Big Bang in trouble?

[bojan]

Hi all,
Have a look at this: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
It seems that BB theory is facing some troubles recently...

[ving]

long live creationism...

[bojan]

Are they talking about that??

[AJames]

Yes.

This can be clearly validated by the statement;
"As conventional cosmologists leap ever higher into the realms of fantasy, even the popular press is starting, ever-so tentatively, to wonder if the Emperor really is naked."

Cosmology is a science, which is based on mathematics, observation and evidence - to find a valid means of validating our Universe.
Saying "Fantasy" immediately suggests a "hidden motivation"

As for the statement;
"If the universe is expanding, the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby ones. But if it is not expanding, the surface brightness will be the same. It turns out that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same."

Oh Dear!

Clearly, this is utter nonsense!! The general view expressed here appears on every page of this site, and worst it is far from balanced.

Thanks for pointing this out, though.

[GrahamL]

probably not bojan ..Eric Lerner wrote "The The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

A lot of his thoughts on cosmology didn't seem to raise a lot of eyebrows back then when a little scrutiny was applied .. He seems to be very articulate and passionate in his beliefs ? .. Possibly the passage of time has made it even harder for him to support them with current models and observations ..Its worth noteing one goal mentioned on the site is publishing a peer reviewed journel .. well its been 17 years or so since he put this model out there .. still waiting :)

[bojan]

Hmm
I must read all that again , more carefully this time... :P

[xelasnave]

Maybe he is a slow Lerner:P

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Well the big bang is in trouble according to this guy:eyepop:.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm...

So any views on whose axe he is grinding:whistle:

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

It seems that the chap above received inspiration from here.....

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
But I think if you had a google there are probably a few who disagree with the big bang approach.

I did note some stuff re problems with shadowing of the background radiation..out of a University in the Southern States of the USA where I suspect the creationists may have had some influence on the expectations of the results of the study:shrug:...when I first read it my impression was it was reasonable as it was after all a scientific study but when I noticed the source I could not help but wonder if the science was somewhat corrupted by the funding process...

You all must know my difficulties with the big bang as I certainly have hopped on the hobby horse to rip into what I see as problems with it... but one has to keep an open mind... consider who is saying what and what their motives may be...

My problems with the big bang are...
1.the need for dark matter.. it does not exist in my view.... and one can add any amount of dark matter to a galaxy and that will not explain why the outlying stars rotate faster than the current gravity models would imply...

2. and the introduction of the inflation theory to fix the problems raised which could have sunk the big bang idea... it does not seem reasonable that the Universe could go thru a stage, some 30 seconds as I believe, where it grew from little to more than the size of our observable Universe...so in the absence of proof for the theory I think one is entitled to question such a long shot.

But one must be able to stand back and consider all the information and how hard is that... what we seek to understand is not insignificant in any respect.


The drift of so many folk who question big bang cosmology comes I feel from what many see as a patch work fix up job when the theory runs into difficulties...

The thing that annoys me is how supporters of the big bang when presented with a problem fall back on the standard reply to valid questioning...."well its the best model we have so far that supports the observations"...such a stand sees the observations always fitting the theory..in my view...which does not make the proposition right or wrong...it is just one man's view.

I know what is expected by the scientific method but I think even that is open to abuse simply because one makes observations that are expected to fit the model and I suspect with that approach one will only find support for the basic premise...do I have an alternative..not really but I dont think all points raised by those in opposition to the big bang cosmology need by thrown out without thought about the possible implications if they just may be correct...or even a little bit correct...maybe some alternative consideration may help the big bang..like inflation ..there must be a better answer as to why all is the same ...if indeed it is all the same:shrug:.

alex:):):)

[AJames]

Alex,
Actually, this bloke is disagreeing without any necessary "balanced" views. But if you discount theory and observation. then follow what Lerner says;

"Unfortunately, the accumulation of evidence hasn’t yet sparked a general debate in cosmology over whether the Big Bang model is a valid one. But there are a few small sings that there is beginning to be a greater openness to questioning at lest some aspects of the “convergence cosmology” and its ever-growing grab-bag of hypothetical constructs, like inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and quintessence. As conventional cosmologists leap ever higher into the realms of fantasy, even the popular press is starting, ever-so tentatively, to wonder if the Emperor really is naked."

The universe is expanding, which immediately yells out to us finite origins of a finite age. This discovery ranks as one of the greatest achievements of astronomy and cosmology - it is a much a fact as scientific culvert ever held.

Well if you disagree with this, then you should not only have enough evidence to support it, and you also need a alternative explanation of the observed phenomena. Cosmology is less than perfect, but current theory of the Big Bang (and its variants) is better than none.
He doesn't do this - and very probably because he already has an agenda!

