The Plasma Universe Model as PREDICTED this filamentary structure of the Universe long time before that study by the work of Alf Elven the instigator of the Plasma Universe.
I have see nothing in the Big Bang model making that kind of predictionIE( filamentary stucture) even for the Dark Matter, they talk after the fact of that structure and assimilate it with DM.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-25 18:18 ]</font>

heusdens:

Let me also add to what JS Princeton has said by stating that contrary to what you have stated, there is AS OF YET no stars or galaxies older than the predicted BB age of the universe. As time goes on, astronomers find quasars and galaxies at higher and higher redshifts (records are currently 6.4 and 6.5, respectively), but that still leaves about 850 million years for these protgalactic clumps to have organized. These are almost certainly NOT galaxies like the Milky Way, or such - but we're have so precious little light and spatial resolution that it's hard to say precisely what these things are. So far, with the data in hand, there is no dynamical time crises.

Someday we may be confronted with an age crisis. That day has not yet arrived, and it may never arrive.

The most recent so-called 'crisis' was relatively quickly resolved with a slightly smaller Hubble constant (age of universe) and more physics put into the models of stellar evolution (ages of stars) - and both of these were affected by a slightly modified distance scale (from Hipparcos).

Nobody was fudging here - this was simply science at work and at its best. The guys and gals measuring Hubble's constant paid closer attention to various small systematic biases (and that perhaps that cepheid P-L relations were affected by the presence of heavy elements or lack thereof). The distance scale was improved by Hipparcos and other methods. Gaia and other future projects will do better still. The stellar modelers went back to their models with the extra physics they always knew would have to go in eventually - and with computers fast enough and face to face with stars older than the universe, they went to work.

None of these three prongs had to work in the "right" direction to "correct" the problem, but all three of them did. And then the supernovae for cosmology groups chimed in with their independent (and still standing) findings that the expansion is accelerating. This mitigated the "stellar age problem" still further.

Thus is the current state of things.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 18:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 19:01 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-11-25 16:56, heusdens wrote:
Will you please name some element that is not satisfactorally explained after the point I mentioned in the last post (t=a fraction of a second)?

That's not a problem with the Big Bang. It is a problem with our ideas of the evolution of galaxies. We are actually reworking galaxy evolution as we speak. It appears that the halos are the first objects and the baryonic matter follows the halos. This gives us a different view for galaxy formation than traditionally. Such modification has fit in well with observational tests of the Big Bang, so, no, this one no longer counts in my book.

Well, you have done a bang up job of not explaining why you think that.

Why are you so VAGUE? JUST SAY WHAT IT SAYS THAT IS CONTRARY TO NATURE!

No, it requires that all matter and space and time were once confined to a smaller space. It says nothing about emergent properties.

Speculation is not what we are talking about. You again have changed topics away from observation. Keep with the observations. What observational evidence do we have that the Big Bang is wrong? Speak up!

And now you are even admitting you aren't talking about the Big Bang, but rather a higher order theory that incorporates the Big Bang. Let's talk about the Big Bang which is the cosmology you seem to have a problem with.

But you have no empirical evidence for this. Only an assumption. A feeling.

It is, in fact, a belief you hold with religious fervor. I suppose that is your right, but it is not agnostic science.

Can you give a concrete example where this is the case? Causality is well preserved as is objectivity in quantum mechanics as far as I can see. Even when dealing with so-called "tunnelling" or "entanglement" thought experiments you are dealing with very physical concepts of causality and objectivity that are preserved.

What would those "inflictions" be?

My instinct tells me that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. My instincts tell me that the sky revolves around a stable Earth. My instincts tell me that things have a natural state of rest and only move when you act on them. All of these instincts are actually wrong and can be proven wrong. Now your instinct cannot be proven wrong because you really cannot prove a negative. But there's no reason for us to accept it either.

A wonderful instinct, but not science.

Welcome to the club of people who've had their minds blown by science.

That's exactly what you come to the conclusion about. It takes careful training and observation to change your view of the world so you understand physical phenomena. This is simply because a human being has no chance of being able to witness every single salient experiment ever done.

You are again mixing the speculation that scientists do with the paradigm, the stuff that science works with as "a priori". Nobody claims to understand primal cause. We only understand shortly thereafter unto today with the Big Bang paradigm.

I think you are allowing yourself to get overwhelmed. Take a deep breath and approach these isseus systematically and not in one fell swoop or your liable to cause a brain hemhorrage.

This "higher-order" framework you speak of is as far as I can see just a buzzword for things we haven't figured out yet. Does it bother you that science doesn't have all the answers?

I think the religious adage of taking the plank out of your own eye applies here. You are basically saying that you are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. This puts you on par with the scientific greats: Galileo, Newton, Einstein. I am not convinced you are of that caliber intellectually. You certainly aren't as systematic as any of them in your critique of current theory. Generally, if someone begins to compare themselves like this, it's a warning flag for crank. You are treading on thin ice here, heusdens. Be careful.

Why don't you try Martin White's work? He's always been a hero of mine.

I know that. But what other scenario is possible for the BB theory, to avoid that outcome?? It's simply not ignorable in my mind.

For sure, I agree on your kind of reasoning, that we should up to some point, try to distinguish ourselves from the outcomes of what we observe. The universe is what it looks to be, based on observations in combinations with natural laws. Observations alone don't tell us of course, the universe started in a Big Bang. Only if we adopt to some cosmological model, this becomes the outcome of the observations.

BB theory is of course not born as sort of creation myth, but was established the other way around, based on solid science.
At least, that is what we believe, science is doing, although it has encompassed some absurd elements in fields like quantum mechanics and other fields.

Up to a certain point I can agree on that.
But let us also clearify, that nature is not a mathematical equation, and one should distinguish between outcomes of mathematical equations and nature itself.

You are right when you say that I haven't adressed or come up with real evidence here that shows Big Bang theory isn't right.
I don't expect anyone to "buy" what my instinct says about how the universe or nature should be. Of course not.
I am just explaining my thoughts on why I eventually would think, that BB theory on the long run would have to be replaced by another theory.
And I think some elements of this, have been worked out already by a number of scientists. Maybe they are laughed at at this very moment by most of the scientific community, because their work doesn't compromise with the current theory.
But I think they are looking in the right direction, and eventually, something will come out that indeed can replace Big Bang theory.

Maybe I am wrong, but my intuition just tells me that Big Bang theory must be replaced some day.

The pitfalls of Big Bang theory to be mentioned are, they encompass too many parameters. I think a theory that doesn't have so many parameters, does a better job in explaining.

At least one can say to my knowledge is that not all research should be going to just one theory.

I think there is enough challenge ahead, and it might turn out, our picture of the universe in the long run, could be totally different then what we conceive now.

Why not a cyclic model with a DeSitter Bounce? What about a time-travel solution? What about baby universes? There are all kinds of ways to incorporate your "instinct" and make it compatible with the Big Bang.

Observations tell us that the universe was once very small, very hot, and very dense. That is the Big Bang in a nutshell.

Are you calling quantum mechanics absurd?

And the word "apple" isn't an actual apple either. We should distinguish between real apples and the word "apple". This argument is pointless.

Name one (and don't say Halton Arp, because he's already old news and isn't a theoertician in any case).

Just what parameters are you talking about? You use vague terms in an attempt to skirt the issue at hand: that you have only a sketchy idea of that which you are trying to critique.

How do you purpose to rearrange the scientific endeavor? We observe, we theorize, we model, we predict. We stand on the shoulders of giants: that is why we use the theory that has been most tested and proved. Read Thomas Kuhn for more on the philosophy behind science and how revolutions happen.

1)-The link you give doesn`t refer to a prediction but from current simulation based on recent data gatered.
2)-And you dont adress the fact that the light is affected by that structure.

