few of the ATM folks that post here disagree (not all though), this site has some good information, not just on that page, but throughout the rest of the site also.

edited for spelling.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

All I am saying here is that if we can currently observe objects as far away as 9BLY, and proven methods will soon allow us to seen immensely further, I will be greatly surprised if our vision is limited to such small proportions.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Sorry for the cynicism. I will try not to appear shortsighted. It is however apparent in the Big Bang literature such as this site suggested by Tensor, who usually provides such excellent information, that there simply is no room for argument, and that the Big Bang assumptions are defined as the One interpretation.

The site proposes a good standard model for BB, so let's examine it.

BB cosmology 'solves' Olber's paradox with fairly speculative claims, none of which have direct observational evidence. In fact it is seen that the two accepted explanations for solving this paradox require Hubble Law, which is based on an exclusive interpretation of redshifts.

However, the sky is not dark at all! The CMB is evidence enough of this. The bias here is in a tautology. Humans observe the sky to be mostly dark with the naked eye, because humans can only see a small wavelength of the energy in the sky! It is observed that the further you look in any direction, the more objects you continually see. Should this prove to extend for tens of billions of light years, this may instead support an infinite universe which has always existed.

There is plenty of evidence and discussion that leave this problem open for further study. I mentioned the Fingers of God, an example of the Copernican problem described here:
This is further described here.

Other observations of quasars have also led to geocentric interpretations of Hubble's Law.

Why do these observations specifically support BB cosmology above any other homogenous, isotropic cosmology?

This is an interesting one. The argument appears to be that because time dilation was observed among supernovae, there cannot exist a mechanism for 'light tiring'. What exactly is the relation here?

First of all, time dilation was a product of Special Relativity, not Big Bang cosmology. Second, bremsstrahlung and gravitational redshifting are known methods of redshifting, so the cosmological redshift cannot be the exclusive explanation for observed radial-velocities. On what basis is a tired-light model wholly rejected?

So even at first glace it is obvious that the supposed evidence in support of the Big Bang also supports many other possible cosmologies, which could perhaps describe SRT more accurately if given proper consideration.

Still after searching further, I don't see any apparent evidence for the expansion of spacetime to have been observed in any way independent of the particular Hubble Law interpretation of radial-velocity. Any help in this respect?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Welcome to the board Akira...., it is nice to see someone talking sense here. I hadn't seeen the fingers of God stuff before but this certainly reinforces tired light.
Cheers,
lyndon

Ok, it's probably been a month since I last posted these, but since no discussion of the BB can be complete without a reference to the current experimental status of cosmology allow me to introduce (ta da!) The Particle Data Group. This is basically a compendium of experimental data on particle properties, cosmology, string theories, GUTS, and any number of other topics. I'd draw attention to two of the review articles in particular. The first is Big Bang Cosmology. This is a summary of the history and experimental evidence for the BB theory. When you add in the data from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis you get even more observational data that supports the BB theory (as well as supporting the Standard Model of particle phsyics). I think you'll find, Akira, that the BB theory is anything but ad hoc, and that any ATM model has a lot of explaining to do if it wants to be considered as a serious alternative.

While I'm at it there are three other reviews at the site worth reading. (Some more links for you Tensor ) The first is Cosmological Parameters that summarizes the values of the various parameters that theories need to predict. The second is on the Cosmic Ray Background. I would suggest this is required reading for anyone discussing the BB and its alternatives. Finally, there's a page on the status of every ATM theorist's favorite whipping boy (Ah Soupdragon where art thou) Dark Matter. This summarizes the status of the various dark matter models and the experimental evidence for and against them. Again, I would suggest this is required reading for anyone who wants to dispute the current cosmological models.

One thing I think you'll find is that a lot of the experiments are trying to find places where the established theories are wrong. They haven't fully succeeded yet, but this is hardly indicative of an almost religious reverence for the BB theory.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Then, when you have read Eta C's references, try these.
In the Astrophysical Journal 1997 AJ 114..722R A.G. Reiss, A.V. Filippenko and and D. C. Leonard state:
“Whilst a few doubt that expansion alone causes cosmological redshifts, the conventional view has only modest experimental verification”.

Again, in the Astrophysical Journal, 466:L21-L24, 1996 July 20 a list of sixteen authors including B. Leibundgut, A. Reiss, .M. Hamuy,. R. P. Kirshner to name some of the better-known ones goes even further and state:
“The nature of galaxy redshifts has usually been interpreted as being due to a general expansion of the universe. However, widely accepted clear experimental proof of this fundamental assumption of most cosmological models has been lacking”.
Cheers,
lyndon

Akira:

in reply to:

Olber's paradox doesn't say there is no light in most of the sky, just that there isn't much energy.