Andrew

"Without knowledge there is nothing to learn"

[Zuts]

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out :)

Paul

[xelasnave]

Andrew thanks for such a considered post:thumbsup:.

My views as to my difficulties with the big bang are as stated above... but having said such my mind is not closed and in truth most all I read relates to my interest in cosmology and frankly the more I read the more unconvinced I become of anything:D..

my lack of belief is not confined to the big bang idea:)... it is more a general condition that I trust very little I read or hear... you know yourself different folk have different axes to grind and although that study at that Southern USA Uni re Background radiation shadowing by galaxies was "scientific" and therefore difficult to flaw from that view...(in so far as they followed the method etc and did all the scientific system requires.)..still I felt the study set out with a certain expectation of what they were going to find...

They were setting out to discredit the big bang in my view..so one cant look at things and not keep the mind open ...so I dont know what to think of that study ..I have to take it on the basis that "it is" and "it isnt" ... what if it is right what if it is wrong. I feel backing either side would be dangerous for obvious reasons.

However I am not the one who presents "dark matter" as a fact I therefore do not need to establish that it is not there ..it is up to those who say it is there to establish that is is there...I know they are trying all the time..there is not much in the popular science news re dark matter (and my favorite dark energy) that I dont pick up upon........ and I see the photos NASA takes showing the dark matter..or at least penciled in where it must be according to their sums... that does not wash with me... but my point is irrespective of what others may see as scientific proof I dont buy it..that is an opinion based on an interest and following of the subject..nothing more.

But in my view dark matter will not solve the problems it was invented to solve ... add as much dark matter to the galaxy and in whatever position you want it placed and I can not see how any careful placement will explain the outlying stars going faster than the current sums suggest they should... and as I said that is an opinion .. I am a lay man so maybe it is impertinent for me to comment on matters always left to scientists.

AND if you think about the premise of frame dragging all this dark matter must be outside the galaxy to drag space along faster and therefore the stars in that part of space... and if that dark matter is out there and going faster how come it is going fast..more dark matter further out again...I am not trying to be cute this is the way I see it..I have looked at all I can but I can not see that even if there dark matter that it can work as they expect...

I would like someone to take me thru the sums but as I said frame dragging is part of the general relativity picture and suggests the stars will always be slower...but they are faster via observation...

anyways I am not trying to bore you or frustrate you by giving out that I am not accepting the science.even if that is what I do..but sorry to bore you etc..

I say all I have said so you know what I think and the little bits I may have misconstrued to produce my current thinking.

I find the inflation idea simply that.an idea...it is not even a theory if one applies the test in my view... it is not up to me to prove inflation is phony it is up the inflation to prove itself and I think any scientist must question why this idea is held up as a theory...

And if inflation is not established the problem it sort to fix still needs to be addressed... I am now working in support of big bang by the way.... what other reason could there be to have all the same in the Universe... there may still be a big bang but with a different component than inflation. But being happy that inflation solved everything I think is dangerous... its a dumb idea with no support to be cruel...but I do that so what can you do?

I like an infinite Universe because it is simpler unless one tries to comprehend infinite..and of course we can not.... There is a branch of math dealing with infinite stuff and it is said the folk who work in the area are prone to go crazy...as you would.. so maybe thinking about an infinite Universe is what pushes me past the edge into craziness.

AND it may be that I completely misunderstand why we need dark matter or why we need inflation...this is not an area where it is easy to get a clear overview..for me... there is so much stuff to know ...for me or anyone to think they really have it wired is foolish.

And my posting of the above reasons against the big bang does not mean I buy what they are selling either...as I said above I feel there is little that one can accept without really knowing everything about the folk involved...do they have an agenda, are they sober, are they real...you can make a list. AND you rightly did point out to question his adgenda...

But in truth I love everything on the big bang etc. but I am very selective of what I accept ... I don't know what Lerner is into ,I don't care and any views he may have in common with me will be by coincidence.. he does not influence me at all.

I don't trust anyone him included:)... and if you had to nail me down on my view I think everyone is wrong with their view of the Universe so there is no favoritism with me:lol::lol::lol:....

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[AJames]

I think that happened several years ago, but I can't remember! :rofl:

[xelasnave]

We could start a new thread for each of the "30 reasons" and work on them one by one to consider the validity or otherwise of each proposition.:shrug::whistle:..

That should keep us occupied on rainy days:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[AJames]

I have no doubts that you or many other in this thread do have open minds, who do totally agree that we must make decisions based on truth and reality.
Yet we must be cautious when we do so, because through words we can easily misrepresent the arguments and instead instil beliefs based on religious dogma or unsubstantiated evidence. Sometimes this is far more difficult to assess if we just take things on face value.
Application of the scientific method in cosmological papers is tantamount that we establish theories on observations - therefore establishing new theories to expand our knowledge. In cosmology's case the hardest thing is that the results are written in the complex language of mathematics, which in most people's minds (including mine), we do not fully understand.
Therefore it is hard to disagree or agree (or even challenge the theory) without much study and understanding of the issues.
Challenging the cosmological views is not easy for us novices. However, some do consider themselves on an equal par to the principle cosmologists, and people like Lerner continue to hammer from multi directions to enforce there own views based on either personal, metaphysical or religious principles.
An analogy here is something like a cork on a wavy sea. The waves might look like they are travelling somewhere, but the cork is instead really only moving up and down at the same place and is going nowhere.
One of the biggest dangers are the Creationists who believe Archbishop Usser's view that the Earth was created on 21st October 4004 BC. This clearly contradicts the Big Bang or an expanding universe model - due to the fact that such an occurrence would mean that a 6000 year Earth and universe should be evidently be little different from now and just after the creation. Such proponents of this view therefore conclude - based really on faith - the cosmology and the Big Bang is wrong.
These buggers are smart though - and often deeply hide their motives without disclosure - meaning you cannot clearly know is they are being upfront. Sadly this means we must also look closely at their stated credentials and works (in most cases of oddly "missing" - another clue.) Other clues is the use of complex terms and negative criticisms without the necessary balanced support of other the contrary views or current held theory. Thus we must must be skeptical.
While Lerner's "Alternative Cosmology" looks convincing and knowledgeable he is not being totally up-front.

Andrew

[xelasnave]

Andrew that is very well put and I do not disagree ...on my first reading... but I will try to find something when I go thru it again:lol::lol::lol:...

You brought me up to speed with the Creationist view..although I know they have that 4004bc thing I just cant take it on board, but its there isnt it...

and I sat with a creationist to see a movie showing how sedimentary rock could form in a matter of years not millions...I did not buy it but if you were a believer this would be your scientific proof as it were...

I am not religious but I sometimes recognise it is in the mix.

My hobby horse with gravity pushing has lead me to believe it was no oversite that Newton left the force of Gravity to God or that Dr A simply side stepped the issue without attributing any force to gravity,,it is the math doing it not me....neither approach could offend the Church by trying to take away from the dogma... I expect that having God managing the force of gravity was OK by the Church...but Newton obviously thought about it given one of the advocates of push gravity was in his circle or associated with Newton. AND although I like to think Newton was a closet gravity push supporter my point is he must have thought about the force.. he was that kinda guy... he would have considered the machinery but come down with the view that he better steer away from saying there was a force other than God...I forget the name of the chap into push gravity in Newton's day and set but I recall the church hunted him down and his followers because of some as they saw negaitive influence with children...must go back and refresh those "facts"...

Again I point to the "revealed problems with background radiation" as being the nail in the big bang coffin... the sort of thing you point out..Uni of Alabama I recall..would the far right have any one in Alabama... I can only guesss.

I cant go further than the cork really I bob up and down and dont go anywheres but I dont have any axe to grind jsut raise my concerns...but the observation re our mate seems valid...well possibly from the little I know about the matter.

In fact I believe the big bang supports the notion of God.. Creation gives 6 days and Professor Guth via his inflation idea gives it 30 seconds..but the story line is similar..and what I dont like about the big bang in general terms is that is takes one to a point where God seems like the only answer to take you (or at least some) past the starting point...and thats why I like an infinite Universe..you never get to that point.... but to have an each way bet I say that if there is a God would he and thereofre the Universe be infinite.

Again they are all wrong I dont trust anyone to have the answers...
well I do have the answers but if you say that folk think you are up yourself:lol::lol::lol: I am the first to admit I am wrong but fortunately I have not seen the need yet;)

Anyways great post thanks for sharing some time and thoughts I really enjoyed it.:thumbsup:

alex:):):)

[Zuts]

Hi Alex,

I am not trying to stir things up but I really dont understand your push gravity concept.

When I drop a rock it falls down. What is it that is pushing it? The further I get away from the Earth this 'Push' force diminishes, the closer i get the stronger it gets.

Pushing implies a force from outside acting the opposite way to what we conventially think of as the 'pull' force of gravity. Why postulate another force outside of the gravitational field generated by the Earth?

Or are you saying that the Earth is pushing the rock down or that there are two types of gravity, those readily observable on the macro human scale 'pull' the rock down and those trying to be explained on the cosmological non human scale.

Paul

[xelasnave]

Paul I can see any forum members who see you asked me such a question will be pulling their hair and shouting at their PC's...."on no dont get him started on that......"";)

It is an old concept ... I used to think I was the first person to have the idea but it goes back as far as 1745 first recorded by a fellow by the name Le Sage..

It boils down to the philosophy that thru out the Universe there is a flow of small particles that in effect push ..bodies do not attract but shield each other from this flow of particles and pushed each to the other.

If you Google The Gravity Push Universe you may find a site someone started for me but I have not acted upon other than my general ideas of this philosophy:screwy::whistle::D..ther e is another place I rave on about it:whistle:... but the concept works for me:).

Perhaps a quick way of seeing it ...is a Universe with "dark energy" (a recognised pushing force at times related to Dr A's cosmological constant) but
with no attraction in the mix (I don't believe there is a mechanism by which attraction can work and what we interpret as attraction is invariably a push)..

It is figuring out where from that will confuse you..but think that this push is so grand it holds galaxies in place via an external push of all the particles flowing from every where...galaxies can not hold together via an internal force such as attraction but only via an external force to hold them in place ..attraction can not do it..that is if C is the max speed in the Universe...

I am not saying this flow is light but if you think of how light permeates the Universe well replace every light beam with a particle flow that in effect pushes..you we see this push will be everywhere...move your finger tip to a point in the Universe where the light from all does not reach it..takes some time to appreciate the magnitude of that mouth full...;)

Thank you so much for asking but I suspect you made a few people just about have a heart attack:lol::lol::lol:... it is a subject I tend to be obsessed with unfortunately.It is my hypothesis as to how the Universe may work and although not claiming it as a theory ..as it is an idea..it is my TOE...cause I can link the flow to all energy and unit the forces... but no need to get excited Steven Hawking gets 5 or 6 TOE's each day so he says..its just another idea.


Thanks for asking:thumbsup:


and may I take this opportunity to apologize to Bojan for running off a little

alex:):):)

[GTB_an_Owl]

Stir - Stir

just a little misconception we have about electricity

"There has been confusion about the direction of flow of electricity in an electrical circuit
for more than 200 years. During the late 1700s, when it was discovered that electricity had a
polarity (+ and -), scientists such as Benjamin Franklin proposed that electricity flowed from
positive potentials to negative potentials. Thus during the development of electrical power
systems and rail systems during the 1800s electrical devices were marked with arrows to show
the direction electrical current is flowing from positive to negative in the devices and systems.

Around 1900 negatively charged electrons were discovered to be the actual source of electrical
current flow and they flowed from negative potentials and were attracted to positive potentials.
However, there was so much electrical equipment already in the world by 1900 marked with the
wrong direction of current flow and so many electricians that were taught about current that way,
the marking system has been continued to this day to be in the old, wrong direction. Even today
electrical and electronic devices such as diodes and transistors and their symbols are marked with
arrows in the opposite direction of electron current flow! This is one of the confusing problems
we face when we study electrical engineering today. "

see - you could be right Alex

geoff

[xelasnave]

Thanks Geoff for the encouragment and that sure is interesting but how do they do circuit diagrams if its back to front...I will have a long think about this... I do recall some cars are about face..but that is very dim.
alex:):):)

[bojan]

Should I jump in or not... that is the question :lol:
No I will not :whistle:

[GTB_an_Owl]

come on in bojan - the waters fine :lol:

talking about water - how come the water down a plug hole in the southern hemisphere goes one way and the opposite way in the northern hemisphere ?

but that's off topic

or is it ? - equal and opposite reactions, light matter - dark matter, push - pull

if you get my drift (now which way does drift go ?)

geoff

[xelasnave]

Please do jump in we need some help here:D... if you see misinformation or views you can help correct it is your duty as a caring human to assist:thumbsup:.

And I was suspicious when I saw your original post Bojan that it was something to get me to bite given how my views sometimes slightly differ from the norm....that is why I held back..a bit:lol::lol::lol:

And I could never get that Physics mountain site you provided to give up its treasures but the other link (particle physics) has been fantastic:thumbsup: I am still working with it..(the 4th year Uni of NSW course)...but it is a hard slog because of my limited math ability...but I take the ideas they present and assume the math will be correct:D..I mean they are not going to be wrong so I look at the ideas the math supports and seek to prove conclusively.

