http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html
Read the arxiv paper. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this claim is supported by nothing. No data is presented, no theory is hashed out. Either QM and GR have no predictive ability, or this is not a legitimate paper. It would be best not to be confused further by it.
~Thrawn
Physics, UCB
Hi Thrawn,
Weed!
Yep... this one is for the "Outer Limits".
Cheers
Weed!
Yep... this one is for the "Outer Limits".Cheers
This is not nonsense. Both Yilmaz's, both Heim's theories are excluding the black hole existence, in fact.
The common estimations of Schwartzild radius are simply ignoring the energy of the curved spacetime field alone. The only BH-like structures are collapsars (e.g quasars) formed early after inflation period and they're extremely radiative.
The common estimations of Schwartzild radius are simply ignoring the energy of the curved spacetime field alone. The only BH-like structures are collapsars (e.g quasars) formed early after inflation period and they're extremely radiative.
I can't see how this theory would work either. My mind drifts to the gamma ray bursts that we mark as coming from other galaxies. The only way these would be possible would be the formation of black holes when jets of energy come blasting out either side. No neutron star could supply a burst that big unless it was really close, and after redshifting the incoming rays it was determined that the origin had to be extremely far. Maybe if you could focus the explosion of a neutron star into a hair thin line and direct it at earth it might be able to make that distance still strong, but even then I doubt it.
Difference engine
perhaps its time to re-examine red shift assumptions?
QUOTE
Furthermore, according to the UMR scientist, our sun once belonged to a larger neutron star that exploded to form the current solar system. He imagines massive neutron stars to be like giant nesting dolls that give birth to smaller stars.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this imply the solar system should be far more massive than it is?
The sun significantly outweighs the rest of the system put together, but this 'theory' would suggest that a large portion of the parent neutron star would have been ejected, in order to leave a tiny neutron star at the core, plus the far-less-dense outer solar atmosphere. But this would mean that either the system should be more massive than it is, or a sphere of ejecta should be surrounding the system. But this should be evident, no?
Anyhoo, whether that's right or wrong, this 'theory' sounds farcically implausible at best.
I would like to hear a bit more about this neutron repulsion myself, and how to get around the whole event horizon problem (since even if it doesn't crunch into a singularity, a big enough n-star would be inside it's own S-radius) but the idea sounds very interesting. I mean, really, to call any well thought out and novel idea foolish is a bit arrogant these days when the current standards are getting more and more patched... dark energy, dark matter... and lets not forget singularities. All sound a bit fishy to me. There's got to be more elegant explanations, and this seems like a reasonable attempt at shaking things up, IMHO.
(btw Guest_Trinity Complex- gamma ray bursts have been linked to neutron stars, current theory is they happen when two n-stars run into each other (or an n-star and a black hole... assuming they really exist)
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.n...=mg18725135.300
(btw Guest_Trinity Complex- gamma ray bursts have been linked to neutron stars, current theory is they happen when two n-stars run into each other (or an n-star and a black hole... assuming they really exist)
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.n...=mg18725135.300
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your comments.
On the question of black holes, I must ask by what physics you suggest that they can emit jets? Indeed, by what physics do you think that black holes with their concomitant singularities exist at all? Regarding emission, the best theoretical approximation we have to date is the dubious quantum trickle radiation posited by Hawking.
While he was at Princeton, Einstein himself published a paper from which the following abridged quotations are drawn (A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 October 1939). The term “black hole” was at that stage not yet in use.
Quote: “If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry..,[g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.
“There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality...
“One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound…
“The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
“This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Endquote.
Halton Arp put it very nicely: “In its usual perverse way all the talk has been about black holes and all the observations have been about white holes.” (“Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific”, Progress in Physics Vol 3, October 2005)
Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle adequately explain what we see, and we feel it unnecessary to use this or any other phenomenon to explain unseen, hypothetical add-on entities like Big Bang, singularities, and infinitely curved spacetime.
The energy potential of neutron repulsion (for which we have empirical evidence) is copious, and the reservoir of such energy in compact objects far exceeds anything else yet discovered, including nuclear fusion. Our calculations show that there is, in theory at least, sufficient potential to drive the most energetic and spectacular events seen anywhere, including gamma ray bursts. If you need more data to assist in your assessment, consult the references cited in our paper (and the further references therein). Included there is access to more than 40 years’ worth of hard measurements taken with the mass spectrometer in Professor Manuel’s lab at UMR, and numerous related publications that have passed peer review in the likes of Science, Nature, and The Journal of Fusion Energy.
Best regards,
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa.
Thank you for your comments.
On the question of black holes, I must ask by what physics you suggest that they can emit jets? Indeed, by what physics do you think that black holes with their concomitant singularities exist at all? Regarding emission, the best theoretical approximation we have to date is the dubious quantum trickle radiation posited by Hawking.
While he was at Princeton, Einstein himself published a paper from which the following abridged quotations are drawn (A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 October 1939). The term “black hole” was at that stage not yet in use.
Quote: “If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry..,[g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.
“There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality...
“One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound…
“The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
“This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Endquote.
Halton Arp put it very nicely: “In its usual perverse way all the talk has been about black holes and all the observations have been about white holes.” (“Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific”, Progress in Physics Vol 3, October 2005)
Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle adequately explain what we see, and we feel it unnecessary to use this or any other phenomenon to explain unseen, hypothetical add-on entities like Big Bang, singularities, and infinitely curved spacetime.
The energy potential of neutron repulsion (for which we have empirical evidence) is copious, and the reservoir of such energy in compact objects far exceeds anything else yet discovered, including nuclear fusion. Our calculations show that there is, in theory at least, sufficient potential to drive the most energetic and spectacular events seen anywhere, including gamma ray bursts. If you need more data to assist in your assessment, consult the references cited in our paper (and the further references therein). Included there is access to more than 40 years’ worth of hard measurements taken with the mass spectrometer in Professor Manuel’s lab at UMR, and numerous related publications that have passed peer review in the likes of Science, Nature, and The Journal of Fusion Energy.
Best regards,
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa.
QUOTE (e+Dec 2 2005, 10:10 PM)
..gamma ray bursts have been linked to neutron stars, current theory is they happen when two n-stars run into each other or an n-star and a black hole...
When two neutron stars of mass of 1010E30 kg met together, the resulting star would have the 1010E30 again - the whole rest of energy will be radiated as a gamma burst. No black hole will appear.
When two neutron stars of mass of 1010E30 kg met together, the resulting star would have the 1010E30 again - the whole rest of energy will be radiated as a gamma burst. No black hole will appear.
nice example of how the us education system is going to the dogs
Apart from the whole neutron repulsion argument, what gives with the Sun forming around the collapsed center of a supernova? An iron core?
But give the devil his due...
I'm curious as to how Prof. Manuel would explain recent helioseismological findings? The distribution of pressure waves found are not possible with an iron core.
But give the devil his due...
I'm curious as to how Prof. Manuel would explain recent helioseismological findings? The distribution of pressure waves found are not possible with an iron core.
QUOTE
gamma ray bursts have been linked to neutron stars, current theory is they happen when two n-stars run into each other
I have always thought this explanation was wrong. We see Gamma Ray Bursts daily and Supernova's seldom. There must be a lot of neutron stars roaming around looking for a partner to crash into.
I like this paper. It has a lot of new ideas and does not mince words. This is the kind of bold physicist we need to break out of the ruts we find ourselves in physics. Good work Hilton Ratcliffe and keep those ideas coming. Anyone with half a brain can see we have not explained 1/10 of what we see in the universe. The current explanations resemble Copernican epicycles used in medieval times to explain how the sun circled the earth.
First off, Thanx to Hilton for responding to our comments, and to him and his coleagues for their very interesting work.
I took a look (a second look actually) at the references with respect to neutron repulsion. Perhaps I'm not following completely (well, I'm quite sure of that actually), but I saw, as was said, empiracal evidence for... something, some potential energy in atoms. But what force is the source of it? Does it fit in the standard model (not that that's necessarily a selling point, but at least it's a reference point)?
One article mentioned it had something to do with neutrons being like little bar magnets (by which I assumed they were talking about the quark distribution) crunched together, but could that account for the energy being talked about here?
I took a look (a second look actually) at the references with respect to neutron repulsion. Perhaps I'm not following completely (well, I'm quite sure of that actually), but I saw, as was said, empiracal evidence for... something, some potential energy in atoms. But what force is the source of it? Does it fit in the standard model (not that that's necessarily a selling point, but at least it's a reference point)?
One article mentioned it had something to do with neutrons being like little bar magnets (by which I assumed they were talking about the quark distribution) crunched together, but could that account for the energy being talked about here?
This article is absolut ridiculous. Its not worth to talk about.
QUOTE
This article is absolut ridiculous. Its not worth to talk about.
I think that was the consensus of the "medical scientists" who recently spent a decade denying that heliobactor pylori bacteria cause the vast majority of duodenal ulcers. The science eventually proved this theory to be correct, but there was a lot of needless suffering for a decade, when a much better treatment was delayed by the arrogance of the status quo. Science examines data and proves or disproves theories on technical merit. It does not declare competing theories as "not worth to talk about". If you want dogma, try religion, politics, the military, business, or any number of other human endeavors.
That being said, the aspect of this theory that draws parallels between stars and nuclei reminds me of the stereotypical amateur philosophy usually associated with a person's first experience with illicit mind altering substances. "Nine planets in our solar system.... Nine electrons in a fluorine atom. Hmm.... So, like, our entire solar system could be a fluorine atom in someone else's fingernail! Whoa! Dude!"
I tend to agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We shouldn't reprint all the astronomy texts quite yet, but there is little harm to discussing a theory, even one that seems extreme. Quantum theory seemed pretty weird at first. In fact, it still does. Where would physics be today if quantum theory was deemed too goofy an idea to even discuss?