Olber's paradox says that if the universe is infinite and eternal, the entire sky should be as bright (or brighter) than the sun...while the CMBR is everywhere, the energy it represents is very very small, and so does not support Olber's Paradox.

As for Homogeneity and Isotropy:

Those don't support BB over other homogenous and isotropic cosmologies. However, they do support the BB, and so are included.

While I feel that some degree of disagreement is healthy for science, I think you'll find that the papers Lyndon references represent minority opinions. With all due respect to them, I believe they are wrong. Despite the assertions of Leibendgut, et al., the evidence for expansion is widely accepted and is quite compelling. We may nitpick about details of inflation and dark energy, but few cosmologists, astronomers, or physicists would deny that the universe was once smaller, denser, and hotter than it is now. The observational evidence is too complete and consists of far more than the CMB and redshifts. Each of those review articles contains about three pages of references (not that sheer bulk decides any debate) that detail multiple corroborating observations and experiments.

Here's a question for you Lyndon. How do you (or the scientists you reference) account for nucleosynthesis? Does the tired light model allow for such a prediction. The current BB theory does quite a good job of predicting the observed quantities of Li, He, and Be down to the isotope level. Or do you dispute the validity of data?

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

An interesting note, while I study the links you provided, Eta C (much thanks).

I came across this examination of Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models.

There is some excellent work here that certainly gives favor to Big Bang cosmology over Steady State, execpt that it is initially stated that "The Universe is observed to be expanding" in the first paragraph. This is without exception the basis for each of the subsequent 'errors' in SS models, which AFAIK don't involve such an assumption. Then the SS models are 'updated' to account for an expansion that may not even exist!

So expanding space is again the exclusive assumption from which all arguments are formed, although the author does not qualify his assumption here. So I continue looking for non-radial-velocity evidence of expansion...

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Only time for a quick reply. Here is a good derivation of the cosmolgical redshift. I'll try to get back to you later on the rest of your post.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Your point is related to what we're discussing on this thread and what we discussed on this thread.

But didn't SS assume expansion too?
The nice "twist in the tale" is that with inflation and 'vacuum energy', BB has gone back to SS.
cheers,
lyndon.
Eta C - its late I will get back to you tomorrow.

The very first sentence of this introduction to Big Bang cosmology states:So not only is the assumption that space is expanding the foundation of BB cosmology, it is also used as a means to categorically reject any other possible cosmology! This is a wonderful built-in bias that is wholly evident in any BB discussion, in which supporters claim expansion as fact. Yet I still find no evidence outside of Hubble Law interpretation of apparent radial-velocity.

The citations given for expansion are in fact the initial work of Slipher and Lundmark, and Hubble and Humason's famous paper on the radial-velocity-to-distance relation. So again, the only evidence of expansion is an exclusive (Hubble's Law) interpretation of this work.

Nucleosynthesis appears to be the next best candidate for evidence in support of the Big Bang cosmology. But as stated in the same paper linked above:So results here are inconclusive.

Finally a note on the CMB, which is loudly proclaimed not just as proof of BB cosmology, but proof that steady state models are fundamentally wrong. The claim of this CMB temperature 'prediction' is highly suspect of ad-hoc-ery, and may have been more accurately predicted by steady state models earlier than BB.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Aren't there built in biases that describe the world around us? I can't think of one at the moment, but something that's so obvious that it's laughable to question it? Maybe, "clouds are made of water vapor." ??? Perhaps?

__________________

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.

The problem here, as deftly stated by dgruss23 in this thread, is that expansion is an interpretation, not an observation. So it is not really comparable.

And as Feynman famously stated:So 'common sense' can't always be an indicator of the absurdity of Nature, and need not be deferred to

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Two out of three is not bad! And should we be dismayed that Li abundance in the atmospheres of halo dwarf stars doesn't agree? Not at all. Dwarf stars have a lot of convection so we are going to see non-primordial isotope abundances.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Excuse me for proposing to know about any specific SS cosmology, I overstepped my bounds there. I have only been taught under BB and am really only interested in analyzing discrepancies between BB cosmology and observation.