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Ah.. recently I was asked to be the arbiter in a bet about this very issue, my mates from northern hemisphere are intrigued by this question from time to time and they think I am the best person to ask (because I spend first 40y there and now I am doing anther 40 here :D ... I even performed a number of experiments, dozen of times, in controlled environment (my bathroom) and the results are inconclusive... simply, the vanity is too small, so the effects of Coriolis force are not significant enough to make the difference.. maybe a thousand or even more measurements should be done to notice the trend into one direction.... But, storms, hurricanes and other cyclonal and anti-cyclonal activities are definitely rotating the other way here.
Anyway, I won my fee as an arbiter (it was a promise for a couples of pints of Guinness, when I appear there, which is not highly likely to happen any time soon :P

[bojan]

But, as far as push-pull is concerned, one thing holds: it is not possible to derive Newton's inverse square law for g-force as a result of a push, without extraordinary assumptions about the flux of that hypothetical radiation (if one assumes among other things that this flux is infinite from all directions, then the Newton's law perhaps could be derived for all densities and sizes of the attracted /pushed-away objects.. but this is rather wild assumption. Not to mention the nature of that radiation, and its energy levels etc...
Here we may have a model which possibly makes mathematical sense, logically it might be consistent but when applied to reality it does not hold water, because in nature you do not have infinite fields and forces.

edit:
The reason I started this thread was because I was lazy and sort of hoped that others will shed more light on those problems mentioned on that website, and weather those observations and measurements they were mentioning are accurate or not.. because if they are not then those theories based on inaccurate results are of course wrong.

[goober]

I'm not sure it does! There's a chap in Africa on the equator who performs this experiment with a basin. He sends the water spinning on one side of the equator, then walks a couple of meters and sends the water spinning in the opposite direction on the other. It's all sleight of hand. You need something on the scale of miles (i.e. weather systems) for the hemisphere to matter.

[bojan]

About direction of current in conductors (and semiconductors)...
It is a convention. And it is about what people consider as a carrier of current that is flowing here... Mathematically it is quite irrelevant because the only different thing when accepting this or that convention is the sign of the final result, and nothing else. This is because the math that describe the electrical circuits are systems of linear equations.
Today we know that in conductors, we are dealing with free electrons, which have energy level high enough to be considered as "free" from crystal mesh of a metal.
And yes, the convention today is that el current flows from positive towards negative terminal of a voltage source, which is the opposite of the way electrons are actually moving.
But... in some semiconductors (P-type), we have another current carrier - a hole.
This hole is actually a place where electron is missing from mesh, and it behaves just like a particle with positive charge (like positron.. But of course it does not anihilate with electron. When hole and electrons are met at the PN juction, we say that we have recombination. The resultant effect is a current that flows through PN barier/juction) . This thing (a hole) can only exist in some types of crystal mesh, like in pure silicon (pure silicon is actually insulator) where we have deliberately planted impurities - atoms of elements with 3 electrons in outer shell (silicon has 4) ... so there is a "lack " of electrons there. It is very easy for an electron to jump into this "hole" from nearby position, leaving its own hole in a process. You can consider as if the positively charged hole moved in opposite direction of a negatively charged electron. This hole has other properties, like mass for example, which is different from effective mass of an electron, and its value depends on temperature, the semiconductor (silicon or germanium or GaAs or whatever), the concentrations of impurities etc, etc. It may be considered as a mathematical entity, totally abstract, but the model (hole) works and apart from simplifying math, it also gives some predictions, experimentally confirmed, that would have been impossible to obtain if we assume that we have only electrons to deal with. This is a fine example of mathematical, abstract model, very useful mathematical tool.
So in P-type semiconductors, the flow of current has the same direction as the moving of carriers...
Now, if we try to apply this analogy to force fields and relativity etc... the situations is quite different because the nature of equations are completely different. They are not systems of linear equations, they are systems of non-linear differential equations, where solutions change not only sign but many other properties, and the complete behavior may be different (singularities and other oddities instead of maximums or minimums of functions etc etc, I do not want to go into the details right now, we can do it sometimes later)

[bojan]

No Alex, I did not start this thread to tease you (but I was thinking/expecting that you would bite a bit earlier ;) )
As I wrote above, I was not sure if those new data are correct or not, so I thought that somebody will know... Recently I am quite busy with other things so just tried to put the ball in some other court ( my daughter's Swift broke down, she was driving it for couple of days without a drop of water in the cooling system:scared:.. so now I have my carport filled with engine pars all over the place, no room for walking:lol: )
But dum spiro, spero...:thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Well I did not really want to say it but I have been onto that link for sometime now:eyepop: many months:D and I have read all the news letters and all the links in the news letters, studies etc etc etc (I know you need only one etc but it was a lot) articles and all the links:)...

