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 (David)]

long live creationism...

[bojan]

Originally Posted by ving

long live creationism...

Are they talking about that??

[AJames]

Originally Posted by bojan

Are they talking about that??

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]

Are they talking about that?

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...

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

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 a 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

Maybe he is a slow Lerner

alex

[xelasnave]

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

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmol...ang-theory.htm...

So any views on whose axe he is grinding

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...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.

alex

[AJames]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

But I think if you had a google there are probably a few who disagree with the big bang approach.

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.

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..

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....

alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Zuts

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

Paul

alex

[AJames]

Originally Posted by Zuts

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

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

[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...

That should keep us occupied on rainy days

alex

[AJames]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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..

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...

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 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.

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..ther e is another place I rave on about it... 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... 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


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

alex

[GTB_an_Owl (Geoff)]

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