I am not familiar with any specific SS cosmologies, I would be interested to see predictions related to expansion.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

No, they're quite compelling. As long as we're picking quotes from the PDG, here's the first sentence of the review article.I'd refer people to figure 20.1 in the report and judge for yourself if the agreement is conclusive or not. The BB predictions for Li abundance have the weakest agreement between theory and observation. The Li data also have the largest error bars. This, however, doesn't make it inconclusive. That's Akira's opinion which is not shared by practicing physicists. Taken together with the He and D comparisons the Li data make a strong case for the validity of the BB nucleosynthesis predictions. As I stated before, any alternative must do at least as well.

There aren't many, despite what lyndon and others would argue.

But the next sentence goes on to say The remainder of the article goes on to describe the comparisons that do provide the sufficient evidence. I again urge people to read the whole thing and draw their conclusions.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

To be honest Eta C, I think that you will find that the scientists i quoted above are some of the leading experimentalists in cosmology - High supernovae group?
You see the fingers of God posted by Akira... is an excellent example of tired light in action. The reason that the Virgo cluster is elongated in 'z' space is that the light from the galaxies at the back of the cluster has to travel throught the plasma between galaxies in the cluster before emerging at the front to travel to us. this puts a systematic redshift on top of the usual one. How does the Bb explain it?
As for nucleosynthesis, I can only speak for myself. Tired light tells us that the universe is not expanding now - thats all. It doesn't say it never did. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't I don't know. Thats another theory. I feel that perhaps the Bb happened, the universe expanded and since the density is equal to the critical density the expansion was arrested and we were left forever in this infinite state of suspension.
I don't believe everyone is wrong, just those saying that the universe is expanding now.
Cheers,
Lyndon

I did, and I still don't see such evidence that so many claim is in abundance. Let's walk through some of these observations specifically related to expansion:

The most common claim, although it seems causal evidence to support this is lacking, and observations are not exclusively explained by such an interpretation.

So this is observational evidence in support of vacuum energy, i.e. a new cosmological constant? If so, it would support expansion as well, but I thought original pro-BB arguments specifically rejected such a constant? Note that such an interpretation of the Supernova Hubble diagram is very much a proper application of the Hubble 'constant' redshift-distance relation, which is usually haphazardly assumed to be accurate for ALL distances (in spite of observations). This is because the distances of the supernovae are independantly well known to high accuracy (the redshift-distance relation is ambiguous when applied to unknown distances).

...assuming that expansion were to be proven true. I don't understand claims that when relativity is applied, all steady state cosmologies are ruled out. Why would a static universe break relativity, so long as the speed of light remains constant?

From what I understand, Einstein's cosmological constant was thought to be fundamentally flawed because it introduced an instability by which, assuming a constant vacuum energy density, fluctations in matter density would cause uncontrollable expansion/contraction due to gravitational acceleration. Under what premise is such a hypothetical vacuum energy density assumed to be constant, and instead might not some form of conservation between matter/vacuum exist such that they maintain equilibrium?

So after analyzing what an early BB universe would look like, an isotropic and homogeneous universe is unfavorable? How are isotropy and homogeneity assumptions of BB cosmology if the proposed mechanism of a big bang would logically result in an anisotropic universe?

These problems are apparently solvable by inflation theory, but this appears to be an a posteriori change in the basic assumptions of BB cosmology.

So this flaw in the assumptions for BB cosmology is temporarily avoided by assuming currently unknown processes are at work. Isn't this, in fact, evidence against BB? I must be misunderstanding something here...

I don't quite understand this one. How might this 'neutrino redshift' be observed (or has it already)?

This is another variation of the exclusive redshift=distance assumption, unsupported by observation.

So I am still not convinced that there is such abundant evidence for expansion. It seems many of the observations listed in the paper could be viewed from a more generic cosmological perspective based in Relativity, but without so many limitations imposed by such a BB ideology.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

You misunderstand, the cosmological constant fixed the instability, not caused it. The original GR eqations, as applied to the universe as a whole, indicated the the universe was either expanding or contracting, it couldn't be static. Since this was in the late1910-early 1920s, before Hubble's discovery, Einstein added the cosmological constant into the equations to produce a static universe.
When the spectrum of the galaxies was discovered and could be explained by having an expanding universe, the cosmological constant was dropped.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Hmm... after further searching:
Now I think I have enough understanding of the problem to see why there is such a debate over vacuum energy, but this is off-topic now. Thanks for the clarification, Tensor.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

No problem, just trying to help. I'm still working on your other post, life got in the way.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth