.

Stringgene, perhaps in order to further discussion along this thread of disputing the BB, why don't you narrow the venue to certain areas or ideas that you find distrustful in your opinion? Ask about a select point, in which counterpoints can be delivered...one at a time in other words...

Hi Stringgene,

I wouldn't go as far as to say that we have other theories, I would say we have other hypothesis except for the BB, and for good reasons too.  

But we have to start somewhere, we are seeing the scientific process work as it should be, although slowly, even though we have the BBT as a working theory, the red shift observations and the Doppler effect on light at intergalactic distances is still being somewhat challenged.

I believe that we are getting close to having the right equipment and technology to finally put the Red Shift question to rest as it is, this is the basis that the expansion of the universe is based on.

We really still need to figure out gravity completely,

Although the CMB data has been interpreted to add validity to the BB, the polarization anomaly does seem to indicate that we are missing something.

Dennis

.

Stringgene:

Assuming we are near ground zero,

This one simple statement shows that you haven't spent enough time studying the BBT.  There was no "ground zero".  The Big Bang was not an explosion from a point in space.

Stringgene:

It pictures a galaxy 12.8 billion light years away.

No problem with that.  Light has been traveling for about 13.5 billion years so it's had plenty of time to get to us. 

 

.

Not exactly quite sure what you are saying, but in this idea of the BB, EVERY point in the Universe, is "ground zero", in other words, every point of existence IS the center of this universe...maybe hard to conceive....there is no favored starting point, all points are the starting point.

.

That galaxy seen at 12.8 billion light years did not travel from a center point to the point where it emitted the light that we see.  There was no ground zero.  The singularity which begat the universe did not exist at some location in space, because there was no space.  After the time zero (I won't call it a bang, because there was no explosion) there was, most cosmologists believe, a period of rapid expansion -- the inflationary epoch.  This happened before there was any structure to the universe, even before there was any sort of matter as we know it now.  The universe was filled with an ultra hot plasma of quantum particles and it expanded at an expotential rate.  The expansion rate was well beyond what we now call light speed, but that didn't mean much back then because there was no light,  Photons hadn't yet decoupled from the hot plasma.  For the next half a billion years the universe kept expanding -- space being created -- before the first galaxies were formed.  There was plenty of time for that galaxy to be as far from us as it appears in that photo.

If you are serious about having a discussion about this, you should take chipdataJeffB's advice and read through some of the archived threads where he explains all of this much better than I am able to.

Guys, the laser comb that I have been talking about, is actually called the Astro comb, the article appeared in the June 2009 issue of Astronomy on page 32, its titled, New Technique Closes In On Dark Energy.

IF successful it will either confirm or debunk the expansion or dark energy problem, it could cause a major upheaval in Cosmology, especially if it reveals that we are not expanding, it may also over throw the BBT. I can't wait to hear the results if I'm still around.

There are now new hypothesis using conformal Weyl Geometry and TSEV or scalar tensor fields that can do away with the need for dark matter and dark energy. it is a work in progress.

here is just one link regarding this hypothesis, you will have to follow all the pertinent links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_curvature_hypothesis

I am taking a lets wait and see approach, and I still have confidence that we will eventually get it right. I don't advocate for or against the BBT, I just try to keep an open mind but not so open that my brains fall out.

I find that Hubble himself, six years after discovering the redshifts, had something to say about it, Quote:Hubble's personal opinion upon interpretation of the data:

 While the metric expansion of space reading of Hubble's 1929 observations is viewed today by most scientists as the correct reading of the data, Hubble wrote six years later:

if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"

– E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936 ^[

"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

 

 

 

I'm sorry, that is just not the Big Bang Theory. But I see why you object to my idea:) You might want to find an independent source for you study. Big Bang has changed over the years, which is a convenient device, it could infact become anything anyone wnats it ot be. it certainly doesn't make sense for it to the the origin of matter, energy and time, but it has been presented that way. So according to your version of the BB, anything is possible I guess.

I'm with Star Dragon on this. Except that BB has always been a dead issue with me. Thanks Star Dragon, good work :)

Stringgene:

I'm with Star Dragon on this. Except that BB has always been a dead issue with me. Thanks Star Dragon, good work :)

So, you had no intention of actually discussing the BBT as you thread title suggests.  All you are interested in is telling everyone who subscribes to the current model that they are wrong.  Of course that includes most working cosmologists (the folks who actually work at this, and understand the math), and most people who have actually taken the time to try and understand the theory.

Regardless of what you want to believe, or how many times you say it, the BBT is not dead.  Is it a work in progress?  Yes.  As are all generally accepted theories, like evolution.  It's obvious that you just came here to propose your unsupported "Wave" idea and to see how many folks you could make angry.  That's a pretty good definition of trolling.

That hypothesis by Penrose has nothing to do with debunking dark energy or dark matter...it is an attempt to provide another mechanism, other than Guthian inflation, to describe large-scale homogenity within this universe. I more or less agree with him in not agreeing with Guthian inflation...but that doesn't necessarily mean I subscribe to what he says. The question nowadays is not whether there is dark energy or matter, but what constitutes it, if anything in our current understanding can.

Hubble had made wrong measurements in his lifetime...these redshift measurements had to be revisited, and he admitted this. However, other measurements did not have to be revisited. It was still unsure whether galaxies outside our own truly existed at that point in time.

Stringgene:

I'm with Star Dragon on this. Except that BB has always been a dead issue with me. Thanks Star Dragon, good work :)

Stringgene,

First just let me say that I know absolutely nothing about Cosmology, Dark Matter or the Big Bang Theory. I am not here to agree or disagree with what you or anyone else states on these subjects. Personally, I just read this stuff for kicks and giggles. 

I am here to say that you stated in another thread on this site that people here were not being open minded about what you were saying. Seems to me you are the one without an open mind. I feel everyone here has really gone out of their way to present the information as currently accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Are there some segments of this community questioning these theories? Certainly, and they are also attempting, through scientific means, to back up their theories or claims. You are not.

Before, in another thread, I had made the statement that it seems like you are trolling, attempting to get a rise out of people with your statements, the BBT is dead and doesn't exist.

Ok, you have made your statement and we have heard, so now why don't you move on to another topic.

I would like to make my point clear, I am skeptical about any current theory or hypothesis including the BBT, but I have to accept the BBT with reservations

Why? because so far, it's the best model that we have to explain the observations, I consider it a foundation to start with, But I also have skepticism for any currently accepted cosmological theory, 

All I have to do, is to look at the history of the advancement of the science,  since not long ago we thought the earth was at the center of the universe, if you believed otherwise you were practically burned at the stake.

Then as instrumentation improved we realized that we are not at the center, then the Universe was just our galaxy, if you stated other wise you were scientifically castrated, then we discovered that we are just one galaxy among many,  the universe was static, then we discovered the redshifts and concluded that it's expanding.etc;etc;

I think the main point to consider with Cosmology is that it always seems to come with big surprises, that change our views at the small and cosmological scale.  

Just look at the past mistakes that we have made, and back then, just like now, you would be chastised by your peers for not following the status quo.

As more instrumentation and other ideas come along, we may or may not be in for a big surprise,  heck we don't even know what constitutes dark matter, and if it exists as the observations seem to indicate, and it shows us that it does effect matter, and since matter warps space-time, the photon must be effected.  Just how much remains unknown.   Another example, we didn't even know that there are exo-planets until the proper instrumentation came online to show us otherwise.

One thing for sure, we will need a big unexpected surprise backed up with a lot of evidence to force the mainstream community to re-evaluate the current BBT and consider either an infinite Universe that is constantly changing or, even admit that we have made some wrong assumptions based on insufficient data, or that we have to modify our physics.

The hardline skeptics fail to keep in mind that the BBT is a working theory that is backed by observations and yes, a few assumptions made to fit the observations along the way, and that is the sticky point that leaves me not taking sides.

To me Cosmology by nature invokes some Philosophy, and we must also take into consideration the limited senses of the Human Being , the question is, do we come fully equipped to see or feel or sense or even fully understand all there is to our existence and our surroundings?

No! Not BY Any Means!  our instrumentation has repeatedly shown that there is more to the Universe and our existence than our natural senses can detect.

This is changing as we progress technologically and augment our senses, who can say for sure what other surprises are in store for us? I think we are living at just the right time to start getting more answers that then come with even more questions.

I do find it fascinating to say the least.

Dennis

.

.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your reply, Stringgene, so I'm going to post this one last reply on this topic.  I'll stick to trying to illuminate some points about the BBT which I feel you have misunderstood, I won't comment on the IWT as you haven't provided enough detail about its origin or mechanism for me to feel comfortable commenting on it.

Stringgene:

The expansion is accelerating, or seemingly so. In 1998, researchers concluded that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up – The Uneven Expansion of Space
   *Fits easily with IWT, which it explains easily - Does Not fit with BBT, without more unsubstantiated theory.

Einstein actually predicted expansion, and didn't like it (he wanted to be a steady state guy), so expansion fits well with BBT.  One of the strongest points in favor of the BBT is that it has, for years, made predictions like this that have later been documented.  Others include the existance and temperature of the CMB, and the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe.

Stringgene:

We don't actually know that the universe is expanding. It may be an illusion created by dark matter/energy or a misunderstood gravitational force that mimics the Red Shift.
   *Fits with IWT - Does Not fit with BBT

All current observations indicate an expanding universe.  Just saying they must be wrong doesn't make it so.  Other explanations, such as the idea of 'tired light' have been proposed and proven wrong.  Expansion has stood the test of time, so far.

Stringgene:

Scientist observe CBR-
   * Fits with IWT or BBT / or not, since we don't know the source of CBR, but with BBT, there is a fundamental problem in regards to hot and cold spots.

We do know the source of the CBR (CMB), is was generated when hydorgen and helium atoms were forms during the Recombination at which time the universe first became transparent to light.  Those first photons were the source of the CMB.  Over time that light has been stretched by expansion and has cooled.  Current findings are in line with what the BBT had predicted long before the background was found.  Yes, there some inconsistancies that are not yet understood, but none of them are radical enough invalidate the prediction.  Not even close.

Stringgene:

Hydrogen is created when Stars explode, so the universe doesn't run out-
   *Fits with IWT - possibly fits with BBT, but would eventually force recycling within galaxy clusters or super galaxies.

Stars explode when their supply of hydrogen runs out.  Any hydrogen regenerated during a nova (and I'm not even sure hydrogen is a byproduct of a nova) would be miniscule compared to the amount burned during a star's life.  Our sun converts 400 million tons of hydrogen into energy every second and has done so for 5 billion years.

Stringgene:

Hubble has seen 10-15 billion light years. That means that those galaxies where 10-15 billion light years away when the light began to travel back to us. They were already developed. It would have taken them at least 10-15 billion years to get there, at the speed of light, and another 10-15 billion years for the light to get back, so the universe is at least 20 to 30 billion years old, and that's if we are near the point of origin. BBT suggest a 13.7 billion year age.
   *Fits VERY well with IWT - Contradicts BBT absolutely. In fact that one fact pretty much annihilates BBT.

I addressed this in another post, inflation and expansion accounts for the distance between those far off galaxies and us very well.  There is no contradiction.

Stringgene:

OK, here is where IWT takes the cake, in my estimation:

BBT - In order for BBT to work, everything had to start from a theoretical thing called the singularity. Where everything, including all matter, all energy, all laws of physics, and yes, maybe even awareness sprung from nothing, not even a singularity. This concept disallows infinity and forces us to resolve quantum physics to accommodate this unlikely scenario. It happened in spite of the fact that there was no place or time for it to happen. It has ham strung the development of quantum physics. It can't account for the "space" beyond the expansion. It can't be tested, or even imagined by the brightest minds in the world. Nothing about it's earliest stage has been defined, only theorized. Any mathematical formula for the existence universe or the contents, from the before perspective, would necessarily have to start with Zero and end with Zero, simply because there are no other numbers, forces, concepts or anything else to do math with, only theory of other dimensions, which may or may not could have existed. And these dimensions would have at least suggested an intelligent design to the whole thing. It would necessarily contradict the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, as we know it. Also, maybe I don't completely understand it, but doesn't the idea of CBR's atrophy from light waves to microwaves contradict Planck Constant? I mean, if light changed it's wave length, everything else in the system would change it's wave length as well, fundamentally changing matter in the process. I mean we aren't talking about a dopplar effect, we are talking about stretching reality. This needs to be tested.

Where does it say the univers sprang from nothing?  The term singularity simply means that there is a point when our ability to understand breaks down, a time when the current laws of physics did not exist.  We can not know what those conditions were because our understanding is limited by our physical universe.

There are many strong arguments against an infinite universe;

Olbers pardox -- in an infinite universe the whole sky would be as light as the surface of the sun because there would be an infinite number of stars and infinite time for that light to fill the sky.

All things in nature tend toward equilibrium, stasis, and disorder (entropy).  In an infinite, eternal universe there would be no change.  What are the inputs that drive cosmic, galactic, stellar, planetary and even biological evolution? 

As a previous poster said, we have moved from believing we were the center of the universe, to believing that our galaxy was the whole universe, to understanding that we are just a small spec in a huge universe.  In each of those steps we increased our understanding, we didn't overturn everything we knew about the Earth, or about the Milky Way, as we grew in knowledge.  That's the way I believe it will be with the BBT.  It will be improved as our understanding improves, but it will be enhanced and refined.  The BBT is based on observation, calculation, and the scientific method.  I trust that.

thanks zachsdad. Yes I said expansion fits with BBT, but it also fits with IWT, but the accelerating fits better with IWT. IWT predicts gravity waves, and predicts that they have a HUGE wave length, which bears out research done here: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/factsheet.html . They haven't found any trace of gravity waves because the test is too small to test for a gravity wave with a wave length of 50 to 100 billion light years. I agree the observable universe may be expanding and IWT accounts for that with Gravity waves. BBT does not allow for that. With BBT, it's just expanding. the wave effect would mean it expands and contracts. i understand the source of CMB, I don't discount it, IWT allows for that, but does not allow for it being the beginning of the universe, only a process. In IWT, it would happen in super novas possibly or other cosmic events that would break all matter down into it's constituent parts, or all the way to electron/protons. Any matter can be broken back to protons/ electrons at any point, and then hydrogen would form again... even if iron was broken down, it would reconstitute as hydrogen first, it's the stars that make the heavier elements. springing from nothing - some versions of BB say there was nothing before. Some say there was. Olbers Paradox is obviously not true. Light is absorbed and distorted by dust. But you didn't answer the most fundamental question of all. BBT can only account for a finite universe of a maximum size. IWT has no problem with size at all. I am suggesting that the same scientific research that confirms BB, also confirms IWT, but IWT confirms and answers a whole lot more. It's just a better place to start for trying to understand the universe as it is. Point of origin - IWT predicts that the universe did not have a beginning, that it always was and always will be. It also predicts that gravity is the fabric of the universe. That gravity wavs would tend to create more stars in it's compression stage, which is I am correct, that is what we observe. BBT can't address that. I'm sorry i have challenged BBT. I see it is an emotional issue with you. It's an emotional issue with me too, but for me it's a "the world is flat" issue. I'm just tired of the dead ends it keeps throwing up. For instance science can't take it back to the beginning, only close. IWT doesn't need that. i realize that people in general need for things to have a beginning, but that is a personal problem caused by the inability to perceive infinity, in my opinion. I am making contact with the cosmology department at the university of Georgia. I have a friend there and I am going to offer up these opinions to people who can appreciate them and will know what to do with them. They may send me home, but I doubt it. No one has suggested that gravity waves have such a long wave length, or even what gravity is, but this may help illuminate that.