Hopefully, the following is a "good" general bullet list of the Big Bang Theory.

On-going Revised (edited) "Bullet" List....
[added neutrino anisotropy]
[10th edition - CMB power spectrum, Lyman Forest & wavelength]
[9th edition - to include CMBR angular hot spot size]
[8th edition - to include expansion from Einstein field equations]

The Expansion of the Universe.
....> Hubble Constant (redshift) More
....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
....> Time Dilation of Supernova More1 also More2
....> Gamma Ray Bursts
....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. More
........> The wavelength (microwave)
........> The Temperature (2.73K). More
........> The Blackbody Results.
........> The "smoothness" (isotropy) [Inflation required]
........> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation. WMAP
........> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
........> The power spectrum
....> Distant Cloud temperatures
....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
....> Helium (25%)
....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
........> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
........> Less organized distant Spirals.
........> No local Quasars.
....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
....> Olber's Paradox resolved. More
....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
....> The Lyman Forest morphology
.
.
.
.
Big Bang Simplified (?)...
Expansion – The very fabric of the universe appears to be expanding but not as if from some kind of “explosion” from a central point. The further out one looks, the faster galaxies are receding from us.
.........> Objects receding at extreme speeds show a clear Doppler shift in their light. As a listener hears a lower pitch sound when trains go by, light has a lower pitch also. Visible light becomes redder as its “pitch” lowers. Hubble showed that the further galaxies are from us the further the red shift of their light. This relation is linear (directly proportional) and is known as Hubble’s Constant.
.........> Einstien field equations did not allow for a static universe contrary to the wisdom of his day.
.........> Type Ia Supernova are very consistent in their explosive behavior (light curve). Very distant supernova (traveling away from us at great speeds) are noticed to take longer (time dilation) for their light intensity to diminish in accordance with their predicted recession from us.
.........> Gamma Ray Bursts behave in the same way as supernova. They have a light curve but are much faster (hence “bursts”). However, confidence in their performance is not as great as supernova.
Cosmic Microwave Background (Inflation theory required)
.........> 2.73K temperature – This is the verified and predicted temp. of the relic energy as it has expanded (cooled) since its extremely hot formation (during recombination).
.........> Blackbody curve – This radiation must behave as an almost perfect blackbody curve which it does.
.........> Isotropy – The CMBR must be extremely uniform at any location in the sky.
.........> Anisotropy – The CMBR must have some minute “wrinkles” as a result of galaxy and strings of galaxies formation. Too smooth and there would be no galaxies.
........> Size of Hot spots - It was predicted that "hot" spots (and cold) would be seen as certain angular sizes due to the gravitational contraction and subsequent expansion (due to heating) of the hydrogen/helium gas at the time the CMBR light dashed out after recombination.
.........> Cloud temperatures – Molecular clouds further away should have a corresponding higher temperature. This has been found but it is not as well established as the other bullets since cloud temperatures vary greatly due to light absorbtion.
.........> Nucleosynthesis – The only known way to cook-up that much Helium and deuterium (and a few others) is to have unique conditions as would have occurred around the first minute from the beginning.
.........> Galaxy differences – As we look back in time, the galaxies should “look” younger and less mature and they do.
.........> Stellar Compositions – It takes time for stars to make heavier elements so younger galaxies should show less heavier elements which they appear, somewhat, to do.
.........> Olbers Paradox – An expanding universe would create dark skies as opposed to no darkness in the night sky.
.........> Ancient objects – Where are older objects if the universe is older?
.........> Entropy – The universe is decaying and has an apparent end so it must have had a beginning. ("Arrow of Time" is a related topic)
........> Galactic Superstructures of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands



BAD ASTRONOMY somewhat Newbie Original List.....
> The linear red shift relationship with distant galaxies.
> The cosmic microwave background radiation all around.
> The temperature of this radiation matiching prediction.
> The blackbody behavior of this radiation.
> The very small "roughness" in this radiation as predicted.
> The slight blue shift in the spectrum of the radiation at one point and a red shift at the opposite point in the sky.
> The ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe.
> The observed differences in galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
> The age of the universe in relation to stellar compositions.

So what-da-ya think?[/code][/quote]

Disclaimer: Lest you think you know all you should know, as I see it, one thing we know - we really don’t know what we don’t know! Of course, we do know some things we don’t know but not all the things we don’t know. Therefore, the known universe is not fully known. So, know that other theories exist having explanations and “bullets” of their own. Ok, I know you know this.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

This isn't really a proof of the big bang so much as a result of our movement with respect to the background radiation (which might be viewed as an absolute frame of reference - or as close to it as you can get).

