• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

The

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

The

Unread post

A 3rd essay by Alan T. Braunstein, M.D.. Please read and comment freely.The "Big Bang" Never HappenedRedshift and Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) HeresiesThursday, May 2, 2002Redshift:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Current dogma would have us believing that the redshift of the light from distant stars is both a measure of distance and an indicator of recessional velocity away from us (Doppler effect), as if both were necessary and true. Should both these necessarily be true? I propose that redshift is a measure of a star's distance from us, and not an indicator of the star's movement away from to us. Doppler effect? This applies to sound waves in a medium such as air, but not necessarily to light waves traveling in a vacuum. Expansion of space? Fantasy. The major reason for redshift has to do with the quantum fabric of space and gravitational fields (another topic).&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp It seems we have again (inadvertently?!) placed ourselves at the center of the known universe when we hypothesize that everything is moving away from us (at relativistic speeds), and when we then play this "movie" backwards, all the stars in the universe, and especially the currently assumed "big bang," should have started right here. The analogy that the universe expands as the surface of a two dimensional balloon being inflated explaining how everything can theoretically expand away from everything else is illogical. Exactly where would the big bang have occurred if it did? The standard answer has been, "everywhere." We are supposedly peering to the beginning of time in all directions. Hogwash.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp In 1980, Guth proposed that something called "inflation" had occurred in the early universe - This theory maintains that in only 10-23 seconds, the universe expanded its girth by 100 trillion trillion times or 1026 orders of magnitude - more than it has in the billions of years that have elapsed since. How can scientists believe this? And yet this belief is necessary for the big bang model to "hold water" - for without it, there would be no way for stars, galaxies, and other structures to arise!&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Am I alone in my assessment that the concept of a "big bang" along with its necessary "inflation" corollary are completely illogical? Is the current bandwagon for the big bang model for the origin of the universe fueled and perpetuated by biblical creation mythology? Galileo and Darwin paid dearly for their revelations of antibiblical truth. Who will in this next round of enlightenment?Age and size of the universe:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp If the current limit of our observable universe is 12 billion light years (BLY), the universe would have a diameter of at least 24 BLY (assuming we are at its center); if we assume that the light from a quasar 12 BLY away has also traveled in the opposite direction (assuming no big bang, why not?), our universe has now grown to at least 48, then to at least 72 BLY in diameter (24 more in the opposite direction, again assuming we are at the universe's center). Could all this happen in only 14 billion years? What will happed when our telescopes get better and we can see beyond 14 BLY? The age of the universe will again increase. Note that Hubble found the age of the universe to be 1-2 BYO in 1929, using the same redshift data available then. Recently scientists discovered a white dwarf 13 billion years old (BYO), supposedly indicating the universe is 14 BYO. The problem is that this star is only 7,000 light years away, still in our own Milky Way Galaxy. How could a star that formed that long ago be so close to us now, when dogma decrees that distance and age are supposedly tied together?Cosmic background Radiation (CBR):&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp I propose there is likely a finite distance that light can travel, and we will not be able to see anything beyond that distance, even if stars were there. The final common pathway of light (which has traveled its theoretical limit) is probably the source of the cosmic background radiation - A more plausible explanation than that it is a remnant of the current majority-accepted "big bang" theory. After all, since the CBR is coming at us from all directions, and since light travels in only one direction, it could not logically come from a "big bang" - That light would have had a direction going away from us, never to return, and never to be seen again. By the way, just how did this CBR theoretically turn around and come back towards us? Someday, the revelations contained herein will undoubtedly turn out to be a most embarrassing moment for the Nobel Prize committee, who gave the Nobel Prize for the discovery of an event that never occurred! &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Alan T. Braunstein, M.D.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Redshift-4-rtf
User avatar
ZachSylvanus
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:54 pm
21
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: The

Unread post

His entire hypothesis is based on the flawed point that we're putting our one spot of the universe at the center.There is no center, technically...the easiest way to think about it is that we're on the outside of an ever-expanding ball. Every point of space is moving away from every other point at the same relativistic speed. The center was all the matter in the universe (point at the "center of gravity" of the sphere, pre expansion), and is now dispersed equally.With no center, how can we be it? We're just another point in space, no more important or less important than any other. Edited by: ZachSylvanus at: 3/20/03 4:44:15 am
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Massive Poster
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 1160 times
United States of America

Re: The

Unread post

Yeah, I don't know why he thinks we're at the center, but some of his speculations are interesting. Why is CBR coming at us in all directions? How can we see so far back in time? If we're on the skin of an expanding balloon 1 foot in diameter, the light from the big bang might be a balloon 1000 miles in diameter expanding at the speed of light => travelling away from us. It passed us by long ago, why would the light turn around to be visible to us? Perhaps we're somewhere inside of the smaller balloon, with the oldest objects being on the skin, radiating light in all directions. Hard to picture...It's not true that every spot is moving away at the same relativistic speed. The farther away an object is, the faster it's moving away from us. Just as spots on the expanding skin of a balloon that are close together don't move away from each other as quickly as spots on opposite sides. Edited by: LanDroid at: 3/20/03 6:44:02 am
xilog

Re: The

Unread post

I'm sympathetic to skepticism about the big-bang orthodoxy (never believed it myself) but on the briefest of perusals this one isn'tvery credible.Apart from the elementary error about whether the theoryentails that we are at the center of the universe, there is alsoa bit of poor logic about red shift.Its true that if you want to discount the big bang hypothesisyou have to come up with another explanation of the observedred shifts. But you don't have to show that a doppler shiftdoes not occur for light, and there must be a lot ofobservational evidence for that.Surely there must be more competent critiques of the Big-bangtheory out there?
stevepainter

Re: The

Unread post

You guys seem to be dismissing this out of hand. It's instructive to note that Hubble himself claimed that the redshift couldn't represent an acceleration if his redshift to distance formula proved accurate. It has and yet big bang theory plays it both ways.You may call the "center of the universe" point an "elementary school error", but the fact is the notion of the expansion of the "fabric" of space-time exists purely to explain how everything can be moving away from us while we are not at the center.I've read a number of theories that I consider plausible - for instance, we know that "empty" space really isn't empty. So the redshift of light over distance could be caused by some intervening interstellar "dust". While this has no more "proof" than the expansion of the "fabric" of space time, it has the benefit of requiring a much less complex mechanism as the cause for the redshift. Occam's razor anyone? Additionally, the cosmic background radiation also resembles the "black body" radiation of stars at near infinite distances. (Pardon if I didn't get that exactly right - my memory isn't photographic.) If we propose that this is the cause of the background radiation, the result is an infinite universe.An interesting book regarding the criticisms is The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner. It's a number of years old and his plasma universe theory is invalid, however many of his criticisms of conventional big bang theory have still not been answered to my knowledge.I'd be interested in what Dom has to say regarding this. It seems to me that the 'Gauge Theory of Gravity' that he was telling us about debunks the notion of a "fabric" of space-time. If there is no such "fabric", redshift as acceleration means that we are all sitting right at the "center" of the universe. (I guess that would make Cambridge an Elementary School. ;) ) Perhaps the most accurate explanation is that there is neither a fabric nor an acceleration, but that something else is going on.
arcAngle

Re: The

Unread post

Quote:An interesting book regarding the criticisms is The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner. It's a number of years old and his plasma universe theory is invalid, however many of his criticisms of conventional big bang theory have still not been answered to my knowledge.I honestly didn't care for that book. Felt like his logic was lacking in a big kinda way. Too much "if this>then that>and then that other" about totally diverse subjects. But then I feel the same way about some of Jared Diamond's work. And if Lerner's ideas about the Big Bang are as up in the air as his ideas about biological evolution... Okay, so I spent my entire time, in reading that book, backtalking the author. I do that sometimes.Lynne
Dom