Wait a minute...
I read in a previous physorg article that a computer simulation showed how supermassive black holes promoted the creation of galaxies. The quasar around the SM black hole was the one responsible for the repulsion. When the black hole finished eating the matter near it, the stars were already too far to be attracted by its gravity, so what we had then is a "dormant supermassive black hole" at the center of the galaxy.
I liked the article so much that i linked it to slashdot.
My question is, did this scientist look at the said computer simulation, or at least read the article?
I read in a previous physorg article that a computer simulation showed how supermassive black holes promoted the creation of galaxies. The quasar around the SM black hole was the one responsible for the repulsion. When the black hole finished eating the matter near it, the stars were already too far to be attracted by its gravity, so what we had then is a "dormant supermassive black hole" at the center of the galaxy.
I liked the article so much that i linked it to slashdot.
My question is, did this scientist look at the said computer simulation, or at least read the article?
Hi all,
Thanks for your comments and interest in our investigation. Several of you have asked questions, and I will here attempt to answer them.
Duke and Why Not?:
Many think that the Sun's density means that it must be hydrogen, but that isn't true. The average density is just the total mass divided by the total volume. The Sun's mass was not derived from density, temperature, and pressure measurements for its perceived chemical composition; like all other bodies in our Solar System, mass is determined using Kepler/Newton laws of motion.
1. Fred Hoyle published a paper in the Astrophysics Journal 197,
L127-L131 (1975) suggesting that the Sun has a core with a high
concentration of iron-group metals.
2. Donald Clayton, Michael Newman, and Raymond Talbot published a
paper in the Astrophysics Journal 201, 489-493 (1975) suggesting that
the Sun has a black hole at its core.
3. Peter Toth published a paper in Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)
suggesting that the Sun's oscillations mean it is a pulsar.
These scientists, the reviewers, and editors all knew the average
density of the Sun. They also knew that the Sun's average density
does not rule out an iron-rich solar core, a central black hole, or a
pulsating neutron star! To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd. The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.
See “Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977).
http://web.umr.edu/~om/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111 shows data from helioseismology collected over a period of 9 years. Quote:
"We have found a variability of the ‘helioseismic’ radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995 Rsun. Besides, the radius of the deeper layers of the Sun, between 0.975 Rsun and 0.99 Rsun changes in phase with the 11-year cycle."
The following is a quote from private correspondence with Oliver Manuel:
“I knew that something was missing from the story reported in textbooks of nuclear physics and chemistry.
<http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm?
“Look at the movies of the ‘Running Difference Images’ of the Sun. A rigid, solid-like surface is seen below the Sun's fluid photosphere when the images are made from lines of Fe (IX) and Fe (X). Unlike the outer fluid layers, this rigid iron-rich surface rotates uniformily from pole to equator with a period of 27.3 days. As the sphere rotates, the rigid
surface retains its main features of huge peaks and valleys.
The conclusion - that the interior of the Sun must be iron-rich - is the
same conclusion O. Manuel and Stig Friberg reached three years ago from careful analytical measurements on the solar wind and solar flares.
["Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios",
Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global
Helioseismology]
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/gong-2002.pdf.
“Those analyses indicated that the seven most abundant elements in the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg, and Ca. These seven elements all have even atomic numbers and high nuclear stability. They are also the same seven elements that comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites.
A statistical analysis showed that the probability (P) of this being a
meaningless coincidence is negligible: P<0.000000000000000000000000000000002!
”I discovered two inconsistencies, but never got around to publishing them - - - in part because others thought I was crazy. The inconsistencies are in the definition of nuclear binding energy (BE): By definition, BE = 0 for the neutron and the proton. Weisacker's BE equation writes this as the sum of several terms that contribute to the total energy:
BE = a - b - c - Coulomb Energy + etc.
”The inconsistencies are these:
1. The zero point varies depending on the n:p ratio in the nucleus. Thus, the BE of He-4 cannot be compared with that of U-238, for example, to obtain any meaningful information on the probability of alpha decay. This is a common mistake in textbooks of nuclear chemistry and physics.
2. Coulomb energy (CE) contributes to total energy, E = mc^2. Coulomb energy (CE) cannot be written as part of the BE equation since CE(p)>CE(n) and BE(p)=BE(n)=0
”In 1963 I could not do the 3-D plots that would later lead to the discovery of repulsive interactions between neutrons. But that 1963 experience gave me the background I would need in 2000 to utilize computers and 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface to expose the ‘Cradle of the Nuclides’ and explain luminosity in an iron-rich Sun that formed on the collapsed core of a supernova!”
Finally, many erroneous conclusions are based on the prior
assumption that the Sun's energy is derived from nuclear fusion at the
core. It isn't, but that is something you could find out for yourself
by following the links I suggest.
Spy der mann:
Coincidentally, I did look at Di Matteo’s simulation earlier this year, but that was part of another intiative altogether. Black holes do not form part of my initial assumptions, and like Oliver Manuel, I tend to do my work along strict empirical lines. We do not observe black holes; they are a model-dependant assumption used to explain ultra-gravity, and are theoretically and realistically impossible. Angelo Loinger has done extensive work on the theory underpinning black holes. These are just four of dozens of papers he has published on the subject:
1. astro-ph/9810167 [abs, pdf] :
Title: The black holes are fictive objects
Authors: A. Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 10 pages, PDF from MS-Word 7.0; added a parergon with another argument against the existence of the black holes
2. astro-ph/0001453 [abs, pdf] :
Title: On continued gravitational collapse
Authors: A.Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 5 pages, PDF, submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento.
3. physics/0305036 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The supermassive centre of our galaxy - et cetera
Authors: A.Loinger, T.Marsico
Comments: 3 pages, LaTeX, to be published on Spacetime & Substance
Subj-class: General Physics
Journal-ref: Spacetime & Substance, Volume 4, No.2 (17), 2003, pp.80-81
4. physics/0402088 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The Black Holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild"
Authors: A. Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 4 pages, LaTeX
Subj-class: General Physics
In conclusion, you may also be interested in my report on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference held in Portugal in June of this year. It was published in Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html.
Best regards
Hilton
Thanks for your comments and interest in our investigation. Several of you have asked questions, and I will here attempt to answer them.
Duke and Why Not?:
Many think that the Sun's density means that it must be hydrogen, but that isn't true. The average density is just the total mass divided by the total volume. The Sun's mass was not derived from density, temperature, and pressure measurements for its perceived chemical composition; like all other bodies in our Solar System, mass is determined using Kepler/Newton laws of motion.
1. Fred Hoyle published a paper in the Astrophysics Journal 197,
L127-L131 (1975) suggesting that the Sun has a core with a high
concentration of iron-group metals.
2. Donald Clayton, Michael Newman, and Raymond Talbot published a
paper in the Astrophysics Journal 201, 489-493 (1975) suggesting that
the Sun has a black hole at its core.
3. Peter Toth published a paper in Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)
suggesting that the Sun's oscillations mean it is a pulsar.
These scientists, the reviewers, and editors all knew the average
density of the Sun. They also knew that the Sun's average density
does not rule out an iron-rich solar core, a central black hole, or a
pulsating neutron star! To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd. The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.
See “Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977).
http://web.umr.edu/~om/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111 shows data from helioseismology collected over a period of 9 years. Quote:
"We have found a variability of the ‘helioseismic’ radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995 Rsun. Besides, the radius of the deeper layers of the Sun, between 0.975 Rsun and 0.99 Rsun changes in phase with the 11-year cycle."
The following is a quote from private correspondence with Oliver Manuel:
“I knew that something was missing from the story reported in textbooks of nuclear physics and chemistry.
<http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm?
“Look at the movies of the ‘Running Difference Images’ of the Sun. A rigid, solid-like surface is seen below the Sun's fluid photosphere when the images are made from lines of Fe (IX) and Fe (X). Unlike the outer fluid layers, this rigid iron-rich surface rotates uniformily from pole to equator with a period of 27.3 days. As the sphere rotates, the rigid
surface retains its main features of huge peaks and valleys.
The conclusion - that the interior of the Sun must be iron-rich - is the
same conclusion O. Manuel and Stig Friberg reached three years ago from careful analytical measurements on the solar wind and solar flares.
["Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios",
Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global
Helioseismology]
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/gong-2002.pdf.
“Those analyses indicated that the seven most abundant elements in the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg, and Ca. These seven elements all have even atomic numbers and high nuclear stability. They are also the same seven elements that comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites.
A statistical analysis showed that the probability (P) of this being a
meaningless coincidence is negligible: P<0.000000000000000000000000000000002!
”I discovered two inconsistencies, but never got around to publishing them - - - in part because others thought I was crazy. The inconsistencies are in the definition of nuclear binding energy (BE): By definition, BE = 0 for the neutron and the proton. Weisacker's BE equation writes this as the sum of several terms that contribute to the total energy:
BE = a - b - c - Coulomb Energy + etc.
”The inconsistencies are these:
1. The zero point varies depending on the n:p ratio in the nucleus. Thus, the BE of He-4 cannot be compared with that of U-238, for example, to obtain any meaningful information on the probability of alpha decay. This is a common mistake in textbooks of nuclear chemistry and physics.
2. Coulomb energy (CE) contributes to total energy, E = mc^2. Coulomb energy (CE) cannot be written as part of the BE equation since CE(p)>CE(n) and BE(p)=BE(n)=0
”In 1963 I could not do the 3-D plots that would later lead to the discovery of repulsive interactions between neutrons. But that 1963 experience gave me the background I would need in 2000 to utilize computers and 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface to expose the ‘Cradle of the Nuclides’ and explain luminosity in an iron-rich Sun that formed on the collapsed core of a supernova!”
Finally, many erroneous conclusions are based on the prior
assumption that the Sun's energy is derived from nuclear fusion at the
core. It isn't, but that is something you could find out for yourself
by following the links I suggest.
Spy der mann:
Coincidentally, I did look at Di Matteo’s simulation earlier this year, but that was part of another intiative altogether. Black holes do not form part of my initial assumptions, and like Oliver Manuel, I tend to do my work along strict empirical lines. We do not observe black holes; they are a model-dependant assumption used to explain ultra-gravity, and are theoretically and realistically impossible. Angelo Loinger has done extensive work on the theory underpinning black holes. These are just four of dozens of papers he has published on the subject:
1. astro-ph/9810167 [abs, pdf] :
Title: The black holes are fictive objects
Authors: A. Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 10 pages, PDF from MS-Word 7.0; added a parergon with another argument against the existence of the black holes
2. astro-ph/0001453 [abs, pdf] :
Title: On continued gravitational collapse
Authors: A.Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 5 pages, PDF, submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento.
3. physics/0305036 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The supermassive centre of our galaxy - et cetera
Authors: A.Loinger, T.Marsico
Comments: 3 pages, LaTeX, to be published on Spacetime & Substance
Subj-class: General Physics
Journal-ref: Spacetime & Substance, Volume 4, No.2 (17), 2003, pp.80-81
4. physics/0402088 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The Black Holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild"
Authors: A. Loinger (Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' di Milano, Italy)
Comments: 4 pages, LaTeX
Subj-class: General Physics
In conclusion, you may also be interested in my report on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference held in Portugal in June of this year. It was published in Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html.
Best regards
Hilton
I am just an interested reader who never got past second semester calculus in college.
But I do know this! Closed minds among the most educated are both common and VERY DANGEROUS to our progress!
Having read through this series of posting it is obvious to me that there is apparently enough Empirical evidence to support further investigation.
We are trying to figure out the Universe. Perhaps this is G-ds game to watch us squirm. Perhaps there is no G-d at all and we are all merely mud - I think not but perhaps.
Who among us is so brilliant that we can be certain that our theories are absolutely irrevocable unless those theories are supported by enough observation and empirical evidence to make them beyond question?
Use your brilliance to seek and find alternatively postulated truths that may be empirically tested. Never use an appeal to an authority unless that authority has the empirical data to back his/her findings. Even then distrust your assumptions!
Then we will make progress in untangling this mess and discovering the real and agreed upon laws of nature.
But I do know this! Closed minds among the most educated are both common and VERY DANGEROUS to our progress!
Having read through this series of posting it is obvious to me that there is apparently enough Empirical evidence to support further investigation.
We are trying to figure out the Universe. Perhaps this is G-ds game to watch us squirm. Perhaps there is no G-d at all and we are all merely mud - I think not but perhaps.
Who among us is so brilliant that we can be certain that our theories are absolutely irrevocable unless those theories are supported by enough observation and empirical evidence to make them beyond question?
Use your brilliance to seek and find alternatively postulated truths that may be empirically tested. Never use an appeal to an authority unless that authority has the empirical data to back his/her findings. Even then distrust your assumptions!
Then we will make progress in untangling this mess and discovering the real and agreed upon laws of nature.
Tiens, c'est ce que je me disais aussi depuis le début...
Il n'est plus question d'invoquer notre méconnaissance pour nous faire croire qu'une étoile à neutrons se cache à l'intérieur du Soleil, mais bien au contraire le savoir que nous possédons réfute cette théorie.
Il n'est plus question d'invoquer notre méconnaissance pour nous faire croire qu'une étoile à neutrons se cache à l'intérieur du Soleil, mais bien au contraire le savoir que nous possédons réfute cette théorie.
I am not a physicist, nor have I even taken any physics courses, so my question may sound a bit uneducated, but:
Would not the center of the sun have to be sufficiently cool enough to allow iron ore to exist in either a solid or liquid state? From what I've read, the surface of the sun is at least 5,000 K.
On a different topic, could anybody please answer me these questions. Again, please keep in mind that I have not taken any physics classes, so please forgive me if the answers might be something very basic. also, if you could use layman's jargon I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Background: Theory has it that you can tell the age of the universe by looking at the most distant stars. Ex: A most distant star 14 billion light years away is 14 billion years old. From this model scientists believe the age of the universe to be 14-15 billion years old.
Question #1: While I can understand a conclusion that the age of the universe is at least 14 billion years old, I can not understand how it could only be that old. Such an idea would only make sense if the earth had traveled away from the most distant star at a speed of light. If we look at the speed the earth is traveling at and compare it to event of seeing the light from a star 14 billion light years away, my uneducated opinion is that the age of the universe must be thousands or maybe even millions of times older. Why not?
Question #2: Assuming a big bang: Would not the resulting debris have been scattered 360 degrees in every direction. If the earth was thrown away from the big bang at a speed of light, would we not therefore be limited from seeing debris scattered by the big bang that is on the other side from the big bang, since we can only see back 14 billion years. (I'm probably not using correct terminology).
However, if we are looking at debris from the other side of the big bang, would not the age of the universe be different?
Question #3: I read somewhere that the stars circle the centers of their galaxies, conceptually much like planets circle stars? Are galaxies circling the big bang? If not, why? Why did the focal point where the big bang took place not have sufficient gravitational pull to at least capture some or most of the galaxies and make it not circle it?
Thank you for your anticipated responses.
Would not the center of the sun have to be sufficiently cool enough to allow iron ore to exist in either a solid or liquid state? From what I've read, the surface of the sun is at least 5,000 K.
On a different topic, could anybody please answer me these questions. Again, please keep in mind that I have not taken any physics classes, so please forgive me if the answers might be something very basic. also, if you could use layman's jargon I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Background: Theory has it that you can tell the age of the universe by looking at the most distant stars. Ex: A most distant star 14 billion light years away is 14 billion years old. From this model scientists believe the age of the universe to be 14-15 billion years old.
Question #1: While I can understand a conclusion that the age of the universe is at least 14 billion years old, I can not understand how it could only be that old. Such an idea would only make sense if the earth had traveled away from the most distant star at a speed of light. If we look at the speed the earth is traveling at and compare it to event of seeing the light from a star 14 billion light years away, my uneducated opinion is that the age of the universe must be thousands or maybe even millions of times older. Why not?
Question #2: Assuming a big bang: Would not the resulting debris have been scattered 360 degrees in every direction. If the earth was thrown away from the big bang at a speed of light, would we not therefore be limited from seeing debris scattered by the big bang that is on the other side from the big bang, since we can only see back 14 billion years. (I'm probably not using correct terminology).
However, if we are looking at debris from the other side of the big bang, would not the age of the universe be different?Question #3: I read somewhere that the stars circle the centers of their galaxies, conceptually much like planets circle stars? Are galaxies circling the big bang? If not, why? Why did the focal point where the big bang took place not have sufficient gravitational pull to at least capture some or most of the galaxies and make it not circle it?
Thank you for your anticipated responses.
Thank you, LCM and MSD for your interest.
MSD's questions:
1. The temperature of the Sun is somewhat mysterious. We have no idea what the temperature at the core is, but we do observe that temperature INCREASES with distance from the interior of the Sun (a phenomenon known as temperature inversion). Working backwards from the outer corona, we have a temp of 2 million K dropping to about 6,000 K at the upper surface of the H-He plasma layer (the photosphere). Sunspots are funnel-like depressions in the plasma, enabling a view deeper into the Sun. The dark umbra at the centre of sunspots is between 1,500 and 2,000 K cooler than the surrounding plasma. Briefly, then, thermodynamic conditions beneath the H-He plasma layer do allow for solid or semi solid ferrite structure.
2. Regarding the age of the Universe, the age of stellar structures at great distances squarely contradicts Big Bang theory.
3. Big Bang theory holds that the "explosion" had no specific location in our current Universe. It happened everywhere at once. This brings a number of contradictions and anomalies into the argument, including those you raise. The crucial point is that we do not need Big Bang to explain anything we see.
4. Are galaxies circling the Big Bang? No. There was no Big Bang, and in any case it had in it's theoretical basis no location which could be orbited.
I hope this was of some help.
Regards
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa
ratcliff@iafrica.com
MSD's questions:
1. The temperature of the Sun is somewhat mysterious. We have no idea what the temperature at the core is, but we do observe that temperature INCREASES with distance from the interior of the Sun (a phenomenon known as temperature inversion). Working backwards from the outer corona, we have a temp of 2 million K dropping to about 6,000 K at the upper surface of the H-He plasma layer (the photosphere). Sunspots are funnel-like depressions in the plasma, enabling a view deeper into the Sun. The dark umbra at the centre of sunspots is between 1,500 and 2,000 K cooler than the surrounding plasma. Briefly, then, thermodynamic conditions beneath the H-He plasma layer do allow for solid or semi solid ferrite structure.
2. Regarding the age of the Universe, the age of stellar structures at great distances squarely contradicts Big Bang theory.
3. Big Bang theory holds that the "explosion" had no specific location in our current Universe. It happened everywhere at once. This brings a number of contradictions and anomalies into the argument, including those you raise. The crucial point is that we do not need Big Bang to explain anything we see.
4. Are galaxies circling the Big Bang? No. There was no Big Bang, and in any case it had in it's theoretical basis no location which could be orbited.
I hope this was of some help.
Regards
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa
ratcliff@iafrica.com
QUOTE (e+Dec 4 2005, 03:17 PM)
First off, Thanx to Hilton for responding to our comments, and to him and his coleagues for their very interesting work.
I took a look (a second look actually) at the references with respect to neutron repulsion. Perhaps I'm not following completely (well, I'm quite sure of that actually), but I saw, as was said, empiracal evidence for... something, some potential energy in atoms. But what force is the source of it? Does it fit in the standard model (not that that's necessarily a selling point, but at least it's a reference point)?
One article mentioned it had something to do with neutrons being like little bar magnets (by which I assumed they were talking about the quark distribution) crunched together, but could that account for the energy being talked about here?
Yes, inside the nucleus neutrons and protons interact as the N and S ends of magnets.
This conclusion is based on mass data for all 2,850 known isotopes.
a.) Z/A = Charge Density
b.) M/A = Mass per Nucleon (Potential energy per nucleon)
c.) A = Mass Number (Number of nucleons)
At each value of A>1, the data define a mass parabola that intercepts the front plane (where Z/A = 0) at a value of:
M/A = M/A(neutron) + ~10 MeV when Z/A = 0.
Values of M/A @ Z/A = 0 slightly increase with A and indicate that neutrons inside a neutron star have:
M/A = M/A(neutron) + ~10-22 MeV.
See this early paper from J. Fusion Energy 19 (2001) pages 93-98.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
Intercept values of M/A at Z/A = 0 and Z/A = 1 are more clearly seen in Fig. 16 (page 16) of a paper in press, "Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun":
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001
I took a look (a second look actually) at the references with respect to neutron repulsion. Perhaps I'm not following completely (well, I'm quite sure of that actually), but I saw, as was said, empiracal evidence for... something, some potential energy in atoms. But what force is the source of it? Does it fit in the standard model (not that that's necessarily a selling point, but at least it's a reference point)?
One article mentioned it had something to do with neutrons being like little bar magnets (by which I assumed they were talking about the quark distribution) crunched together, but could that account for the energy being talked about here?
Yes, inside the nucleus neutrons and protons interact as the N and S ends of magnets.
This conclusion is based on mass data for all 2,850 known isotopes.
a.) Z/A = Charge Density
b.) M/A = Mass per Nucleon (Potential energy per nucleon)
c.) A = Mass Number (Number of nucleons)
At each value of A>1, the data define a mass parabola that intercepts the front plane (where Z/A = 0) at a value of:
M/A = M/A(neutron) + ~10 MeV when Z/A = 0.
Values of M/A @ Z/A = 0 slightly increase with A and indicate that neutrons inside a neutron star have:
M/A = M/A(neutron) + ~10-22 MeV.
See this early paper from J. Fusion Energy 19 (2001) pages 93-98.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
Intercept values of M/A at Z/A = 0 and Z/A = 1 are more clearly seen in Fig. 16 (page 16) of a paper in press, "Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun":
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001
This is to answer guest MSD and to contradict guest Hilton Ratcliffe
(The numbering does not correspond to the questions, this is just to remark some facts)
1.- There are evidences of the Big Bang. And there are A LOT. For example,
1a.- The universe is expanding. You can see it experimentally because of the redshift. This means that the color of a galaxy goes to red if the galaxy is going away and blue if it is coming nearer. The process is similar as the bell of an ambulance: you hear it different if the ambulance is coming or is leaving. Observations lead to that the galaxies are going away (Hubble's Law) with a velocity proportional to its distance. So the universe is expanding. There are two possibilities: the universe has been expanding forever (thus, Olbers paradox, inconsistency) or there is a Big Bang
1b.- We have the CMB (cosmic microwave background) If we extrapolate the redshift phenomena, we arrive to a conclusion that some galaxies are so red that they have became not visible but they emit in the microwavewavelenght. So there should be a CMB in the universe. This was discovered by Penzias & Wilson a lot of decades ago. Also the CMB has been exhaustively studied by COBE and other satellites and the conclusion is that there is no theory without a Big Bang which can explain the observations.
1c.- Olbers Paradox. If the universe has existed forever, the light of all far stars has got time to arrive to the Earth, so night should be at least as light as day. This is because if universe has existed forever each line of sight should finish sooner or later in a source of light and the light should have arrived to us. Sum all the contributions of light and you'll have the sky brighter at night that at daylight
1d.- We have "measured" the mass of the universe, have dark matter from studies of galaxy masses and Kepler's law. If we sum all this, we have less than 0.3% for the universe to collapse. There are quite a lot of theories to explain this, we don't know it yet, but all the plausible explanations arises with a model with Big Bang
Of course there are a lot of reasons I don't mention but I don't remember now all of these and I don't know all of them.
2.- Once we know that there does really exist a Big Bang, this has not happened in a point. Don't imagine a point from which the big bang exploits but imagine a balloon which surface is the universe. Draw a lot of point in the balloon an then blow it. The distance between all point is increasing but there is no point in the middle. If fact, if we have into account only the surface of the balloon, the center of the balloon is out of our concerning space. Similarly, our universe is the surface of the balloon and "the center of the universe" is not inside the universe. (This is not just words, there is a solid mathematical and physical background)
3.- We can calculate the age of the universe quite straightforward: we have got equations of evolution for the universe (general relativity, hydrodynamics...etc) and we have got the universe expanding at a certain rate we can measure. We can just calculate this way the age of the universe.
4.- We can compare the age of far nebulae and galaxies with our estimated age of the universe. This is just a test. Of course there have been some problems in the past, due to uncertainties in the observations, simplified models, etc. But now there is no problem with this issue
5.- As you can no more imagine the big ban as an explosion, there is no sense in asking about the scattered debris in 360º. We can better imagine that every point is the center of the Big Bang, so... how can you obtain an scattering thus?
6.- Don't imagine the Earth traveling at velocity of light. NOTHING can travel at velocity of light. And also, in your argument, MSD, did you imagine that Earth is as old as the universe? Never mind! Also, the problem of directions arises. There is no privileged direction. So, you can see wherever direction you want, the age of the universe is the same. There is no "other side of the Big Bang"
And of course, if there is no focal point for the Big Bang, nothing can orbit it. Nor planets, nor galaxies, nothing.
7.- Also, of course, if there is a big bang, there is expansion. The gravitational attraction can put objects together and make them orbit to a central point. But... this is how galaxies and stars formed. But for it, you need a central point (for example with more mass which means more attraction) This is also studied with COBE. But as I refereed before, there is no central point for a collapse in the Big Bang or Big Crunch.
More questions?
Hilton Ratcliffe, are you a scientist? I don't think so...
References (for no scientific staff):
Stephen W Hawking, History of Universe
Stephen Weinberg, the three first minutes of the Universe
my mail, if you want to keep discussing (just change the (at) and (dot),
asgard_gainsborough(at)yahoo(dot)es
(The numbering does not correspond to the questions, this is just to remark some facts)
1.- There are evidences of the Big Bang. And there are A LOT. For example,
1a.- The universe is expanding. You can see it experimentally because of the redshift. This means that the color of a galaxy goes to red if the galaxy is going away and blue if it is coming nearer. The process is similar as the bell of an ambulance: you hear it different if the ambulance is coming or is leaving. Observations lead to that the galaxies are going away (Hubble's Law) with a velocity proportional to its distance. So the universe is expanding. There are two possibilities: the universe has been expanding forever (thus, Olbers paradox, inconsistency) or there is a Big Bang
1b.- We have the CMB (cosmic microwave background) If we extrapolate the redshift phenomena, we arrive to a conclusion that some galaxies are so red that they have became not visible but they emit in the microwavewavelenght. So there should be a CMB in the universe. This was discovered by Penzias & Wilson a lot of decades ago. Also the CMB has been exhaustively studied by COBE and other satellites and the conclusion is that there is no theory without a Big Bang which can explain the observations.
1c.- Olbers Paradox. If the universe has existed forever, the light of all far stars has got time to arrive to the Earth, so night should be at least as light as day. This is because if universe has existed forever each line of sight should finish sooner or later in a source of light and the light should have arrived to us. Sum all the contributions of light and you'll have the sky brighter at night that at daylight
1d.- We have "measured" the mass of the universe, have dark matter from studies of galaxy masses and Kepler's law. If we sum all this, we have less than 0.3% for the universe to collapse. There are quite a lot of theories to explain this, we don't know it yet, but all the plausible explanations arises with a model with Big Bang
Of course there are a lot of reasons I don't mention but I don't remember now all of these and I don't know all of them.
2.- Once we know that there does really exist a Big Bang, this has not happened in a point. Don't imagine a point from which the big bang exploits but imagine a balloon which surface is the universe. Draw a lot of point in the balloon an then blow it. The distance between all point is increasing but there is no point in the middle. If fact, if we have into account only the surface of the balloon, the center of the balloon is out of our concerning space. Similarly, our universe is the surface of the balloon and "the center of the universe" is not inside the universe. (This is not just words, there is a solid mathematical and physical background)
3.- We can calculate the age of the universe quite straightforward: we have got equations of evolution for the universe (general relativity, hydrodynamics...etc) and we have got the universe expanding at a certain rate we can measure. We can just calculate this way the age of the universe.
4.- We can compare the age of far nebulae and galaxies with our estimated age of the universe. This is just a test. Of course there have been some problems in the past, due to uncertainties in the observations, simplified models, etc. But now there is no problem with this issue
5.- As you can no more imagine the big ban as an explosion, there is no sense in asking about the scattered debris in 360º. We can better imagine that every point is the center of the Big Bang, so... how can you obtain an scattering thus?
6.- Don't imagine the Earth traveling at velocity of light. NOTHING can travel at velocity of light. And also, in your argument, MSD, did you imagine that Earth is as old as the universe? Never mind! Also, the problem of directions arises. There is no privileged direction. So, you can see wherever direction you want, the age of the universe is the same. There is no "other side of the Big Bang"
And of course, if there is no focal point for the Big Bang, nothing can orbit it. Nor planets, nor galaxies, nothing.
7.- Also, of course, if there is a big bang, there is expansion. The gravitational attraction can put objects together and make them orbit to a central point. But... this is how galaxies and stars formed. But for it, you need a central point (for example with more mass which means more attraction) This is also studied with COBE. But as I refereed before, there is no central point for a collapse in the Big Bang or Big Crunch.
More questions?
Hilton Ratcliffe, are you a scientist? I don't think so...
References (for no scientific staff):
Stephen W Hawking, History of Universe
Stephen Weinberg, the three first minutes of the Universe
my mail, if you want to keep discussing (just change the (at) and (dot),
asgard_gainsborough(at)yahoo(dot)es
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
QUOTE (Guest_Trinity Complex+Dec 2 2005, 02:10 PM)
I can't see how this theory would work either. My mind drifts to the gamma ray bursts that we mark as coming from other galaxies. The only way these would be possible would be the formation of black holes when jets of energy come blasting out either side. No neutron star could supply a burst that big unless it was really close, and after redshifting the incoming rays it was determined that the origin had to be extremely far. Maybe if you could focus the explosion of a neutron star into a hair thin line and direct it at earth it might be able to make that distance still strong, but even then I doubt it.
Gamma rays - Let your mind drift a bit further as it has been shown by unquestionable scientific research that the Earth's atmosphere is emitting at least 100 Gamma Rays today each equal in force to that of the sun' emissions and your so-called Black Holes.
P.S. Black Holes are theoretically not allowed to emit jets of energy or anything whatsoever - LOL but don't tell anybody LOL
Gamma rays - Let your mind drift a bit further as it has been shown by unquestionable scientific research that the Earth's atmosphere is emitting at least 100 Gamma Rays today each equal in force to that of the sun' emissions and your so-called Black Holes.
P.S. Black Holes are theoretically not allowed to emit jets of energy or anything whatsoever - LOL but don't tell anybody LOL
"P.S. Black Holes are theoretically not allowed to emit jets of energy or anything whatsoever - LOL but don't tell anybody LOL"
actually not true in most theories of black holes.. shhhh don't tell anyone but there are a few theories about their nature. besides for particles that don't quite get sucked in but instead obit at relativistic speeds and exit at the poles, there is also the matter of quantum uncertainty that should allow particles to tunnel beyond the event horizon.
DO black holes have hair? I personally believe in the theory that black holes aren't permanent and go off with a bang.
actually not true in most theories of black holes.. shhhh don't tell anyone but there are a few theories about their nature. besides for particles that don't quite get sucked in but instead obit at relativistic speeds and exit at the poles, there is also the matter of quantum uncertainty that should allow particles to tunnel beyond the event horizon.
DO black holes have hair? I personally believe in the theory that black holes aren't permanent and go off with a bang.
QUOTE (M87+Dec 5 2005, 11:34 PM)
This article is absolut ridiculous. Its not worth to talk about.
If you have two people in fully enclosed - can't see out - rooms and one is on Earth and the other is accelerating in space, the situation of both persons will not the very same, as the Earth's gravity field has the "center" of action obviously. Such difference is subtle at the Earth field case, but it can be distinguished even at the elevator scope.
Such difference, i.e. space time curvature, is neglected by the ad-hoc GR equivalence principle postulate - it simply doesn't exists here and such of this is ignored at the subsequent field equation derivations. This makes a big troubles at the case, the space-time curvature is really high, for example in the neighborhood of the massive black hole.
I believe, the BH's cannot appear as the result of the dead stars, because it requires the much large mass, then it predicted by the Chandrasekhar limit (a more than 2.000 solar masses by the Yilmaz's theory). But such BH's can exist as so called primordial black holes, which are residues of the visible mass formation during the inflation period at the very beginning of the Universe (i.e. residues of so called quasars). They're rather rare, just one or few BH's per single galaxy and quite radiative, acting as gravity waves, dark matter and neutrino sources.
If you have two people in fully enclosed - can't see out - rooms and one is on Earth and the other is accelerating in space, the situation of both persons will not the very same, as the Earth's gravity field has the "center" of action obviously. Such difference is subtle at the Earth field case, but it can be distinguished even at the elevator scope.
Such difference, i.e. space time curvature, is neglected by the ad-hoc GR equivalence principle postulate - it simply doesn't exists here and such of this is ignored at the subsequent field equation derivations. This makes a big troubles at the case, the space-time curvature is really high, for example in the neighborhood of the massive black hole.
I believe, the BH's cannot appear as the result of the dead stars, because it requires the much large mass, then it predicted by the Chandrasekhar limit (a more than 2.000 solar masses by the Yilmaz's theory). But such BH's can exist as so called primordial black holes, which are residues of the visible mass formation during the inflation period at the very beginning of the Universe (i.e. residues of so called quasars). They're rather rare, just one or few BH's per single galaxy and quite radiative, acting as gravity waves, dark matter and neutrino sources.
Hello all
There exists an inverse relationship between gravity and time. Gravity arises from mass. Therefore, reducing the mass of an object will increase the rate of time for said object. If the object is the universe and you remove mass, then the rate of time increases.
Fusion in stars removes mass from the universe, so the time rate for the universe is increasing. The red shift we see is caused by the "rate of time" increasing from the time the light was emitted to the time of detecting the light. Knowing the amount of "red shift" and the rate of mass loss from the fusion in stars then a ball park figure for the mass of the universe can be calculated.
If the above theory is correct then marginal black holes that leave a galaxy will undergo spontaneous emission from the event horizon shrinking as a result of the "rate of time" increasing. Since the "rate of time" is a function of gravity/mass, it will increase the farther you go away from mass.
Remember, gravity at a point in space is the result of all the masses and their distances from said point.
I agree with Hilton Ratcliffe that the age of the universe is far older than 12 billion years.
There exists an inverse relationship between gravity and time. Gravity arises from mass. Therefore, reducing the mass of an object will increase the rate of time for said object. If the object is the universe and you remove mass, then the rate of time increases.
Fusion in stars removes mass from the universe, so the time rate for the universe is increasing. The red shift we see is caused by the "rate of time" increasing from the time the light was emitted to the time of detecting the light. Knowing the amount of "red shift" and the rate of mass loss from the fusion in stars then a ball park figure for the mass of the universe can be calculated.
If the above theory is correct then marginal black holes that leave a galaxy will undergo spontaneous emission from the event horizon shrinking as a result of the "rate of time" increasing. Since the "rate of time" is a function of gravity/mass, it will increase the farther you go away from mass.
Remember, gravity at a point in space is the result of all the masses and their distances from said point.
I agree with Hilton Ratcliffe that the age of the universe is far older than 12 billion years.
YOU GUYS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 GROW UP, YA RETARDS.............
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Hilton: I want to compliment you on your post on the error of the use of Hubble. I have posted a “draft text” that concurs with you on Hubble and extends into analysis of the behavior of the radiation retained in matter from the Compton etc. effects leading to the formation of cold dark matter and its accretion into “black holes”. Radiation is assumed, of necessity, due to gravitational effects, to “recombine and emit radiation” leading to a continuous evolution of a true infinite universe in space and time. A further speculation is made that even planets such as the earth are subject to the increase of matter and energy from radiation, subject to the standards o f physics. An added speculation is advanced that this nearly inconsequential mass/energy may combine to form the strange particle sequence of particle physics. For very high energy radiation with lower recombination capture probability, the high energy cosmic particles may form the more “massive” particles whose “mass” exceeds the mass of the atoms they are contained in. This sequence may also lead to a so called “Higgs field”, appearing even in conventional condensed matter physics. Interesting!!
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Hilton: I want to compliment you on your post on the error of the use of Hubble. I have posted a “draft text” that concurs with you on Hubble and extends into analysis of the behavior of the radiation retained in matter from the Compton etc. effects leading to the formation of cold dark matter and its accretion into “black holes”. Radiation is assumed, of necessity, due to gravitational effects, to “recombine and emit radiation” leading to a continuous evolution of a true infinite universe in space and time. A further speculation is made that even planets such as the earth are subject to the increase of matter and energy from radiation, subject to the standards o f physics. An added speculation is advanced that this nearly inconsequential mass/energy may combine to form the strange particle sequence of particle physics. For very high energy radiation with lower recombination capture probability, the high energy cosmic particles may form the more “massive” particles whose “mass” exceeds the mass of the atoms they are contained in. This sequence may also lead to a so called “Higgs field”, appearing even in conventional condensed matter physics. Interesting!!
QUOTE (eolais+Dec 2 2005, 08:05 PM)
perhaps its time to re-examine red shift assumptions?
Hilton Ratcliffe has given a good treatment of the factors involved in the red shift that is assumed to comply with standard established physics. I have, using standard known physics independently arrived at the same conclusion, and extended the examination of the shifted radiation, as absorbed in matter, to "thermalize" to form cold dark matter with new additonal specualtion leading to the formation of particle matter. Radiation to matter; it leads to a truly infinite universe in space and, of course, time.
Hilton Ratcliffe has given a good treatment of the factors involved in the red shift that is assumed to comply with standard established physics. I have, using standard known physics independently arrived at the same conclusion, and extended the examination of the shifted radiation, as absorbed in matter, to "thermalize" to form cold dark matter with new additonal specualtion leading to the formation of particle matter. Radiation to matter; it leads to a truly infinite universe in space and, of course, time.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Dec 3 2005, 04:26 AM)
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your comments.
On the question of black holes, I must ask by what physics you suggest that they can emit jets? Indeed, by what physics do you think that black holes with their concomitant singularities exist at all? Regarding emission, the best theoretical approximation we have to date is the dubious quantum trickle radiation posited by Hawking.
While he was at Princeton, Einstein himself published a paper from which the following abridged quotations are drawn (A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 October 1939). The term “black hole” was at that stage not yet in use.
Quote: “If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry..,[g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.
“There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality...
“One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound…
“The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
“This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Endquote.
Halton Arp put it very nicely: “In its usual perverse way all the talk has been about black holes and all the observations have been about white holes.” (“Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific”, Progress in Physics Vol 3, October 2005)
Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle adequately explain what we see, and we feel it unnecessary to use this or any other phenomenon to explain unseen, hypothetical add-on entities like Big Bang, singularities, and infinitely curved spacetime.
The energy potential of neutron repulsion (for which we have empirical evidence) is copious, and the reservoir of such energy in compact objects far exceeds anything else yet discovered, including nuclear fusion. Our calculations show that there is, in theory at least, sufficient potential to drive the most energetic and spectacular events seen anywhere, including gamma ray bursts. If you need more data to assist in your assessment, consult the references cited in our paper (and the further references therein). Included there is access to more than 40 years’ worth of hard measurements taken with the mass spectrometer in Professor Manuel’s lab at UMR, and numerous related publications that have passed peer review in the likes of Science, Nature, and The Journal of Fusion Energy.
Best regards,
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa.
[QUOTE]Hilton: I revise my use of the concept or word "black holes" that I have in the first of my "text" dismissed as a probable error. After reveiwing your comments I have two questions. The first, do you believe that light can accrete to form a matter entity, or as a matter element, is it destroyed. Two, although I have used the term black hole, in my "text", it occurs to me I can as easily be describing the precursor of a neutron star. I believe in all othe respects to date, that we are in agreement so far as I have gotten. (This context is being examined to include the possibility that radiation absorption can be achieved by alternate means at temperatures above the Planck Limit.) Kind Regards. Wendell Wilson
P.S. forgive me for again bothering you. Your prior comments show you are quite busy and cannot devote your time to these casual iquiries. Still, I can hope. wbw
Thank you for your comments.
On the question of black holes, I must ask by what physics you suggest that they can emit jets? Indeed, by what physics do you think that black holes with their concomitant singularities exist at all? Regarding emission, the best theoretical approximation we have to date is the dubious quantum trickle radiation posited by Hawking.
While he was at Princeton, Einstein himself published a paper from which the following abridged quotations are drawn (A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 October 1939). The term “black hole” was at that stage not yet in use.
Quote: “If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry..,[g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.
“There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality...
“One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound…
“The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
“This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Endquote.
Halton Arp put it very nicely: “In its usual perverse way all the talk has been about black holes and all the observations have been about white holes.” (“Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific”, Progress in Physics Vol 3, October 2005)
Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle adequately explain what we see, and we feel it unnecessary to use this or any other phenomenon to explain unseen, hypothetical add-on entities like Big Bang, singularities, and infinitely curved spacetime.
The energy potential of neutron repulsion (for which we have empirical evidence) is copious, and the reservoir of such energy in compact objects far exceeds anything else yet discovered, including nuclear fusion. Our calculations show that there is, in theory at least, sufficient potential to drive the most energetic and spectacular events seen anywhere, including gamma ray bursts. If you need more data to assist in your assessment, consult the references cited in our paper (and the further references therein). Included there is access to more than 40 years’ worth of hard measurements taken with the mass spectrometer in Professor Manuel’s lab at UMR, and numerous related publications that have passed peer review in the likes of Science, Nature, and The Journal of Fusion Energy.
Best regards,
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa.
[QUOTE]Hilton: I revise my use of the concept or word "black holes" that I have in the first of my "text" dismissed as a probable error. After reveiwing your comments I have two questions. The first, do you believe that light can accrete to form a matter entity, or as a matter element, is it destroyed. Two, although I have used the term black hole, in my "text", it occurs to me I can as easily be describing the precursor of a neutron star. I believe in all othe respects to date, that we are in agreement so far as I have gotten. (This context is being examined to include the possibility that radiation absorption can be achieved by alternate means at temperatures above the Planck Limit.) Kind Regards. Wendell Wilson
P.S. forgive me for again bothering you. Your prior comments show you are quite busy and cannot devote your time to these casual iquiries. Still, I can hope. wbw
Hi Wendell
Thank you for your comments, questions, and ongoing interest in what I have to say.
Your first question: Radiation is a way for energy to travel. If light interacts with something other than light or electrons, it will usually lose energy, and that may be conserved as mass in the target particle. Strictly speaking, that is not a process of accretion, simply the conversion of energy into mass. Light must keep moving to exist as light. When it stops. as in absorption, it ceases to exist as light.
Second question: I have no reason to believe that n-stars have more compact precursors, as in black holes or even quark stars. My view is that neutron repulsion stops gravitational collapse at the level of neutrons, and that the cycle might then proceed by fissioning into fragments that seed further gravitational (and electrical) aggregation. This of course is conjecture on my part.
I hope I have managed to answer your questions.
Regards
Hilton
Thank you for your comments, questions, and ongoing interest in what I have to say.
Your first question: Radiation is a way for energy to travel. If light interacts with something other than light or electrons, it will usually lose energy, and that may be conserved as mass in the target particle. Strictly speaking, that is not a process of accretion, simply the conversion of energy into mass. Light must keep moving to exist as light. When it stops. as in absorption, it ceases to exist as light.
Second question: I have no reason to believe that n-stars have more compact precursors, as in black holes or even quark stars. My view is that neutron repulsion stops gravitational collapse at the level of neutrons, and that the cycle might then proceed by fissioning into fragments that seed further gravitational (and electrical) aggregation. This of course is conjecture on my part.
I hope I have managed to answer your questions.
Regards
Hilton
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Aug 1 2006, 10:07 AM)
Hi Wendell
Thank you for your comments, questions, and ongoing interest in what I have to say.
Your first question: Radiation is a way for energy to travel. If light interacts with something other than light or electrons, it will usually lose energy, and that may be conserved as mass in the target particle. Strictly speaking, that is not a process of accretion, simply the conversion of energy into mass. Light must keep moving to exist as light. When it stops. as in absorption, it ceases to exist as light.
Second question: I have no reason to believe that n-stars have more compact precursors, as in black holes or even quark stars. My view is that neutron repulsion stops gravitational collapse at the level of neutrons, and that the cycle might then proceed by fissioning into fragments that seed further gravitational (and electrical) aggregation. This of course is conjecture on my part.
I hope I have managed to answer your questions.
Regards
Hilton
Hilton: That was a great answer. I am still interested in specifically how radiation as a matter entity can rejuvenate. There is a conversion process such that matter is not destroyed. I postulated black holes, but said in the beginning I did not "bellieve" in the standard BH concept. I then used std. physics, but that took me to cold dark matter. How can that just disappear? I looked to particle physics for a mode but that proved very problematical. I had not looked at other options, pending a review by others. I considered the cold dark matter approach as the best first option, expecially since it was said to account for much of the matter of the universe. In the model, the photon joins to the matter units, the electrron and its anti-particle, together functioning as the binding agent in particle physics. (The assumption was made that light does not cease to exist as light but is observed as reported as "excitons" , laser verified, and is considered like the neutrino.)
Many thanks for the reply. Best regards, Wendell Wilson
Thank you for your comments, questions, and ongoing interest in what I have to say.
Your first question: Radiation is a way for energy to travel. If light interacts with something other than light or electrons, it will usually lose energy, and that may be conserved as mass in the target particle. Strictly speaking, that is not a process of accretion, simply the conversion of energy into mass. Light must keep moving to exist as light. When it stops. as in absorption, it ceases to exist as light.
Second question: I have no reason to believe that n-stars have more compact precursors, as in black holes or even quark stars. My view is that neutron repulsion stops gravitational collapse at the level of neutrons, and that the cycle might then proceed by fissioning into fragments that seed further gravitational (and electrical) aggregation. This of course is conjecture on my part.
I hope I have managed to answer your questions.
Regards
Hilton
Hilton: That was a great answer. I am still interested in specifically how radiation as a matter entity can rejuvenate. There is a conversion process such that matter is not destroyed. I postulated black holes, but said in the beginning I did not "bellieve" in the standard BH concept. I then used std. physics, but that took me to cold dark matter. How can that just disappear? I looked to particle physics for a mode but that proved very problematical. I had not looked at other options, pending a review by others. I considered the cold dark matter approach as the best first option, expecially since it was said to account for much of the matter of the universe. In the model, the photon joins to the matter units, the electrron and its anti-particle, together functioning as the binding agent in particle physics. (The assumption was made that light does not cease to exist as light but is observed as reported as "excitons" , laser verified, and is considered
like the neutrino.)Many thanks for the reply. Best regards, Wendell Wilson
Newbie here.
Regarding the 'rejuvinating' of energy, one hypothetical candidate for dark matter in QCD theory, are Axions.
Axions can change degrees of freedom after integrating out charged chiral fields which undergo fermion condensation. They only react very weakly with electrons, photons, quarks and have no spin. There is some possibility they may decay into microwave photons, but the jury is still out.
.
Regarding the 'rejuvinating' of energy, one hypothetical candidate for dark matter in QCD theory, are Axions.
Axions can change degrees of freedom after integrating out charged chiral fields which undergo fermion condensation. They only react very weakly with electrons, photons, quarks and have no spin. There is some possibility they may decay into microwave photons, but the jury is still out.
.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
These comments are preceded by the draft text posted below Hilton. WBW.
I concluded that the models we use are just variations and can lead to a significant conclusion. In your electron model you go to dipoles and in my model I go to the concept of a split photon. I will start with the latter to describe the concept. The photon model in the text was source emitted, the charge was exchanged to the electron, then re-radiated and serially thermalized. That, at low temperatures gravitationally brought it to the nuclear interface. Here in the initial postulate, its charge was bound on the one side to an electron and on the other it bound to the positron. The photon Higgs field properties served to hold the particles together. The particles at low temperature were near a final finite vacuum state. The conclusion was therefore that the split photon bound the Fermions. Later, I concluded that this bound unit of electron/positron with photons, is nothing more than a version of k capture oscillation or alternately the binding was strong as in the “Particle Standard Model, forming the Bo. Then it occurred to me that these things are not so complex. An electron positron pair at an interface can combine and not emit, and a dipole of that pair, two transverse oriented dipoles could cross combine and form a neutron like entity. Such an entity can then act as a surface for the accretion of more units both with photons and Fermions. (A model for matter accretion.)
It is easier to see this from your model of dipoles rather than split shells, since the cross binding is more easy to visualize. As neutral particles they can readily accept the charges of the photon particle and antiparticle. This model was originally followed to the cold dark matter nuclear interface. More recently it seemed prudent to revise this so that it is not dependent on such minute energies and this model allows for the integration of these boson Fermion charges to form strongly bound entities. This appears especially true if the photon is a cosmic particle, which although traversing mater transparently, could not be observed for verification being beyond the current experimental capability. If you cannot see it you cannot conclude. Such a model could even extend to hot bodies as stars, assuming that the boson energy Temperature equivalence is above that of the Sun. The sun would be like a cold body. I further explored this concept and conclude that Hilton is right, the big bang, that neither of us believe, is better represented as the neutron star as stated in his papers. He however states that the radiation just evaporates. There we differ. The next point is that matter accreted in his gravitational neutron star is compressed, all wave functions are shortened and amplified and one gets the equivalent of a dynamic implosion as is employed in nuclear work. I believe however that the implosion on that scale is not an instantaneous event but a more delayed emission. On the basis of this assuming no errors, it would seem that this entire sequence goes from radiation to matter as an interim occurring before one needs to get into the complexities of particle physics. I think nature can make more particles than we can count, some may be resonant, but most are spectrums of matter anti-matter. The Universe is infinite in space and time, and changes so slowly we cannot notice it except through the Astronomer.
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
These comments are preceded by the draft text posted below Hilton. WBW.
I concluded that the models we use are just variations and can lead to a significant conclusion. In your electron model you go to dipoles and in my model I go to the concept of a split photon. I will start with the latter to describe the concept. The photon model in the text was source emitted, the charge was exchanged to the electron, then re-radiated and serially thermalized. That, at low temperatures gravitationally brought it to the nuclear interface. Here in the initial postulate, its charge was bound on the one side to an electron and on the other it bound to the positron. The photon Higgs field properties served to hold the particles together. The particles at low temperature were near a final finite vacuum state. The conclusion was therefore that the split photon bound the Fermions. Later, I concluded that this bound unit of electron/positron with photons, is nothing more than a version of k capture oscillation or alternately the binding was strong as in the “Particle Standard Model, forming the Bo. Then it occurred to me that these things are not so complex. An electron positron pair at an interface can combine and not emit, and a dipole of that pair, two transverse oriented dipoles could cross combine and form a neutron like entity. Such an entity can then act as a surface for the accretion of more units both with photons and Fermions. (A model for matter accretion.)
It is easier to see this from your model of dipoles rather than split shells, since the cross binding is more easy to visualize. As neutral particles they can readily accept the charges of the photon particle and antiparticle. This model was originally followed to the cold dark matter nuclear interface. More recently it seemed prudent to revise this so that it is not dependent on such minute energies and this model allows for the integration of these boson Fermion charges to form strongly bound entities. This appears especially true if the photon is a cosmic particle, which although traversing mater transparently, could not be observed for verification being beyond the current experimental capability. If you cannot see it you cannot conclude. Such a model could even extend to hot bodies as stars, assuming that the boson energy Temperature equivalence is above that of the Sun. The sun would be like a cold body. I further explored this concept and conclude that Hilton is right, the big bang, that neither of us believe, is better represented as the neutron star as stated in his papers. He however states that the radiation just evaporates. There we differ. The next point is that matter accreted in his gravitational neutron star is compressed, all wave functions are shortened and amplified and one gets the equivalent of a dynamic implosion as is employed in nuclear work. I believe however that the implosion on that scale is not an instantaneous event but a more delayed emission. On the basis of this assuming no errors, it would seem that this entire sequence goes from radiation to matter as an interim occurring before one needs to get into the complexities of particle physics. I think nature can make more particles than we can count, some may be resonant, but most are spectrums of matter anti-matter. The Universe is infinite in space and time, and changes so slowly we cannot notice it except through the Astronomer.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE] The quotes by wbraxtonwilson at the bottom of the Hilton Ratcliffe posted replys are an addenda to those posted under the wbw name, and should be viwed as a continuation of the old 02/03 draft "text". That text is planned to be condensed, and extended as indicated, having been a serial construction with information from publications and forum results of our current Physics trends.
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE] The quotes by wbraxtonwilson at the bottom of the Hilton Ratcliffe posted replys are an addenda to those posted under the wbw name, and should be viwed as a continuation of the old 02/03 draft "text". That text is planned to be condensed, and extended as indicated, having been a serial construction with information from publications and forum results of our current Physics trends.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Tiffanymarie is an airhead, APPARENTLY, still in PHOTOGRAPHY of juveniles who dislike science, and technology, as is their custom. That appears to be the source of: "THIS IS NONSENSE"
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Tiffanymarie is an airhead, APPARENTLY, still in PHOTOGRAPHY of juveniles who dislike science, and technology, as is their custom. That appears to be the source of: "THIS IS NONSENSE"
QUOTE (eolais+Dec 2 2005, 08:05 PM)
perhaps its time to re-examine red shift assumptions?
I still would like to know how a highly red-shifted "distant" quasar can pass in front of a significantly less red-shifted "near" galaxy.
Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp was denied US telescope time for stating the above.
I still would like to know how a highly red-shifted "distant" quasar can pass in front of a significantly less red-shifted "near" galaxy.
Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp was denied US telescope time for stating the above.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Aug 1 2006, 10:07 AM)
My view is that neutron repulsion stops gravitational collapse at the level of neutrons, and that the cycle might then proceed by fissioning into fragments that seed further gravitational (and electrical) aggregation.
Hello Hilton,
Why do you feel that you need neutron repulsion to counteract gravity in a large mass when simple electric charge would be much more effective?
On earth we cannot create a stable group of more than a single neutron without the help of protons so what makes you think that a giant multi solar mass of them could suddenly arise on their own in one place? I also seem to remember than neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes before they decay into protons and electrons. I think that your 'neutron star' will turn into the hottest ball of hydrogen ever seen in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.
Now, if we take a large hot (hot enough to form a plasma) ball of hydrogen (or any other element mix) then the light particles (electrons) will want to rise to the surface and the heavy particles (ions) will want to fall to the centre due to gravity. This will create a charge differential, or many concentric 'double layer' electric fields. These fields are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity and would prevent the density ever getting too out of hand.
I agree that stars do not get their energy from core nuclear fusion but from plasma interactions in their photoshperes. A Z-pinch in the double layer on our sun could easily have enough energy to create the 68 elements than the sun is made of.
Buadach
Hello Hilton,
Why do you feel that you need neutron repulsion to counteract gravity in a large mass when simple electric charge would be much more effective?
On earth we cannot create a stable group of more than a single neutron without the help of protons so what makes you think that a giant multi solar mass of them could suddenly arise on their own in one place? I also seem to remember than neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes before they decay into protons and electrons. I think that your 'neutron star' will turn into the hottest ball of hydrogen ever seen in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.
Now, if we take a large hot (hot enough to form a plasma) ball of hydrogen (or any other element mix) then the light particles (electrons) will want to rise to the surface and the heavy particles (ions) will want to fall to the centre due to gravity. This will create a charge differential, or many concentric 'double layer' electric fields. These fields are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity and would prevent the density ever getting too out of hand.
I agree that stars do not get their energy from core nuclear fusion but from plasma interactions in their photoshperes. A Z-pinch in the double layer on our sun could easily have enough energy to create the 68 elements than the sun is made of.
Buadach
QUOTE (Buadach+Mar 27 2007, 03:38 PM)
I still would like to know how a highly red-shifted "distant" quasar can pass in front of a significantly less red-shifted "near" galaxy.
Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp was denied US telescope time for stating the above.
IT DEPENDS UPON THE SPECIFIC OPTICAL FREQUENCY YOU ARE MONITORING DOES IT NOT? THEY CAN BE SEPARATED YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT DIVERSIFIED, YET. POST ON THIS ARE NOW BEING MADE ON:
"GRAVITY EXPLAINED", WTH OTHER POSTS IN APPRORIATE PLACES. WBW
Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp was denied US telescope time for stating the above.
IT DEPENDS UPON THE SPECIFIC OPTICAL FREQUENCY YOU ARE MONITORING DOES IT NOT? THEY CAN BE SEPARATED YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT DIVERSIFIED, YET. POST ON THIS ARE NOW BEING MADE ON:
"GRAVITY EXPLAINED", WTH OTHER POSTS IN APPRORIATE PLACES. WBW
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Alien lookenpeepers. Keepen handen in pockets and watchen blinkenlights. Fur die dumkopf watchers. Wir haben altern[QUOTE] wegs.
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Alien lookenpeepers. Keepen handen in pockets and watchen blinkenlights. Fur die dumkopf watchers. Wir haben altern[QUOTE] wegs.
QUOTE (Guest_wbraxtonwilson+Aug 7 2006, 10:41 PM)
These comments are preceded by the draft text posted below Hilton. WBW.
I concluded that the models we use are just variations and can lead to a significant conclusion. In your electron model you go to dipoles and in my model I go to the concept of a split photon. I will start with the latter to describe the concept. The photon model in the text was source emitted, the charge was exchanged to the electron, then re-radiated and serially thermalized. That, at low temperatures gravitationally brought it to the nuclear interface. Here in the initial postulate, its charge was bound on the one side to an electron and on the other it bound to the positron. The photon Higgs field properties served to hold the particles together. The particles at low temperature were near a final finite vacuum state. The conclusion was therefore that the split photon bound the Fermions. Later, I concluded that this bound unit of electron/positron with photons, is nothing more than a version of k capture oscillation or alternately the binding was strong as in the “Particle Standard Model, forming the Bo. Then it occurred to me that these things are not so complex. An electron positron pair at an interface can combine and not emit, and a dipole of that pair, two transverse oriented dipoles could cross combine and form a neutron like entity. Such an entity can then act as a surface for the accretion of more units both with photons and Fermions. (A model for matter accretion.)
