No i support your theory but it may not explain perfectly what is it and cannot shape a perfect theory of The same Mystery so its not solved

A good point but not in relation with the theory of exapnsion

  It was my understanding that Enstein was given the patent clerk job to give him a living and plenty of free time to work on his theories. The trouble with Einstein is he never could keep up after his original theory of relativity. The younger scientists and others were able to take his ideas and run with them, he himself had trouble keeping up in his later years. He came about in a wild time in physics, quantum theory and all it's implications, the concept that the Universe wasn't was and always be the same.

 I don't understand why never directly observing an event horizon would be such a deal-breaker, it by definition can't be seen. Unless you're lucky enough to see hot gases accelerating into it, you probably wouldn't see anything at all, perhaps a gravity lense at best. Some of the best evidence I've seen for their existence is the study being made of stars near the Milky Way's galactic core. The images taken over several years show them orbiting an object at very intense speeds, if it was a  normal star type it would be visible. I don't think the concept of a blackhole is all that strange compared to a neutron star, which is a bizarre object indeed.

 I'm leery about any article or magazine with the headline "Is the Big Bang in Trouble?", probably not, but, I'm sure it drives the leadership up. These are not the Dark Ages, when if you rattled the standard of thinking you were probably doing well, we're talking about decades of theory backed up with observations. I have yet to hear a sound hypothesis that can explain the origin of the Universe better than BBT. Some of the ideas being tossed around really seem to stretch themselves in order to exclude the BBT or need a combination of partial ideas to explain what the BBT can account for. I'm still waiting for conclusive proof that the Universe IS NOT expanding that's the result of more than a couple of researcher's data published on the fringe. I also don't believe in any science conspiracies where someone is being censored, it usually means their research or their hypothesis is flawed.

 In the end this discussion will go absolutely nowhere. It's like arguing Darwinism vs. Creationism, you'll never get the other side to see your point of view.

 

I do agree it will get nowhere, but only because everyone assumed expansion from the beginning, and mathematics neatly provided the support for a singularity. The wheels were set in motion.

If they had assumed something like my explanation from the beginning, there would undoubtedly be a few marginalized voices in the wilderness spouting off about a singularity that everything came out of, and they would be labeled crackpots by the majority. 

If BBT turns out to be factually incorrect, it will probably be a hundred years before an alternative explanation is agreed upon. 

Nevertheless, I have proposed several researchable predictions that would point toward or away from BCT. I'm not going to hold my breath that they'll ever be done.

http://www.thebigcollapse.net/predictions.php

No one assumed expansion from the beginning. Everyone includig Einstein assumed a static universe.  It was observation that indicated otherwise.  Red shift and all that.  It wasn't mathematics that said singularity. It was logic that if something is expanding and getting larger, then in the past it was smaller.  If you go back far enough, it would have no size at all.  Logic indicates a singularity.

 They had assumed a different explanation. That the universe was eternal, just like what many of you want.  But observations showed otherise.  The people who took up what the evidence showed,(that the universe had a beginning) were marginalized and made fun of.  That's how the theory got the name Big Bang. But these crazy people could not be proven wrong.  In fact they were partially vindicated when in the sixties, their predicted background radation was found.

The Big Bang proven incorrect?  If it could be shown to be incorrect, it would take the whole astronomical society by storm!  It would be the most radical discovery in 80 years!  It would be big news!  Oh, but it hasn't happened yet.  I wonder why?  It has withstood 80+ years of criticism and hasn't fallen at all but has stood up to all challenges and has only gotten stronger.  I bet it will stand for quite some time to come.

Why don't you tell us what your researchable predictions are so that we can take a look at them? 

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This link is quite interesting.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9711033

Explosive Cosmogony and the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology

Authors: G. Burbidge

(Submitted on 4 Nov 1997)

Abstract: Arguments and evidence against the hot big bang model are summarized. The observations which point to an explosive cosmogony and the quasi-steady state cosmology are outlined.

 

 Harry, an excellent read. Thanks.

 Evidence against BB continues to mount...

The theory becomes more convoluted as we progress in our understanding.

Nice to know some people are open to new findings.

M.

Colleges spend a lot of money on it’s students to make sure that they have access to internet sites that contain valid information. When they have reports or papers to write, they must have information that is accurate, which means that it is peer reviewed, and the general public does not have access to these sites. Let’s face it, there is a lot of just plain crap on the internet.

I checked out the site that was listed, and I noticed that no one had endorsed it. That means that the information on top of being vague is also not peer reviewed, not verified to be accurate, and it is old non-information.

But maybe you saw something that I missed. Would you care to bring one of the ideas presented from that website, as evidence against the BB, into this forum in your own words so that we can discuss it? Harry or Malkemus? Do you two have anything at all worthwhile to bring into this forum?

Well Dusty, 

FYI, I'm studying for my masters right now, and have access to peer reviewed information through my school. Is there any literature in any publication in particular you would like to guide me to?

Why are you so dead-set on the BB anyway?

EXPLOSIVE COSMOGONY AND
THE QUASI-STEADY STATE COSMOLOGY1
G. BURBIDGE
University of California, San Diego
Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences & Dept. of Physics
La Jolla, CA 92093-0424

That's a source that's not good enough for you? A respected university with reputable astrophysicists on staff? Just curious. Please enlighten me as to what is wrong with it.

Sure, there is a lot to support it, but a lot to detract from it also. Certainly enough not to deem BB theory as being the unquestionable dogma, wouldn't you say?

No one will be happier if dark matter is proven, then I can forget about all of this and be happy with the BB.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no proof for dark matter, is there? Just indications that it exists, right?

Finally, here is Professor Burbidge's homepage. I sincerely doubt that he's going to post anything in a study that would jeopardize his career and bring ostracism of his peers.

 http://cass.ucsd.edu/personal/gburbidge.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5272226.stm

And why are you so dead set against the BB theory?

You already know that all kinds of people can write all sorts of things, but it doesn’t make it so. Ever heard of Null Physics?

What I said is that it was not peer reviewed. No one put their acceptance behind it. In other words, a college student would not be able to use this information in order to write a paper on the subject. Who cares who wrote it.  I'm not going to comment on your masters. 

Dark Matter does not make or break the BB theory, but maybe you should read the link in this post. I think that proof is beginning to be accumulated for it’s existence. It hard though to find proof for something that’s invisible, because it’s not as obvious as the evidence is for the BB theory. Still, you should be a little happier, No?

The fact of the matter is, you have produced nothing that puts the BB theory in any jeopardy whatsoever. Have fun in your own reality.

The Universe is no Mystery and may not be expanding in the general terms of  " EXPANSION ". Since everything is in constant motion it will be correct to say that our Universe is moving in one direction while at the same time is being influence by another force in the opposite direction. This will give the impression of an expanding universe. What is "EXPANSION", is the planet Earth getting bigger or smaller and are there other objects within our Universe experiencing the same? Expansion in my opinion, will be a pulling away from some point and extending towards the attraction of another force, such as a gravity field or some other form of energy. Since the Universe occupies a place within the Galaxy it will also be correct to say that the Galaxy itself is the cause of such Expansion. It does not take a scientist to figure out what is taking place in our world, in our univerve or in our galaxy. Not all the time is it necessary to carry out an experiment to answer such basic questions or collect a bunch of data as suggested by one forum. I trust my judgement first and science much later.

Sometimes science comes out running in identifying what it believes to have discovered but in the case of Dark-Matter and the location where the so called evidence is being detected is NOT DARK-MATTER. They have jump to conclusion much too early. Dark-Matter does not exist, beyong the elements and particles there are others things which have no energy and are a property of Space. These have no influence on what already exist.... later science will prove this to be true ....

 I'm not against BB theory at all, as long as it is the explanation. It hasn't been definitively proven yet. If keeping one's mind open to alternative explanations of natural phenomena is what you call "living in my own reality", I take that as a complement.

Although, there is simply no reason that a singularity would just expand for no reason, and that is one major problem with BB theory. There are many.

I looked at the article you sent: a gravitational signature is not proof. Just another indicator. BBC mislabeled their headline.To date, we have never directly observed one iota of dark matter in the lab, even though it is supposed to be the majority of the universe. I find that odd. All the existing indicators pointed to 'phlogiston theory' for almost 100 years, but it was false.