Here is the prediction by a hero of mine:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/pl...rse.intro.html
In 1950 Hannes AlfvÈn, Nicolai Herlofson, and Karl Kiepenheuer brought this form of plasma radiation to astronomer's attention. Alfvén, who later won a Nobel prize in physics for his solar studies, proposed hat streams of electrons move at nearly the speed of light along magnetic-field lines not only in Earth's magnetosphere and above the Sun, but also through the cosmos. If so, sheets and ropes of electric current should crisscross the universe in ever-increasing sizes...
These currents, Alfvén thought, should give the universe a cellular and filamentary structure. At the time of this suggestion, supporting evidence in the form of huge filaments, sheets, and walls of galaxies were unknown.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-25 19:46 ]</font>

And why not a non-expanding model, infinite in time and space?
As I said, I still think the universe is an infinite 3D space, which has an infinite extent of matter, and has been there infinite time.

No. It's an interpretation of the observation, based on doppler-redshift.
The interpretation existed PRIOR to the observation.

Not quantum mechanics as such, but the interpretation is.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISE....html#Section1

And the word "apple" isn't an actual apple either. We should distinguish between real apples and the word "apple". This argument is pointless.
[/quote]

Yes. The word "apple" contains 5 characters. A real apple can be eaten.

I don't think that is pointless.
We don't live in an outcome of a mathematical equation, we live in a real physical world.

Hans Alfven, Nicolai Herlofson, Karl Kiepenheuer, Eric Lerner, Paul Marmet, Grote Reber, to name just some.

The cosmological constant to name one.

I was aiming at research facilities for scientist that don't share the common belief.

I think the theoretical work about plasma-physics, that formed the voids and filaments, is a whole new look on astronomy, and is as such not part of the standard model / BB theory.

No, the link does refer to a prediction... NAMELY Lambda CDM. That was all over the page. Please try to read a bit more carefully.

Sure we do. Sunayev-Zeldovich effect for one. For another, there is absolutely no evidence the plasma is dense enough to interact in a meaningful way. Present one lick of evidence to the contrary.

And you know what? Plasmas in interstellar space are nothing new. They are observed and determined to be too small to mean anything. Don't believe me? They are found to make up less that 5% of the critical density of the universe. That's too small for an electromagnetic effect.

It its demonstrated than the structure affect light.All i want to know is if you agree than that stucture can affect the Red Shift.

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lens...shear_icon.jpg

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/

Because we SEE horizons. That's what the Big Bang is all about. There is an observational limit. It exists and it is real. If it wasn't like this we would see the effects of the universe on the outside of our CMB blanket.

[quote]
No. It's an interpretation of the observation, based on doppler-redshift.
The interpretation existed PRIOR to the observation.
[quote]

The Doppler Redshift is a very real phenomenon (you of course realize). We see it in all sorts of peculiar velocities. In order to have an intrisic component to redshift, you expect to be able to model a mechanism to create it. There has been thundering silence on this topic. No, you have no replacement.

I'm sorry, Marmet is just plain wrong in so many different areas, it's embarassing. He was removed from his post at the University of Ottawa because he simply stopped doing any constructive work other than to simply fool around with mind-games in physics. This is quite disturbing because scientific departments will put up with a lot of crackpottery. You have to be borderline crazy to be asked to leave. No doubt there was a time Marmet did good work, but now he's just an angry crank. Sometimes his ideas are intriguing, but he's really doesn't tie himself to observations enough to be legitimate and he continually dismisses interpretations without providing evidence for dismissing them. Actually, he may make for a good buddy for you, heusdens.

This definitely sounds like the words of an armchair math phobic.

None of which even pretend to have what you are talking about.

Bad Astronomer (in the bad sense).

Discussed above.

Brilliant man, in the spirit of Fred Hoyle slipped a little too brilliant. His pithy critique of cosmology goes nowhere and has no ties to modern observational techniques. The man's ancient today, so we're not expecting a retraction from him. Even so it is very safe to dismiss this pre-Hubble stalwarts as a has-been who just couldn't adjust. It's not the first time such has happened. It took a while for many French scientists to accept Newtonian physics (instead of vortex-physics). Reber has no critiques of cosomology that haven't been dealt with in due course. The "problems" he outlines are all either not at the core of cosmology or are separate issues that have been dealt with. There is no work done by him in this area that even attempts to deal with the CMB, for example.

