Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred. But the process of scientific progress is not being made at the basis of ignoring any other viable explenation of the cosmos.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence. The Big Bang theory is patched any time observational evidence shows that the predictions of the theory don't hold.

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause.

An alternative physics theory, I recently came accross, makes different approaches on many terrains, and comes up with a consistent theory of physics.
In last instance this theory just makes only one assumption, namely that space itself is an eternal and infinite substance in eternal motion, and causes all the known phenemona of the universe in the form of wave interactions.
In this physics theory, there aren't any particles, but the phenomena which we call or see as particles are just the consequences of standing waves in the space medium.

The theory is known as Wave Structure of Matter.

Apart from a total new and different physics theory, it also is an alternative to the Big Bang, as it has a different explenation for both red shift and cosmic background radiation.

In WSM theory (Wave Structure if Matter) the universe is a finite part of infinite and eternal space. The size of the universe is just determined by the maximum distance waves can interact. Every point in space has a spherical shell around it, it is the center of it's own universe.
And because of that maximum distance, the universe shells of two distant points have less common 'universe', and that is what we see as redshift. It explains why there is a redshift - distance relationship.
Apart from other mechanisms that can cause redshift.

This is a very simple and brief explenation, and shows that the pilars of the Big Bang theory might fall.

Since the theory is rather new (although not that new, some principles have been put forward several hundred years ago), from what I know about it, this theory is in accordance with known physical observations.

General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. don't go directly out of the window, as these ideas are basically right, and can be incorporated into WSM theory.

I just present it here, for people to get in touch with it and hopefully discuss it on here, as als a viable alternative for the BB theory.

According to WSM theory, there was no Big Bang, since there is no expansion of the universe, and space itself as the primal substance is both eternal and infinite and in motion.

The principles of WSM theory are very simple, but the impact is great.

You can read more on WSM theory here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred. But the process of scientific progress is not being made at the basis of ignoring any other viable explenation of the cosmos.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence. The Big Bang theory is patched any time observational evidence shows that the predictions of the theory don't hold.

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause.

An alternative physics theory, I recently came accross, makes different approaches on many terrains, and comes up with a consistent theory of physics.
In last instance this theory just makes only one assumption, namely that space itself is an eternal and infinite substance in eternal motion, and causes all the known phenemona of the universe in the form of wave interactions.
In this physics theory, there aren't any particles, but the phenomena which we call or see as particles are just the consequences of standing waves in the space medium.

The theory is known as Wave Structure of Matter.

Apart from a total new and different physics theory, it also is an alternative to the Big Bang, as it has a different explenation for both red shift and cosmic background radiation.

In WSM theory (Wave Structure if Matter) the universe is a finite part of infinite and eternal space. The size of the universe is just determined by the maximum distance waves can interact. Every point in space has a spherical shell around it, it is the center of it's own universe.
And because of that maximum distance, the universe shells of two distant points have less common 'universe', and that is what we see as redshift. It explains why there is a redshift - distance relationship.
Apart from other mechanisms that can cause redshift.

This is a very simple and brief explenation, and shows that the pilars of the Big Bang theory might fall.

Since the theory is rather new (although not that new, some principles have been put forward several hundred years ago), from what I know about it, this theory is in accordance with known physical observations.

General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. don't go directly out of the window, as these ideas are basically right, and can be incorporated into WSM theory.

I just present it here, for people to get in touch with it and hopefully discuss it on here, as als a viable alternative for the BB theory.

According to WSM theory, there was no Big Bang, since there is no expansion of the universe, and space itself as the primal substance is both eternal and infinite and in motion.

The principles of WSM theory are very simple, but the impact is great.

You can read more on WSM theory here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Incorrect.This is not an "assumption". There are a variety of empirical supports for this possibility. Why do you consider this a problem?Incorrect. I see some rather broad claims, but little experimental and/or observational support. Whether this theory is self-consistent and accurately describes and explains reality remains to be seen.

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

Wow... this may actually fit into the model that I have thought up/explained on this message board under the post 'unification and physical pictures'

Expansion/inflation may just be observational consequences of transitions that occur on the 'inside' of the universe, where on the 'surface' it may remain more or less static.

WSM may also fit an idea of how forces emerge simply out of geometrical arrangements in the universe on different scales.

Not another one.

Ahem... "The scientific community treats X theory like fundamental religious scripture!"

Prove it.

Never mind, you can't. Just understand that theories are held as a correct model even if they are adapted to fit new evidence. As long as it can fit the observations, I don't care how many times its patched.

__________________
My son is my universe.

BOINK!

The Universe is infinite, but its size is determined by the maximum distance waves can interact?

BOINK! Ugh. Obvious contradiction. How can something that is infinite be determined to be equal to anything other than infinity?

__________________
My son is my universe.

Sounds great, except that this doesn't really mean anything in plain english (word soup). Got a reference to some actual research done on this theory?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

This is a typical reaction.

Consider this. The "facts" on which the Big Bang theory is built are rather thin.

The main "proof" of the Big Bang is that there is a distance-with-redshift relationship. In Big Bang theory, it serves as evidence for the expansion.

But there are other viable explenations other then expansion.

I recently came accross a scientific report, which claims that the proposed mechanism for redshift in the Big Bang theory, the expansion of space, can not even cause the effect of redshift, since photons don't loose energy because of the stretching effect.