 

G'day from the land of ozzz

The following are interesting reading. Make up your own opinion about them.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2330

Hydrodynamics of structure formation in the early Universe

Authors: C. H. Gibson (UCSD), T. M. Nieuwenhuizen (University of Amsterdam), R. E Schild (Harvard)

(Submitted on 14 Sep 2008)

Abstract: Theory and observations reveal fatal flaws in the standard LambdaCDM model. The cold dark matter hierarchical clustering paradigm predicts a gradual bottom-up growth of gravitational structures assuming linear, collisionless, ideal flows and unrealistic CDM condensations and mergers. Collisional fluid mechanics with viscosity, turbulence, and diffusion predicts a turbulent big bang and top-down viscous-gravitational fragmentation from supercluster to galaxy scales in the plasma epoch, as observed from 0.3 Gpc void sizes, 1.5 Gpc spins and Kolmogorov-fingerprint-turbulence-signatures in the CMB. Turbulence produced at expanding gravitational void boundaries causes a linear morphology of 3 Kpc fragmenting plasma-protogalaxies along vortex lines, as observed in deep HST images. After decoupling, gas-protogalaxies fragment into primordial-density, million-solar-mass clumps of earth-mass planets forming 0.3 Mpc galactic-dark-matter. White-dwarf-heated planet-atmospheres give dimmed SNe Ia events and false gamma-ray-burst luminosity distances, not dark-energy-Lambda. Quasar microlensing observations rule out no-hair black hole models and require galaxy-dark-matter to be planets-in-clumps.

 

and

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0221

The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology

Authors: Lawrence M. Krauss (1,2), Robert J. Scherrer (2) ((1) Case Western Reserve University, (2) Vanderbilt University)

(Submitted on 2 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: We demonstrate that as we extrapolate the current $\Lambda$CDM universe forward in time, all evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our "island universe" will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in which the de Sitter universe was first presented.

Hi Folks,

I see this is getting nowhere, The BBT and the skeptics of the BBT are sometimes very passionate about their positions.

Here is the way I see this problem, The BBT so far is the accepted theory of mainstream science, and can fit our observations quite well, especially with the addition of Dark matter and Dark energy.

The other fact is that thankfully, the scientific process is continuing and people are questioning the BBT and the Hubble Redshift interpretations, the CMB etc; etc; there is nothing wrong with questioning the BBT! but let's keep in mind that it is still the best explanation with observational data to back it up.

Does this mean that it is correct and that the book is shut? NO! not by any means, but it is still the best explanation we have.

What is needed is actual observational evidence that refutes the BBT. There are various other Hypothesis out there, and I stress the word Hypothesis, that also fit our observations, as Science progresses and more instruments are looking overhead, this may or may not change our ideas about the Universe.

I have my reservations about the BBT and I also like some of the other Hypothesis put forward, but in order to overturn the BBT we need more science, more data, and more cleverly devised experiments..
I accept the BBT, But with an open mind to other alternatives.

Mainstream Science has accepted the BBT, are there other explanations? yes, who is right? only time will tell.

 What is most important is that we keep asking and checking, and not take sides so impassioned, that it leaves us with blinders on, this goes for either side.

This is the beauty of Science,  we keep asking and re-checking, I  will always welcome any new Ideas with an open mind.  Cosmology is just in its infancy, will we ever overthrow the present acceptance of the BBT?

Not without sound science and observational data to back it up irrefutably!

Remember the World used to be flat, Until someone sailed around it, even though they could see the Earths shadow being cast upon the moon,  people still held this belief until it was proven wrong by someone actually traveling around the world and not falling of an edge.

I say the Book is still open on the BBT, The beauty is that as long as Science keeps questioning itself, we will hopefully get the right answers.

I will never shoot anyone down with new ideas or hypothesis that can point out problems with the BBT, but I also keep in mind that so far it has not been overturned without a doubt.

Dennis

 Thanks Dennis. I fully agree with everything you said.

The main difference in our stance, is that I sway away from BBT for the time being, although if dark matter is proven, I'll definitely get on board the BBT train.

Thanks for your enlightened response.

Mick

 Interesting...

G'day from theland of ozzzzzzzz

Star dragon said

Here is the way I see this problem, The BBT so far is the accepted theory of mainstream science, and can fit our observations quite well, especially with the addition of Dark matter and Dark energy.

Yes the BBT is the standard model, but! the observations do not fit the modelnot at all.

I'm looking for evidence and not ad hoc ideas that fit and than called evidence.

As for heated emotional, no way. Just discussion with a smile.

 

I don't know if you have read through these links but its very informitive.

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

and

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/08/colossal-void-may-spell-trouble-for.html

Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis

(Submitted on 3 Jul 2007)

Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

Oct 18, 2004

Fingers of God

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm

Quote

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

Re: re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

http://www.mailarchive.ca/lists/alt.astronomy/2003-11/0867.html

"EXPANDING UNIVERSE"-THE GREATEST

MATHEMATICAL DECEPTION IN 20-TH CENTURY PHYSICS

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/BIGBANG.HTML

Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000822000001000060000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I could go on and list a few hundred more.