I guess that is just too many parameters. Excuse me while I go roll my eyes.

In all seriousness, physics is parametrized. All of it. Change one parameter, tweak another, measure a third in relation to the first two. It's as old as physics and it's not a problem.

Why not fund creationists? Why not fund astrologers? Why not fund those Ragnarok enthusiasts? What's your standard if you're going to include Marmet in your list of heroes?

That's just plain wrong. Read Martin White's pages.

Absolutely not. There is no mechanism for being able to get an intrinsic redshift out of this stuff. Your links certainly don't offer one.

I was not talking about an intrinsic Red Shift in that case but Gravitational Red Shift or tired light effect.

Tired light has been shot out of the water already in this thread.

The gravitational redshift effect is too small for the energy density of our universe.

Of course, neither of these ideas are covered in the links you provided.

Next?

Of course those subject are not specifically covered but lets see what they say:
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lens...Sliceshear.jpg

Image of the distant galaxies lensed by the dark matter of the universe
 
This view shows what the observer at the front of the box would percieve when looking at galaxies in the sky. The blue elongated disks are the images of distant galaxies formed by their light after it has passed through the box. The observer can see these galaxies but the filaments of dark matter, shown here in red and white, are invisible, even to the largest telescopes available to our observer. **However, one can see that the galaxy images are **elongated in a special way** on average: they are **stretched** along a direction parallel to the filaments of dark matter. **This effect is a consequence of gravitational lensing which stretches the tight bundle of light rays from a single galaxy much like the moon's gravity stretches the Earth to cause the ocean tides**. By measuring the** systematic distortion** in the images of distant galaxies**, one can "see" the dark matter.
So the effect cause a systematic distorsion of the image of distant galaxies >Get a clue?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-26 09:31 ]</font>

What do you call a horizon? An observational limit? That will always be the case.
Oh, absolutely, no doubt about that, the mechanism is real. The only doubt there can be if that mechanism is the cause for the Hubble redshift, or if there could be an alternative cause for the redshift.
As long as we didn't find it and proof that such another mechanism exists, we must agree on the doppler-redshift interpretation.
But I am not absolutely sure, that no alternative for the redshift can be found.
Well, he doesn't fully accept relativity and the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Math is not the only way to understand reality. It is a helpfull too, it sure is.

[quote]
I guess that is just too many parameters. Excuse me while I go roll my eyes.

In all seriousness, physics is parametrized. All of it. Change one parameter, tweak another, measure a third in relation to the first two. It's as old as physics and it's not a problem.

As long as one is doing scientific work, I think they should be entitled to do so.
It is healthy to science, when also scientific work besides the mainstream can be done.
I am not defending creationist science, cause calling something science is not what it is about. And it's sure the case they defend is lost. But up to a certain point they just do science critique, and I would think that such a thing should be allowed.
Science is not just the realms for the well educated, it is also something of societal interest. The debate about science is something which is necessary for societal reasons.

One should also realize that the billions of dollars going into scientific research, like astronomy and theoretical physics and such, must be justified for the whole of humanity.
Grand part of humanity doesn't even have access to proper education.

I will read those pages.

Some remarks on this debate.

I like to make some remarks, just for the sake of having this discussion going somewhere.

First of all I respect your remarks, which clarifies why you see the things you see, and why you think the Big Bang theory is right. Your conclusion is based on the scientific discoveries and observations, and which doesn't allow you to say otherwise then to defend the BB theory.
In principle the reality and the things that BB theory are based on, are same for you as for me, and I don't think our reasoning is that different, that we could conclude differently.

Well, our level of understanding might be different, and also our knowledge, but if we would both be on the same level, that would be quite sure.
And in fact I did not state otherwise then saying that based on what is gathered upto now, the BB theory has most credits.
I haven't been denying that.