In fact I think that Background Radiation Shadowing study by the University of Alabama probably came from in there some place..I can not remember...if they have not got it there well they should ..another questioner..they are best all in the one place so they can interact:whistle:.

there is some wild stuff and there is some reasonable stuff in my view... like everywhere ... there is stuff that sounds to me fair and there is stuff not so fair...I think of it as there may be points in any camp that can contribute to the final truth... as I said inflation is a problem for the big bang in my view but just accepting it solves a problem and moving past that with never questioning it again I dont know helps. But for some to question one part means you are chalenging the whole lot...not always with me... I keep relaxed about it all notwithsatnding how a play with it sometimes...:whistle:


I just prowl everything to get ideas to support you know what;):lol::lol::lol:
I cant recall but I think I saw the first refernce to the Meta Galaxy in the alternative cosmology group... another idea I dont buy but was conducted the right way..some Russian I cant remember his name:shrug:.


The group only wants money so they can reasearch stuff as well and get ticked off they miss out a bit so they say ithe big bang is wrong we want some cash to prove it so... give everyone the money the more cosmologists the better better than feeding lawyers.

I have a Universe for each idea more or less..I have to have a big bang one to refer to and as you know I have been building the new Push one ...and I have another one in mind with a little from each... finally there will be various Universes to suit everyone...and of course appropriate T shirts so one can show which one they favour:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

And Bojan I am happy to see you can only come up with a few small problems for the push thing:whistle::D

I promise I will fix them and show you when it is fixed:scared:... philosophy doesnt need math;););) unless you are counting wise men or compemplating the importance of one:rolleyes:

Seriously thanks for your push input :thumbsup:..you touch on why I need an infinite Universe as I suspect you know;)
alex:):):)

[bojan]

But you do.. because math is actually formalized language, tool to evaluate and present logic - which is necessary ingredient of any kind of philosophy which has aspirations to be accepted.

[xelasnave]

...the qualifyer...."has aspirations to be accepted"... unlike some many out there I dont care about anything I say being accepted.:lol::lol::lol:...its just what I think really:D... there are a lot of nutters out there worse than me on their missions I reckon...it would be nice to be able to prove my idea with math but it requires an infinite Universe to get the power...and you dont have to do sums to see that ...and I need to add some big numbers to radiation pressure if I want to claim it as the source of the "push" for example.

I really like math I dont do it well but read its history and the contributions by various cultures ..look thru the list of different math on those sites that take a night just to read the stuff they cover... but I could not get into working 22 over 7 to see how many dec places...I need to look at the math dealing with infinities;)

I see there is a language formality in math that is very important... that is sort of like Law...some words have a meaning and that is it..there are books full of interpretations of words in Law.

So I have decided to change then from philosophy to what I really am..a morosopher... most folk wont know what its means but it will sound flash:lol::lol::lol:.. (it is the condition of having a "scientific theory" it is always an idea for me;) where you think everything you uncover adds to your case)...

I do try to be logical as I can with my ideas but I do get carried away :whistle:I know that:)..I live with that:D..I also live alone;)..
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

My question is as for the big bang is there not something better than inflation to hold the story line...will the Universe have to be older...getting rid of the observation that place some objects older than the Universe...it would seem there needs explaination of "older" objects .. are those observations correct reasonable etc or just a wish by those saying they have real evidence...older objects may mean the dates have to be moved I would think..will the theory stand the dates being moved ..well it may have to if the observations are reasonable and almost undeniably correct..I mean its hard to tell the age of people before you so they may look old and not be or youthful looking when you see their drivers licence...but while there are folk saying this it can not be good for either side.

On both sides of an argument folk may grasp the same observation and say it suits their proposition for example... I can give a specific example but it happens....

The big bang blew the steady state idea out of the water with observation of their predicted background radiation... it seems those in the steady state camp surrendered at that point... so given its significance as the prime observation one must ask...could the background radiation be telling us something different but coincidentally fits the expectations of the big bang theory... could the background radiation be light from beyond where we think the Universe ends for example... could the radiation be merely a shell a heat reflected back upon us by space of the overall radiation of our galaxy... these are of the top of my head as examples of questions not things that I think could be probable...

But as the big bang is put together in many parts one has to be careful that you think if you destroy one part the lot will fall but rather that removing a bad part may let the good parts grow...I hope that makes sense.

The us and them approach be sides of humans working on the same problem leaves each side unwilling to perhaps for a moment admit the other has an reasonable point on a particular aspect.

I think in their own way the alternative group will probably on the one hand strengthen the big bang from a scientific point of view as surely so folk will feel forced to address some of the areas that must be a concern within the big bang group... as I said inflation seems unreasonable and the big bang looses credibility on that point... I say so.. that however is taken as an attack on the whole idea rather than the part of the idea... each bit needs to relate to another but each part of the armour has to be strong...

here is one list as I posted with 30 points that someone feels smug about.. some are hair splitters really but some may need addressing..older stars would seem a worry for example.