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened

Unread post

Gauge theory doesnt actually state which 'gauge' is better, and in fact is based on it not mattering. The results of the maths are the same. So redshifts can be either entirely doppler shifts, or entirely loss of energy as light travels long distances, or most likely a mixture. (I never directly worked on the expansion bit so its a little fuzzy)As to the original article:1) Doppler effect: Yes it does apply to light, because its a simple artifact of measuring a wave whilst moving. Its easily observable with spinning galaxies, its how we measure their speeds, and in fact is the principle by which radar speed guns work. Travelling through a medium has nothing to do with it (except by setting the speed the wave travels)2) Saying everything is moving away puts us at the centre of the universe is patently absurd. Inflation was not just a process invented to explain big bang, it just describes the evidence that the universe appears to have expanded enormously at the start. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory theory as to why this happened, but it is observable in the data that a rapid expansion took place. Most of these can be answered by the hypothesis that the universe we know of is inside a super-masive black hole, and the 'inflation' period was then the initial formation, as black holes form at a radius, not from a point, so they go from '0 to 60' immediately, then expand steadily after that. (This formation at a radius is a result of gauge theory simulations, which I did study, as Gauge theory allows you to simulate black hole formation without getting nasty infinities everywhere) See below for why we are inside a black hole.3) As for direction of CBR, if we were anywhere within a 'fireball', then the light from this would be seen to be coming from all around us, and if we're in a black hole, then light heading out would orbit back in again anyway, etc.As to infinite universes... no dice Im afraid. Due to 'quantum fluctuations', small particles are being spontaneously created/destroyed everywhere. but at any point, in a metre cubed of space, there are a finite number of particles that exist at any time. This means that a metre cubed of vacuum has mass (the mean free energy of space, or zero-point energy). Gauss's law states that the strength of a force on a surface is equal to the mass/charge/etc. enclosed. The upshot is that as radius increased, volume goes up cubically, area binomially, and so the force of gravity (proportional to mass/area) increases linearly with radius. Hence an entirely empty universe must have a maximum radius such that the enclosed vacuum has enough mass to create an event horizon on the outside. This is very big, but not infinite. So whatever happens, we are on the inside of at least one super-duper-mega-etc. black hole.Personally, Im no big fan of the big-bang theory, but his arguments are just pointing out the holes in cosmology (of which there are many, we know). To 'debunk' the big-bang theory, you should really propose a counter theory. If there was no big bang, what happened instead?
Jeremy1952
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 2:19 pm
21
Location: Saint Louis

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened

Unread post

Thanks for the clarification.This month's Scientific American has a feature article about parallel universes, titled something like "You Fuckin' Better Believe In Parallel Universes 'Cause They're Really Real". My sometimes favorite magazine occasionally sounds like the "National Enquirer". Anyway, the article opens with "because the universe is infinite..." I know of no evidence that the universe is infinite, nor even any proof that "infinite" exists in the physical universe (as opposed to a useful mathematical construct). And to assert rules about what "has" to happen based on an infinity that came out of a hat in the first place? Nah, I'm not buying.
xilog

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened

Unread post

Dom ends:Quote:To 'debunk' the big-bang theory, you should really propose a counter theory. If there was no big bang, what happened instead?How does the big-bang theory get this status?There are no working theories, so there should be an open debate about the merits of the various alternatives, not a presumption that one broken theory must somehow just need tinkering with.If there is an alternative explanation of the red shift, are there then any convincing reasons for holding to the big bang theory?
Jeremy1952
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 2:19 pm
21
Location: Saint Louis

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened

Unread post

The big bang "gets this status" because it is mainstream cosmology. One of the things that organized science does is establish the core theories, which are unlikely to be substantially wrong. Gravity, biological evolution, quantum mechanics, and general relativity are among the core theories that affect and inform every scientific discipline. The big bang is in this class. The idea was first proposed in response to specific observations; based on the hypothesis, specific predictions were made; to date, every one of those predictions has come true (cosmic background radiation, temperature of cbr, distribution of cbr). If you wish to assert that gravity is not real, you need another explanation for why things stick to planets. To be scientifically literate, it is necessary to understand the distinction between cutting edge speculative: brane theory; for instance; and core knowledge, such as General Relativity and the Big Bang.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”