All I was trying to say is that, even if the BB theory looks convincing, I do not conclude up to this point that in the near future we might establish quite a different perspective on this issue.
It's a conclusion I draw on mere instinct and intuitive reasoning, then based on facts. Something tells me, some pieces are missing from the puzzle. I have explained why I was thinking that way, because it would make the "universe" a non self-contained entity, and of which the causes most probably would reside in an (unknown) "super-nature".
That conclusion I am not willing to make, cause I think there is a lot more out there, that has not been discovered and analyzed, and which might be of crucial interest to explain the universe as we see it.
It must be, cause else I think, science has lost its mind, and isn't realy able to understand the reality/universe, without the help of something "supernatural". Ultimately, if it would show up, that the universe can't be explained otherwise as the BB theory, there is where we are going to, in some or other way.

I think that what distantiates us in this respect is not just the knowledge or reasoning on a scientific level, although I assume you are better skilled on cosmological issues then I am.
What distantiates us is that you, when seeing the whole picture, accept it as it is, while I cannot accept it as it is, and merely conclude that something must be missing.
It might turn out I am right, and we can conclude convincingly that what we see is a distorted image, because we neglected some things, or weren't even aware what the causes were. The proof is in the evidence of course.

I am not asking anyone, without the proof/evidence delivered, to "buy" this, or to drop the BB theory instantly. Science asks us to only conclude things, based on observed evidence, on not to go for instincts or intuition. That would be just silly.

Science is indeed not a mere replacement for religion, it stands on totally different grounds. Nevertheless, scientists are people, with certain convictions, which makes them think differently, even when sharing the same kind of knowledge and observational evidence. Science in total, is not a rational process. We may think it is, but the portion of irrationality has often be part of the scientific research.
If we would just leave our current understanding at the level it is now, no progress could ever be made.
It may turn out, we are looking in the wrong direction when we go beyond what is commonly believed or hold for truth. But it may turn out we are looking in a direction, nobody had searched before, and find something that tumbles down our previous conceptions.

I hope you see, that is just the kind of argument I was making. Untill now and at this point of knowledge and evidence, what I say can't be justified. I am aware of that.
But someday, it might turn out my intuition about this was right.

You may call people who do not completely accept the mainstraim ideas lunatics, or whatever you prefer. History has shown that every new discovery, that challenged the current belief, was at first not accepted.
That is just the way it is, and probably will always be the case.
And in itself it is quite understandable. If you trust the science in the way they established their evidence, it would be silly to give that up, untill evidence is provided and established in way, good science practice prescribes.

The way I am reasoning, you may call irrational, and not based on evidence. I do admit that, and I layed out why I, despite the evidence for the contrary, think that way. Untill more reasearch in this field has been done, and scientific evidence is provided, I expect noone to go for it merits yet.

We have yet to see who is right and who is wrong. And I accuse noone, who has settled for the current mainstream ideas and theories in cosmology, of having established something out of the ordinary, if it turns out that the BB theory wasn't right.
It's just the way science progresses.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-26 09:55 ]</font>

Well, heusdens, you've succeeding in posting two posts in this thread that haven't contained many egregious factual errors, and for that you should be commended. It is very important that you clearly separate out your own personal biases from that of scientific observations and theory. If you maintain a clear demarcation between these two realms, you won't cause much of a rukus.

I must concede that your point of view cannot be disputed on purely logical or philosophical grounds. You seem to want validation that "you might be right". I think I have given as much validation to the areas where you "might be right" that I can. There's only so much bending over backwards that I am willing to do for someone who has a gut feeling about the way the universe should be and draws conclusions about reality based on that. As I said, why should I believe your theory any more than say, Ragnarok's Impending Solar Feast? Once I abandon my scientific standards, I am left to the wiles of mythology and gut instinct.

Orion, is it just me, or does it seem that every discussion we get into seems to degenerate into you either a) posting statements that are correct but don't support your position or b) posting a nonsensical comeback that doesn't make sense? It happens that you have chosen option a) for this thread.

These folks certainly aren't in favor of gravitational redshift mechanisms for explaining the redshift-distance relation. Nor are they proponents of tired light. But I've written that before.

Well you see, there is a difference about the process of science, and science itself.
Science is rational, but the process of science how it evolves, is not.