The current big bang model may not be perfect but that in itself makes it neither right or wrong...
I do feel however if the force of gravity was seen not to be in the nature of attraction the initial expansion that we believe must have been held via the attraction of gravity would be a great deal different.. dark matter is not in the Universe so I took an instant like to it... but now I have started my case I will now see everything fitting in...and that is my point with the site and those they are against in views and visa versa ... all will see their evidence as supportive of their position and exclude reasonable consideration of how the alternatives may just change things just a little to give a better picture for all.

I said it as A joke to go thru each of the 30 one by one but that would be interesting.

I try not to think too much about the motivations of folk until I have considered how reasonable their proposition sounds and this is not easy for often you get a glimpse of where they come from by the use of a simple word they dont know betrays where they come from... most folk when they open their mouths also are trying to sell you on the idea so if they are clever they will sound plausible..at first..I mean you can listen to showone who does not know zip but has a good line strung together such that you are not prompted to ask any questions of them..

I think it ironic that the big bang was given its name by its strongest opponent in a throw away line of contempt for the idea and that stuck to gain respect opposite to the intentions of the name calling it so.... who was that man...mmm Fred Hoyle?? pretty sure that who it was... certainly was not Mr Hubble.
alex

[Outbackmanyep]

I thought gravitational lensing was evidence of dark matter?? Or am i misinformed?

[xelasnave]

Hi Out back:hi:

I don't know that it is :shrug:...
I don't know that it is not either:shrug: as to proving the point either way;)...

For a start I think gravitational lensing works a little different to the current view ..but I am not really sure of the correct current view but I disagree with every artist impression:whistle:... they always draw those diagrams with the ball on the blanket thing to explain space time at the back of their mind:screwy:...and space is not bent that way in that analogy:eyepop:... space bends as if the ball were below the blanket:D.. and the math says that.:)..however folk get caught on the examples and not what is being said.... so we see the light bend in these drawings presented incorrectly in my view... but that is a whole other story ..sorry to get sidetracked.

Simple statement of my belief... the presence of dark matter existing as a halo around a galaxy..if there will causes the lensing no doubt about that...but if it is not there:shrug: there remains a galaxy nevertheless still capable of the job:)... the premise of lensing is finally that space time distorts..curves..bends..nothing is quiet the right word in many respects.. if you think of a 3d grid upon which 3dimenions and time can be added as "rulers" on the grid lines ...and ...if you place a ball in the center of one of the cubes making up the 3d grid the grid lines converge to it...which is not like a ball laying on a rubber sheet at all.:eyepop:..

The principle will produce a curvature and it is the degree of curvature that will be related to the mass... so it would seem that we will get the effect irrespective of the amount of mass:)..that is with or without dark matter the grid will be bent to the mass... so it is degrees of mass;).. on current sums it seems there is not enough stuff to account for the gravity as the sums say ..for most purposes ..that there must be more mass than we see as matter is acting that way..according to our current sums...

When I doubt dark matter it is because it would seem more logical to ask why can we not see some 95 % of the Universe (thats dark matter and dark energy) or just the dark matter still at 60% ..not sure with out a refresh but its a lot;)... does it makes sense or could it be there is no dark matter and we can see all there is to see and there is no mysterious substance that for a decade remains unproven... dark matter was to include many things within a galaxy but the fact is they need it all out side to make the fast stars do what they do..adding more in the galaxy makes the problem worse not better...so it has to be in halos...if it is there at all...

I have no idea of the math but I bet they can work out the bend in space and that this bend needs so much matter and as we only have 20% of that matter in the galaxy being observed then we need to get it someplace..dark matter...

I hope you can follow that I could only just... and I hasten to add I have no idea how the maths worked it out and hope that gravitational lensing is done different in the lab to the way it is represented in the drawings as the drawing suggest the opposite to the reality of the space time conception...



alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

and this is a link to the open letter which is not apparent when one goes to Bojan's link...

And you can read for yourself their problem... funding may well be at the heart of it as they think not enough goes to alternatives:) ... but it is pretty strong in view point :whistle:..and I guess they want some attention also ..and recognition..show me a human that does not want a little recognition;).


open letter
http://cosmologystatement.org/

And while we are on the subject ...more money should go to funding push gravity research:lol::lol::lol:

more money for research any research give scientists good jobs and pay them better than anyone else... who is more deserving and dont say the guy running Telstra...

alex:):):)

[coldspace]

Hi Outbackmanyep,

It seems that Gravitational lensing has more to do with gravity influences from massive objects such as galaxy clusters, as well as dark matter. Check out this video from Hubble cast.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYshf-jc7U&eurl=http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1302632671&vw=g&b=0&pos=17&p=telescopes&fr=sfp

Matt.