Also, you didn't mention the predicted polarization of the background radiation which was also predicted and has been observed.

Other than that, it sounds pretty good to me.

Every one of these is explained by a static universe rather than a BIG BANG
> The linear red shift relationship with distant galaxies.
Explained as due to a transfer of energy from distant sources to the intervening medium. The Compton effect predicts this. Hubble himself said the red shift linear relationship was in better agreement with a non-doppler interpretation due to dimming expectations for doppler interpretations (i.e., the distance between photons should also stretch as well as each photon itself if the effect is doppler. This causes fewer photons to be received per unit time and consequent dimming which Hubble did not observe. In other words a Doppler effect does not predict a linear realionship but a Compton effect does.)

> The cosmic microwave background radiation all around.
Predicted by Max Born for a static universe as its average temperature.

> The temperature of this radiation matiching prediction.
Ditto. Actually the first big bang predictions were for a 50 degree background.
> The blackbody behavior of this radiation.


Born's predictions were black body; however the unexpected brightness of the ULF radiation deviates from this and is due to the non-thermal emission from compton accelerated electrons in intergalactic space.

> The very small "roughness" in this radiation as predicted.

Any isotropic static universe predicts the same.
> The slight blue shift in the spectrum of the radiation at one point and a red shift at the opposite point in the sky.

Just due to random motion of our galaxy in a static universe. This defines the Mach Principle frame of reference.
> The ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe.
Due to supernova production of elements and ionization of the intergalactic medium in a static universe.

> The observed differences in galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
Early observations of a differences in galactic evolution with a deficiency of spirals were found to be in error when observations were made in the IR that showed the spirals were preferentially discarded due to the red shifting of older stars from the visible images spectral range.

> The age of the universe in relation to stellar compositions.

Some stars have been found to be much older than best estimates of the age of a big bang universe, which are based on Hubble's constant determination more direct than standard light bulb determinations.

Just out of curiosity, does this steady state model also predict the polarization of the background radiation that I mentioned?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...3B809EC588EEDF

And while we're at it, does it make any testible predictions not made by the current big bang model?

Of course. It predicts that distant galaxies out to the limit of observation should contain old cool stars just like our own galaxy. These of course were observed by Hubble's NICMOS instrument that showed that visible blobs were actually spiral galaxies because these old stars showed up in the images. These older stars are seen at distances approaching 90% of the distance to a supposed big bang or from a time 90% to that of the age of a big bang universe. Yet they themselves are as old as 80 to 90 % of the age of the BB universe; making them much much older than the big bang. This of course is impossible in a big bang, but expected in a static universe.
Reber's measurements of a bright background cosmic static is predicted in a static universe, but exceeds the 3 degree black body predicted. It actually corresponds to a several million degree black body.
A static universe allows for "intrinsic" red shiftss that are correlat5ed to the number of electrons along the line of sight to the source; thus explaining objects with discrepant red shifts like quasars and the sun's red shift.
There's lots more.

A quick google gave me a resolution for HST of .1 arc-second.
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/HSToverview.html
Based on this (assuming my math is right), at a distance of 1 billion lightyears, I got a rough estimate of resolution of about 7,270 light years (i.e. it can resolve an object 7,270 light years accross). This is sufficient to resolve distant galaxies (ours is 100,000 light years accross), but how can NICMOS possibly resolve individual stars in such distant objects much less determine their ages?

I get 485 light-years. :-k

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

I based my figure on 2000000000 * ((2*pi)/864000) where 864000 is the total tenths of an arc-second in a circle and divide it into the total radians for a circle (2*pi) to get the radian measure. Did I do something wrong?

If you compare the NICMOS data with the visible data you see the difference that the near IR makes. It allows you to see the light from cool red stars that had not been visible in the visible spectrum image because this light was red-shifted out of the visible spectrum. It is this light which is indicative of a cooler black body radiation.
When NICMOS data was seen, the galaxies looked like spirals because it included these cooler older stars in the image, whereas in the visible only the younger hotter stars that were bright in the blue were seen and these are clumps near the center where they do not look like spirals. So although we don't see individual stars, because we see the spiral shape of the galaxy in the IR that we don't see in the visible we know these old stars are there.

So I gather the assumption is that these cool red stars are red giants: main sequence stars nearing the end of there normal life span and hence very old. However, cool red stars could also be red dwarfs. These never get very hot even when young. So can they differentiate these without being able to isolate the light from individual stars?

think about what you are saying. How likely is THAT?

As has been demonstrated time and again, this effect is not responsible for redshift which is wavelength independent. Compton effect is wavelength depedenet. End of story.

This is a horrendous glurge. There is no "distance between photons" problem at all because in order to register any sort of spectrum you need to gather many photons integrated over time. Farther galaxies are dimmer. That's simple photometry. That JK fails to realize this points again to his woeful uneducated state in these matters.

And incorrect because it would be the SUM of the radiation and couldn't be smooth. The smoothness of the CMB is what throws away the idiocy of steady state.

And they were off because the parametrization was off. Actually, there currently exists NO STEADY STATE THEORY that predicts the blackbody curve to be as smooth as the CMB is observed to be throughout the entire sky. End of story.

WRONG. This is absolutely untrue and JK should retract it because he is basically lying. However, it's nothing new. He's known for doing this.

Gibberish that conceals the fact that JK doesn't know what he's talking about. The fact of the matter remains that the CMB IS ISOTROPIC to one part in 10^4 at worst.

Lies. Outright and utter. The sum of blackbody curves is not a blackbody. The isotropy of the universe cannot account for the smoothness of the curve. This was firmly established and is the reason no astronomers who have a brain that they use are left that are steady staters.

A priori arguments that make no sense. Why should the ratio be the way it is? Very little helium is ultimately synthesized in the cores of stars. Therefore we know this argumentation to be bazonkers.

That doesn't take into account other differences including spectral type, active galaxy abundances, and metallicity evolution (as well as other evolutionary types). The fact also remains that younger spiral models are not well explained. So, this is at worst a wash. But this isn't a major support anyway.

Actually, this is far from established fact. The stars that were determined to be "older" than the universe have error bars on their ages that place them well within the limits of the universe's age. This is to be expected.

A steady stater can point to nothing over 20 billion years old anywhere. No such thing exists. If the universe really were infinite in age, shouldn't something like that be around? The answer is yes. Since it's not, that's a whole lot of evidence in support of the Big Bang.

Nuclear abundances have been mistreated by JK as well. He cannot explain the deuterium abundances and their evolution. That's a major support of the Big Bang. Also Lithium abundance does some interesting things with regards to the nucleosynthesis during time before recombination. JK has no explanation for either of these.

Neither does he have an explanation for the time dilation of supernovae.

Neither does he have an explanation for the way the FRW framework works so well with GR but a cosmological constant that allows for steady state has no supporting evidence.

Neither does he have an explanation for why the correlation functions of the largest scales of the universe match the correlations in the CMB anisotropies to the extent that we know that the seeds of the clusters were planted at early times and thus don't violate causality as the harumphers against the Big Bang used to complain about.

All these things point to one thing: JK is wrong.

I have been put into a position I really hate.

I agree with all of the science JS Princeton has posted that I have read. However, I strongly disagree with the way he is saying it. I have warned him, more than once, to tone it down. But then this was posted:

I disagree strongly with almost all the ideas John Kierein posts, but that is no reason to get insulting, and I have let the ad hominems slide long enough. I have banned JS Princeton.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Wow. Simply, wow.

864,000 is the number of tenths of a second in a day. There are 12,960,000 tenths-of-arcseconds in a full circle.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

JS' post deserves a rebuttal.

1. The red shift on the sun was explained as being due to the Compton effect by Arthur Holly Compton, a Nobel Laureate. This red shift is indistinguishable from a Doppler shift. I explain the derivation of this in my paper linked to my website. For a single interaction of an electron with a photon, the magnitude of the shift is independent of wavelength for a given angle whereas the doppler effect is proportional to the wavelength. However, longer wavelength photons are bigger than shorter wavelength photons and interact with more electrons on their travel through the intergalactic medium. This results in a red shift that looks like a Doppler shift. Indeed, there have been several papers that explain the Compton shift in terms of a doppler effect based on the assumption that the photon is absorbed by the electron and then re-emitted from the accelerated electron. My website is:http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

2. JS doesn't understand the problem. It's exactly the time dilation problem that he uses to support the BB from supernovae. When a light source is travelling away from you at high speed the next photon has a farther distance to travel than the previous one, so it arrives a little later than if the source were static. In fact the distance between photons is stretched by Z just as each photon is stretched. This is easily shown using high school physics with the equations of motion. The stretching of the distance between photons results in a lesser flux of photons than if the source were static making it dimmer. This is in addition to the inverse r^2 effect and was something Hubble looked for and couldn't find in his data. JS should be required to read Hubble's great little book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology". This alone made Hubble doubt the big bang until his death even though he discovered the red shift distance relationship.

3. An isotropic, endless, boundless static universe with a red shift to solve Olbers paradox is indeed smooth. Infinity is a big number.

4. Born calculated the temperature of a static universe. That's a black body. Born is a Nobel Laureate and certainly was aware of Planck's law. See the link to Assis paper discussing Born's paper on my web site. I don't think I'm lying.

5. Electrons and positrons are created by pair production. Some of these are in intergalactic space. Protons and anti-protons can also be created by this mechanism when the gamma rays are energetic enough or are crowded together into multiple interactions. Protons are hydrogen atom ions. There are big clouds of hydrogen in intergalactic space that are not easily detected and may not be counted in any ratios gathered from stellar spectra determinations of element ratios. I wouldn't hang my hat on any ratio of elements as being proof or disproof of any cosmological model.

6. I think that evolution of galaxies is a potential problem for a static universe in that it violates the "perfect cosmological principal" on which all the assumptions of early cosmological models are based; namely that the universe is the same everywhere in the large scale and obeys the same physics everywhere. The "perfect" part is that it is the same for all time as well as place. I think the jury is out whether there is evolution. Certainly we don't see crowding together of distant galaxies as we would expect from a big bang if everything were closer to each other in the distant past. (See link from my website.) The reversal of entropy growth caused by pair formation indicates that the perfect cosmological principle could hold.

7. The existence of old stars in distant galaxies galaxies is ignored when the supporters of the big bang look for old stars. They have a tendency to ignore the fact that we are seeing these galaxies as they were 10 to 12 billion years ago and they contain stars that seem to look like mearby gaxies. These galaxies contain stars that are 10 to 15 billion years old which when added to the fact that we are seeing them as they were 10 to 12 billion years ago makes them well older than the supposed age of a big bang. Also, there are arguments that say that it takes a very long time for spiral galaxies to form their shape, several revolutions are necessary. These take billions of years. We see spirals out to the limits of observation so they must have been formed many revolutions before we see them which makes them older than the big bang. There is no evidence I've seen that they are spinning significantly faster than nearby galaxies.

8. Now time dilation of distant supernova is an interesting phenomena if true. There are a few examples that seem to show this. This is the situation that if the distant SN are indeed moving away at high velocity, the light from the end of the brightness time decay has to travel a greater distance than the light from the initial bright bright flash because the SN is then farther away. The percent distance increase is exactly the amount of the red shift percentage. This does seem to be observed if indeed the SN are the same type as seen in nearby galaxies. It would seem that the Compton effect cannot explain this. But nature acts in funny ways with many things looking alike because they are aspects of the same phenomena.
Long term signals like this are seen elsewhere. Our sun's magnetic field switches on a 22 year cycle. This produces an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 22 years. As this signal travels through intergalactic space it is stretched by the Compton effect the same if it were a shorter wavelength and looks like a doppler shift.
All of the photons emitted from the sun carry part of this magnetic field with them and so their brightness is stretched with the 22 year long cycle and they take a slightly longer time to travel than if they didn't carry this signal with them. This is the case where the time of travel varies due to the index of refraction of the intergalactic medium. The model for this is that the medium absorbs and re-emits the light at a longer wavelength. The time delay for later emissions is slightly greater because it carries this component of the stretched em signal.
So the SN time dilation can be explained by the Compton effect if there is a magnetic field change associated with the SN whose compnent is carried by these SN photons.
This is somewhat complicated quantum mechanics extended to the extreme; just like Compton took the extreme quantum view when he successfully explained the Compton effect interaction between the electron and the photon rather than the classical Thomson mechanism.

Now I'm confused.
The argument Big Bang vs. Steady State is interesting, but the debunker gets banned? Okay, so it wasn't for debunking, but still... I guess I'll have to read up on the maths myself now.

Anybody who can point me to some serious, neutral sources, best some stuff that does more than just jumble around facts, on both sides?

__________________
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

"Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it so that the other half may reach you."

Bummer!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Good luck finding somebody neutral on big bang subject. Creationists on both sides posing as neutral. Reber used to call it "big bang creationism bunk", but there are fundalmentalist religions that think the big bang violates their religion! I get a lot of hits on my web site from them. Meantime I think the static universe gets us to understanding what gravity is.

Clearly the Big Bang Theory is on trial, but the jury won't be retiring until we can definitively say how old the oldest globular clusters are. "11-18 billion years old" is too vague an estimate to pin anything on at the moment.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Here's a site that might be of interest:

The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology

Phil, Phil, Phil,

I have not followed this particular thread - I was linked here from another thread. Certainly it is clear why you would hate taking such action, particularly since JS is, in my humble estimation, one of the most scientifically knowledgeable - and therefore one of the most valuable - participants on your boards.