There is no reason why you should believe me. There is no reason to believe anything, apart from hard facts.
But a good dosis of scepticism and good instinct, are sometimes necessary.

Look at it this way. Suppose you see a good magic show. In this magic show, things are occuring, of which you know, can't happen.
You know there is a trick or that you are tricked. But you don't know how the trick was performed, and no matter how hard you try to find out, you don't succeed.

What do you conclude, there was no trick but "magic" happened, or that it is explainable in more ordinary terms, even when you did not discover the trick.

I assume the outcome to be of the "cosmic puzzle" to be, that there is logically and reasonable explenation that can be given for the way we see the cosmos.
I don't go for the alternative that "magic has happened".

But anyone may choose as one likes.

But your alternative is just as magical. Apart from mundane arguments about us being here, there's no a priori reason to assume that existence should occur. It's just as much "magic" even if there is no intial point of time and space.

I will make it more simple for you. Measurement of the redshift taken from a distorsion image of distant galaxies should give distorded result.If you can argue otherwise this is because you are so blinded by the infaillibility of the Big Bang model based on the Redshift ,than this distorsion your judgement.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-26 13:19 ]</font>

Actually, Orion, this isn't true at all. Part of the reason we know that gravitational lenses are acting is because we can take spectra of the sources and find them to be the same!

I agree, so that close that issue for me.

I don't think so, but I know it's a hard question, and I know this kind of question can play a trick on your mind. One needs to struggle with this question for some time, just to understand the meaning of the question.

It would be to think that "non-existence" or the "nothingness" could "exist" and would have been an alternative to the existing universe.

The universe didn't appear out of nothing, and wasn't caused by something, it simply existed/exists, and will go on to exist.

There's only one way in which one can derive the conclusion that "something" must have caused the universe to become existent, and that is to think that "non-existence" or the "nothingness" could have had existence, which would neccisitate for the universe to get into existence (since, ultimately, we are here).

Unless you are willing to give up it's formal definition, in which "nothing" does have existence of it's own, and suddenly becomes "something that exist", and could be an alternative for everything that exist.

Well, we must understand that this is one of the basic layers of our consciousness and concepts about the world. If in our mind, we do not completely understand this issue, then I very much doubt if one can come up with a good scientific explenation of all of reality.

I know, like you are infringing to say, that the way we arrive at this conclusion, is like magic, but ultimately I don't think it is magic after all.

I myself, didn't arrive at this conclusion by studying science, by looking at the cosmos, or by reading philosophic work.
I was ample going to school, when thinking about this one issue, so I guess I was not influenced or pre-biased in answerhing this question: why is there a world, instead of no world at all. The conclusion of this self-debate, I already gave you.

But it's a good and hard question to start with, and I could advice anyone, if they haven't alredy done so, to find and answer on this intruiging question one self. And try to avoid to be pre-biased, and more or less reformulate an answer cultural understanding provides for this one, but find the answer yourself.

You can find that answer, without looking into the sky, or by studying anything material, but just by deepening this question, and use your logic skills, to tackle that question.

But that stand for conventional gravitational
lensing,but in this case this is a new king of gravitational lensing caused by the "Dark Matter"".So obviously someone is not interested to take this in consideration.
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-26 14:08 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-26 14:47 ]</font>

Orion, Dark Matter interacts just the same as normal matter as far as gravity (and gravitational redshift) is concerned. It just doesn't appear to be luminous or otherwise interacting with normal matter.

You need to read this:
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/#IC
Go to Figure 2
Deflection of light rays crossing the universe, emitted by distant galaxies

Figure 3
Image of the distant galaxies lensed by the dark matter of the universe

Orion, that is indeed a wonderful site, as I have said before. It is not a disproof of doppler redshift, of course. In fact, it works based on the expanding universe to create the model.

And the fact is that the light from distant galaxies is **gravitationally lensed and deflected** by that filamentary structure of the universe and this is a new phenomena recently discovered.So have nothing to do with conventional gravitational lensing.Could you conceive that even if this is not writing in the text.Use your imagination for one time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-26 19:49 ]</font>