Another thing, the temperature of space. Conventional models about radiation explain that temperature and spectrum equally well, so also that is not a unique proof for the Big Bang theory.

About finiteness/infinity. The claim is that the universe (that what we can actually observe) is of finite proportions, while space itself (which is in WSM theory a medium) is infinite.

Look at this as follows. An electron is considered a wave like thing. So it is not some local object, as the particle model subscribes, put is something which extends in space. It only manifests itself (in macroscopic terms) as a point particle.

About the patching of the Big Bang theory. This is not a normal property of a theory. Normally, we could make predictions at the basis of the theory, and then later check those predictions with observations. The Big Bang theory does that the other way around. Everytime the theory is in trouble, a new variant is proposed, which matches the observations.

One could claim that, if at last the theory explains the facts, everything is ok. But one has to consider other viable, and more simple models, also.

The model which is the simplest, and fits the data equally or better, would have to be preferred.

It is just a form of arrogance to look on viable alternatives as just "crackpot" theories.

If we would consider the BB theory to be valid, it urges us to assume that the further we look in space, the younger the stellar systems are. But we do not see any proof of that. They are just typical stellar systems, which we also find nearby.
Populated by average stars.

This way the Big Bang theory looses it's predictive power.
At least this should make people aware that, perhaps, the Big Bang theory isn't a valid theory, and we would have to look elsewhere for a viable alternative.

The WSM theory, even when it stands in my humble opinion on solid grounds, is not a mainstream scientific theory.
Wether that theory can replace normal physics theory is dependend on how much attention and research are spent on this alternative. I think it deserves an investigation. But as long as mainstream science is not giving it any attention, it remains an outside theory.

Hi

Please respond to my identical other post about this subject. Accidently it got copied on the board twice.

"a new variant is proposed, which matches the observations"

the problem being?

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Cougar,

I am glad to see that you do not consider the possibility of a universe consisting of 95 percent dark matter and 5 percent ordinary matter to be a problem. Some people of little faith are not that open minded. After all, this is not a made up number. It is a verified value consistent with the Big Bang theory but would your faith be tested just a tiny bit if the numbers were 96 percent dark matter and 4 percent ordinary? How about 97 and 3? 98 and 2? At what value between 95 and 100 might you begin to suspect that the dark matter theory might just slightly be a total crock of ****? Can you give me a number?

Wow... this may actually fit into the model that I have thought up/explained on this message board under the post 'unification and physical pictures'

Expansion/inflation may just be observational consequences of transitions that occur on the 'inside' of the universe, where on the 'surface' it may remain more or less static.

WSM may also fit an idea of how forces emerge simply out of geometrical arrangements in the universe on different scales.

The model seems to be an emphasis on the ONE. Of what does this primal substance consist? What generates the waves? What of friction and entrophy...how do the waves continue in infinate motion? What causes the spherical shells and why do some push out and other pull in? What generated the original motion? Where did the plurality come from in this one?

These are constructive questions for clarification. I agree with some of your basic premises concerning the infinity of space and a primal substance being the only "nothing" possible.

I would love to see this! Got a reference?

This argument has been all over these boards. I don't agree that you are not allowed to patch a theory to match observation, in fact it is often good science. But I agree that the BBT gets special treatment with regard to ad-hocery.

Has there been any research? Could you reference any of it?

Wikipedia on Wave Structure Matter

On the wiki: "The matter in all of the (accessible) UNIVERSE determines the properties of space, and reciprocally space determines the properties of matter."

Doesn't this just replace particle/wave duality with space/matter duality? There's a really interesting Einstein quote on the wiki about this.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Also on the wiki: "Instead of interpreting a wave function as a probability distribution of discrete particles as in older QM, the 'particle' is represented by the entire wave function and we locate it experimentally at the wave-center where energy-exchange takes place."

Shouldn't WSM then be able to predict the location of the 'wave-center'?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Here is a terrible explanation of WSM, which includes this passage:

"When matter is close to other matter, then it's universes (in and out waves) overlap and you get matter interactions. [...] And if you think about it, you will realise that this must also cause a redshift with distance, because distant matter shares less of a common universe, thus less wave interactions, thus less energy exchange (which we see as a redshift with distance). Any smart mathematicians here can deduce this - just work out how the volume of two overlapping spheres changes as you move them apart - this should equate to redshift with distance"

What?

Looking for more info also led me back to egtphysics.net which I believe has been previously discussed on the BABB. Not the same theory, but they appear to be related. Are there any credible sources of information related to WSM?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Ok, finally, from the same author as above (Milo Wolff), a formal explanation complete with equations, predictions and OOM calculations:

A Wave Structure for the Electron

The section A Test of Assumption II is particularly interesting. The author derives the effective radius of an electron from the estimated number of particles within a Hubble sphere volume (the observerable universe), more or less a direct test of the WSM hypothesis of standing waves.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I read it just a day ago or so, have to check my internet cache and/or directory of downloaded documents.



Yes, and the number of speculations which are made, are a bit too much.

At least it urges one to think, of this model of expansion, realy is the right track, and maybe there are other viable tracks.

I dunno at this time, I am myself new to WSM theory. I will look that up.

I think it must read that the properties of matter are derived from the wave phenomena of space.

WSM implements the principe of Mach fully, that the properties of matter are derived from all other matter in the surrounding universe.

THE STRETCHED PHOTON FALLACY

reference:

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/....html#REDSHIFT