JS shoots from the hip. As you admit though, he shoots very accurately. While "Anyone with half a brain..." is typically an unnecessarily insulting debate tactic, after further review of JS's offending statement, I can only note that in this case his sentiment is, as usual, accurate.

Now, authors like yourself and, say, Tony Rothman, can spend more time in finding a wittier way to express the dubiousness of some discarded theory. Rothman came up with "Probably the last believers [in the subject theory] died at the Port Authority Bus terminal five years ago." I just feel it's a terrible shame for the board to lose such a valuable member because he didn't have a lot of time to come up with a wittier way to express the fact that the steady state theory was dead and buried a lot more than five years ago by all serious astronomers who have "done the math" and reviewed the data without prejudice.

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

Don't confuse "steady state" theory with static universe. Steady state uses a doppler effect but creates mass from nothing to keep the density constant. Static uses a non-doppler redshift interpretation.

It's a pity JS may not be able to rip your arguments to shreds, as I'm certain they deserve. But let me offer a comment or two....

The Sun??? Could you perhaps explain how this could possibly be relevant to the cosmological redshift phenomenon, which involves distances MANY orders of magnitude greater? While you're at it, could you explain why you are holding so tightly to the explanations of a Nobel Laureate who received his award in 1927? Are you aware that things are being discovered in the field of astronomy and astrophysics at a remarkable rate over the past decade or two? Are you aware that Compton received his PhD in 1916... from Princeton?

I'm sure you've been referred to Ned Wright's website which essentially debunks such gibberish. Have you ever addressed the points Dr. Wright clarified there saying such effects cannot be taking place because if they were, we wouldn't see distant objects so sharply, or do you simply sweep such falsifying arguments under your fluffy throw rug?

Now, that is insulting, and ridiculously inaccurate.

This is a good example of flawed logic. The proof is left as an exercise.

Uh, you forgot about the 25% helium. Please explain where this comes from. And, heh, the fact that YOU wouldn't hang your hat somewhere is incredibly impotent as an argument for anything!

Potential problem? Can you say understatement? It's a real, honest-to-god, existing, happening problem that's going to take more than just a cute little two-step to get around.

But I wonder.... what's your motivation in holding such unpopular and largely disproven views, Mr. Kierein? I'd have to say that we are forced to rule out an honest search for the truth. So... could you... maybe... explain...

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

Ok. So arc seconds are seconds of a degree. ops:

I can only say in my defense that I was home trying to fight off a really nasty cold when I posted that so my brain may not have been firing on all cylinders. I did think my result seemed a little high. Thanks for the correction.

Well, I see that JS's insult torch is still being carried. :roll:

To what language are you objecting, fluffy throw rug?

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

I think JS was insulting, but what I found worse was his constant habit of calling people liars. Even in this thread he said John Kierein was "basically lying". This kind of speech is unacceptable in any public forum, and most private ones. JS may have thought it was cool to call people liars, but he was alone in this.

Yes, JS was constantly questioning the honesty of people and went way over the top when he said he would stand up and tell presenters at a professional conference that they were lying. It is ridiculous to place people into two bins with a "Big Bang supporter" label or a "liar" label as the options. It is possible to have intellectually honest disagreement with the mainstream. People should not have to worry about being called liars or having their integrity and intelligence questioned when they raise questions or put forward opposing viewpoints.

So, I object to statements like this:

Why are we forced to rule out an honest search for the truth? Why must we question John's motivation? All researchers have their motivations. Mainstream astronomers are motivated to find support for the models they favor just as much as people with alternative views are motivated to find supporting evidence for their position. It is possible to be motivated and remain objective no matter what position you hold.

I agree with ExpErdMan. There is no reason to be questioning someone's honesty on this board. Doesn't it make more sense to say that you think the person is wrong and offer specific reasons.

Because I just established that Mr. Kierein had to have been aware of Ned Wright's falsification of Mr. Kierein's theory, yet Mr. Kierein continues to pose his theory as if it is viable and fully supported by (long dead) Nobelists. Therefore I can only conclude that Mr. Kierein has seen the truth, and he is intentionally sweeping it under his warm and fluffy throw rug... for some reason. I believe I am therefore fully justified in concluding that we can rule out an honest search for the truth from Mr. Kierein.
One assumes all researchers are conducting honest searches for the truth. Mr. Kierein has shown he has some other motivation. I'm just curious as to what that might be.
When one ignores sound evidence that negates one's pet theory, objectivity is thrown out the door.

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