The point is I could list 1000 papers and if they are not supported by science they mean nothing.

So! look at the science, don't be married to the MOB.

 

Hi Harry,

You said:

The point is I could list 1000 papers and if they are not supported by science they mean nothing.

So! look at the science, don't be married to the MOB. end quote.

I have read all of the links you provided, and I am glad that you keep questioning the std. model, so have many others including those that wrote the papers you linked.

This is what is expected of Science, keep asking and re-checking, I fully understand your disappointment with the Std Model, but I am not going to pick apart,one by one, all of the papers you have posted, as many others have already refuted them, or are currently in the process of rebuttal by great minds.

What I am trying to get across to you is that yes, there are some problems with the BBT,and this is why Science keeps devising new experiments and equipment.

My problem with the BBT and the Expansion, is with the interpretation of the Red Shift, this is why, although I accept the BBT for the time being, I am not totally convinced we have all the data in, or correct. So I have an open Mind, and I'm not married to the Mob at all, I'm just a free thinker.

I used to be a Radar technician for the Military, so the Doppler effect is no stranger to me, but I also have a solid foundation in electronics that leads me astray from time to time.

Just as radar can be fooled by electronic jamming, and Radar makes use of the principle of the Doppler effect, In my mind, there might be something at the larger scales of the universe that could be skewing the Doppler effect of the redshifts from far away galaxies.

Either gravity, or some unknown processes could be altering the redshifts at intergalactic distances, but until someone can prove that the Doppler effect can be wrong at the vast distance scales of the Universe, we must use Ockams Razor, and accept that the Local Doppler effect applies at larger distances within a Universe that is not void at all, but is full of particles and energy. And this simple observation implies expansion.

I also know of the phenomenon of Compton Ray scattering,  but I don't buy the tired light Hypothesis either.

Until someone can prove that the Doppler Effect does not correctly apply to vast intergalactic distances and it's results in the redshifts of spectral lines, then I must stay with the Std model as a foundation to work with for the time being, but I'm still keeping an open mind to other possibilities for the explanations. Why?

Because Dr Vera Rubin's work with orbital speeds of outlying stars and their host galaxies clearly show that we are missing something.

Have you ever read any papers on the Electric Universe Hypothesis? we stand at a cross road, but we also stand upon the shoulders of giants like Einstein, Planck, and many others.  To topple those great minds will take more than some several hundred papers, even though the Science may be sound with the other hypothesis, No one as of yet has overthrown The foundation Einstein has laid down.

The Book on the Cosmos is still being written, and only time and people that keep asking questions, will elevate our science and our understanding of our Universe.

Let us keep asking how and why, but we still need a foundation to work with, the BBT is our current one and it awaits further analysis.

Dennis

 

 

 

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Many papers are crap, no question about it.

Every paper needs to be supported by science and not by ad hoc ideas.

Many so called scientific papers, first assume that the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the new data to it and call it evidence.

We no longer live in the dark ages, and we know that the KIng does not wear invisible robes.

I ask for people to read science papers and make their opinions based on science and not emotional hungups. 

 Darn I forgot whether I posted this link before. If I have sorry. Its just that for some reaon I cannot scroll back.

Science is questioning and testing without emotional hung ups. Being right or wrong is part of the process.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108051

Quasi-Steady State Cosmology

Authors: G. Burbidge (UCSD)

(Submitted on 2 Aug 2001)

Abstract: A brief historical account of modern cosmology shows that the standard big bang (BB) model, believed by so many, does not have the strong observational foundations that are frequently claimed for it. The theory of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) and explosive cosmogony is outlined. Comparisons are made between the two theories in explaining the observed properties of the universe, namely, the expansion, chemical composition, CMB, QSO redshifts and explosive events, galaxy formation, and the m-z and theta-z relations. Only two of the observed properties have ever been predicted from the theories (a) the expansion predicted from Einstein's theory by Friedmann and Lemaitre, and (b) the acceleration predicted by the classical steady state theory and the QSSC.

 

Hello all,

 

    So if expansion is happening at the largest scale you can  possibly have, i.e. everything and everywhere all at the same time but-- expansion at different rates - let me present that as a general conceded idea so I may present this question.

Does it also follow that matter at it's basic form is also 'stretching ' at the quantum - micro level as well ?

thanks