[xelasnave]

That is what I am talking about as far as the bending of space:thumbsup:..and coincidentally that is the very same movie that first got me thinking about the diagrams and the bending of space time to produce the lensing effdect..those are the first diagrams that got me started on this trip years ago:)...

I know all will think I am crazy ..so nothing has changed there.

I lent the movie to someone , cant remember who but they never returned it...I loved that movie near wore it out....what is on utube is just a part of the one I had.

All I say is this...if the light is bent in it follows the curvature of space..fair enough..but when it passes the object space is bent back if we are to say that it is following the curvature of space...these representations in my view are correct only in part...dam how can I explain what I mean ... think of the 3D grid I spoke about above to visualise the situation... the space time grid lines bend in to objects not around them...

I am not saying gravitational lensing does not occur on the contrary I believe it does and to a much greater degree than general consensus...it must..it must be everywhere because space curvature in everywhere...


Matt it is a great movie and introduction to the concept of gravitational lensing:thumbsup:.

I dont think my view that space curves in on matter, not around it like the ball on the blanket example, is wrong ...and I believe I am only saying what general relativity says in my opinion ( humble of course) I listen to what it says to me... I feel incorrect views are formed from getting hooked on an incorrect example...that being the ball on the blanket...and then drawing the lines where light must go to fit the blanket idea...

Anyways dont worry its not the first thing that I see different to everyone else on the planet:whistle:... but I do think long and hard about what is said and presented and so feel I have given the matter a great deal of thought probably more than someone who works from a poor example to apply a concept.... if I am wrong the math can prove it...maybe:D

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex, some food for thought...
try Google "Casimir effect" .....
:P

[xelasnave]

Thanks Bojan...I have read a bit about it some time ago and I suspect you would think that it would dash my hopes of completing the construction of the push Universe however quiet the contrary... and as usual it supports the push concept;) for me..

I know you will say it is an opportunity to call into question all I believe but I see the effect arising from two objects being so close that they are held by the flow having to go around them:lol::lol::lol: and thus pushed to hold that situation.

I will have another look but if you see a specific point of relevance that you think I may not have taken on board please let me know...

alex

[xelasnave]

I lifted this......

"The Casimir force, recently measured with high accuracy by S. K. Lamoreaux at the University of Washington, derives from partial shielding of the interior region of the plates from the background zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field.

As shown by Los Alamos theorist Milonni and his colleagues, this shielding results in the plates being pushed together by the unbalanced ZPE radiation pressures. The result is a corollary conversion of vacuum energy to some other form such as heat."....end of lift...

I dont buy the zero point energy ( the ZPE reference) thing either but I like the rest of it:lol::lol::lol: because they use that word I like so much...push... it is such a lonely word when you think about it..there are no others that says the same... we have lamb , sheep , mutton to describer a beast but there is only one word to describe push and that is...er push..there are not others... is that not curious.. there is no synonym for it...

All I say is we can not at this stage measure the radiation pressure of which I go on about there is no question about that ...but this zero point energy thing is only trying to fit this possibility into the current thinking and give a "point" source for the energy all say is not really there... confusing yes if you fail to admit that the old concept of an eather was to a degree correct... however it was thrown out ..old hat.. but it points in the right direction if you consider it is not static but "flows" at C.


I am now reading all the links from a goggle of casmir to bring myself up to date with it and although not much is actually about what I went looking for it is all neat stuff anyways;).
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

another lift...

According to the theory the total zero point energy in the vacuum is infinite when summed over all the possible photon modes. The Casimir effect comes from a difference of energies in which the infinities cancel. The energy of the vacuum is a puzzle in theories of quantum gravity since it should act gravitationally and produce a large cosmological constant which would cause space-time to curl up. The solution to the inconsistency is expected to be found in a theory of quantum gravity.

end of lift.... (cut and paste but lift is short and I love to be brief)

What is he saying for goodness sake??


I say this... the effect is simple to explain in the context of an aether, a flow, a universal pressure.... it is no big deal really...the push of energy"if you like that term..or the push of particles explains it nicely.

two sticks floating in a fast flowing stream ..when they come together the flow of the stream hold them in place together... they can be separated but staying together is what the flow of the water will cause them to do... space is a flow ..a flow of everything ..just because we cant measure it yet does not detract from the logic... and so anything real close is pushed together ... it is so simple in principle...in my universe that is;):whistle: but we see that things attract..they do not ..they are pushed together by their proximity and mutual shielding effect one upon the other...or so I believe.

alex:):):)