It is easier to see this from your model of dipoles rather than split shells, since the cross binding is more easy to visualize. As neutral particles they can readily accept the charges of the photon particle and antiparticle. This model was originally followed to the cold dark matter nuclear interface. More recently it seemed prudent to revise this so that it is not dependent on such minute energies and this model allows for the integration of these boson Fermion charges to form strongly bound entities. This appears especially true if the photon is a cosmic particle, which although traversing mater transparently, could not be observed for verification being beyond the current experimental capability. If you cannot see it you cannot conclude. Such a model could even extend to hot bodies as stars, assuming that the boson energy Temperature equivalence is above that of the Sun. The sun would be like a cold body. I further explored this concept and conclude that Hilton is right, the big bang, that neither of us believe, is better represented as the neutron star as stated in his papers. He however states that the radiation just evaporates. There we differ. The next point is that matter accreted in his gravitational neutron star is compressed, all wave functions are shortened and amplified and one gets the equivalent of a dynamic implosion as is employed in nuclear work. I believe however that the implosion on that scale is not an instantaneous event but a more delayed emission. On the basis of this assuming no errors, it would seem that this entire sequence goes from radiation to matter as an interim occurring before one needs to get into the complexities of particle physics. I think nature can make more particles than we can count, some may be resonant, but most are spectrums of matter anti-matter. The Universe is infinite in space and time, and changes so slowly we cannot notice it except through the Astronomer.
This material has been moved to a separate site
Gravity and Matter
"Planck Length", Where a greater photon energy than the photon energy being "hit ", results in a great increase in mass. Source "Wickipedia".
In my "text" I speak to the final cooling of the photon to the nuclear interface, in the "first instance". At that point, I was considering that the exciton and or photon "binding" of the electron/positron might be subject to radiation from higher energy exciton/photons. That is, the exciton/photons that were at a lower level, was as I postulated, as binding the electron and proton together (at the nuclear interface), and actually is consummated. Then the subject theory predicts a RESULT, a miniature "black hole" by QM/GR. Thus, the above subject theory is precisely the same as my postulate, which I was exploring to obtain the larger masses FOR particle physics. This is a convenient "hook" to latch onto in support of the postulated synthesis of mass. The photon has mass, LIKE THE NEUTRINO, there is no need for any phase change, and the above provides a rationale for the synthesis of greater mass matter units. NO phase change, just MASS growth. wbw
THE "TEXT" HAS BEEN MOVED ELSEWHERE IN THE FORUM BUT CAN BE FOUND ALSO UNDER GOOGLE AS WBRAXTONWILSON PHYSICS. no caps.[QUOTE]
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Zephir:
Quit riding "This is Nonsense" and move over to 4D and Farsight. We need you. My defense, and your Weight, clearly. The bannned mathematicians, terrible prima domnnas as they are, are essential evils. To forgive, is the basis of the progess of our Forum. Tthanks in advance for the common sense. wbw.
They are my critics, not my buddies.!!. What can I say??? wbw.[QUOTE]
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Zephir:
Quit riding "This is Nonsense" and move over to 4D and Farsight. We need you. My defense, and your Weight, clearly. The bannned mathematicians, terrible prima domnnas as they are, are essential evils. To forgive, is the basis of the progess of our Forum. Tthanks in advance for the common sense. wbw.
They are my critics, not my buddies.!!. What can I say??? wbw.[QUOTE]
This is not so foolish an explaination as some have tried to make it out to be. In fact, it would seem to agree with the observations made a few days ago about the behavior of hydrogen and how it should escape gravity.
I actually was going to post a comment a few days ago similar to this because I had drawn similar conclusions, though not worded exactly the same.
It is my oppinion based on thought experiment and consideration for certain evidences, that stars produce nebula, and galaxies produce stars.
Conventional physics says stars are made from collapsing dust clouds in space, and galaxies are just really big collections of stars and dust, etc. However, this does not make sense compared to the observation that hydrogen easily escapes earth gravity, so it would also easily escape the CoG of a dust cloud that is supposedly forming a star.
This new theory would be the opposite:
This suggest stars behave like super-massive atoms, or collections of them, undergoing fission, producing the lighter elements.
As to the fact that the stars would "need to be more massive", well, that is only if you try to cling to kindergarten understanding of gravity. If gravity is a shielding effect, as I suspect it is, then the sun could easily be many times as massive as it is now believed to be, such that once a critical mass is passed, it would not longer be any more radiation to shield once it is already stopping all radiation passing through. The sun's core would be a neutron star or a super-massive atom that is undergoing fission, and in the process producing alpha particles and the other radiation and elements.
Of course there are a lot of things that need to be examined closely, but one consideration is that it would actually be easier to understand from the point of thermodynamics and entropy, as a star breaking down to form lighter objects makes more sense according to the second law than a star forming out of a diffuse dust cloud and then fusing atoms together, etc.
I actually was going to post a comment a few days ago similar to this because I had drawn similar conclusions, though not worded exactly the same.
It is my oppinion based on thought experiment and consideration for certain evidences, that stars produce nebula, and galaxies produce stars.
Conventional physics says stars are made from collapsing dust clouds in space, and galaxies are just really big collections of stars and dust, etc. However, this does not make sense compared to the observation that hydrogen easily escapes earth gravity, so it would also easily escape the CoG of a dust cloud that is supposedly forming a star.
This new theory would be the opposite:
This suggest stars behave like super-massive atoms, or collections of them, undergoing fission, producing the lighter elements.
As to the fact that the stars would "need to be more massive", well, that is only if you try to cling to kindergarten understanding of gravity. If gravity is a shielding effect, as I suspect it is, then the sun could easily be many times as massive as it is now believed to be, such that once a critical mass is passed, it would not longer be any more radiation to shield once it is already stopping all radiation passing through. The sun's core would be a neutron star or a super-massive atom that is undergoing fission, and in the process producing alpha particles and the other radiation and elements.
Of course there are a lot of things that need to be examined closely, but one consideration is that it would actually be easier to understand from the point of thermodynamics and entropy, as a star breaking down to form lighter objects makes more sense according to the second law than a star forming out of a diffuse dust cloud and then fusing atoms together, etc.
[[SIZE=14][COLOR=blue]
The original "text of wbraxtonwilson has been moved or "archived" in PhysOrgForum, but is posted on GOOGLE, under wbraxtonwilson [/QUOTE]This "text" has not been updated, pending other work, but numerous additions have been posted in PhysOrgForum, GOOGLE, and elsewhere. wbraxtonwilson@peopelpc.com.
The original "text of wbraxtonwilson has been moved or "archived" in PhysOrgForum, but is posted on GOOGLE, under wbraxtonwilson [/QUOTE]This "text" has not been updated, pending other work, but numerous additions have been posted in PhysOrgForum, GOOGLE, and elsewhere. wbraxtonwilson@peopelpc.com.
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE] The text "Gravity and Matter " w, (The Perpetual Universe), has been moved to site: Gravity and Matter Coments. wbw
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE] The text "Gravity and Matter " w, (The Perpetual Universe), has been moved to site: Gravity and Matter Coments. wbw
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
HILTON:
Congratulations on your meeting of cosmology and the conclusion that there may be a major revision in physics. I had concluded that in the 2003/4 post just below yours in the "This is Nonsense" thread. We were both pursuing the same physics toward parallel conclusions. The post I made was moved from under yours, (said to have also been put in foreign languages) and it now is titled uinder the thread "Gravity and Matter Comments". Briefly, it now extends the model from the BB, to a continuum of bangs and goes into the particle synthesis of matter. The BB and "curvature" as the source of gravity are questioned, as you did, and it also makes the postulate that the photon has mass and is therefore a carrier of gravity, and postulates cold dark matter. Ultimately, it concluded the Universe is infinite in space and time, and energy and mass are cyclic in that Uiverse. It is in joint consonance with your coscmology and the results that emerged from Hubble and later work of the cosmologists. I also liked the Alfven support,[QUOTE]
I thought the conference was probably the most sgnificant meeting I have read in my life. I noted the Wheeler Group was quiet in the meeting. Shocking. wbw
(I will tell you there be one hell of a battle from the established Physics group.)
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
HILTON:
Congratulations on your meeting of cosmology and the conclusion that there may be a major revision in physics. I had concluded that in the 2003/4 post just below yours in the "This is Nonsense" thread. We were both pursuing the same physics toward parallel conclusions. The post I made was moved from under yours, (said to have also been put in foreign languages) and it now is titled uinder the thread "Gravity and Matter Comments". Briefly, it now extends the model from the BB, to a continuum of bangs and goes into the particle synthesis of matter. The BB and "curvature" as the source of gravity are questioned, as you did, and it also makes the postulate that the photon has mass and is therefore a carrier of gravity, and postulates cold dark matter. Ultimately, it concluded the Universe is infinite in space and time, and energy and mass are cyclic in that Uiverse. It is in joint consonance with your coscmology and the results that emerged from Hubble and later work of the cosmologists. I also liked the Alfven support,[QUOTE]
I thought the conference was probably the most sgnificant meeting I have read in my life. I noted the Wheeler Group was quiet in the meeting. Shocking. wbw
(I will tell you there be one hell of a battle from the established Physics group.)
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE]
The comments of W. Braxton Wilson on the June 2005 International Meeting on Cosmology, and new physics, are added to the bottom of Hilton's text and elsewhere. It is titled "The first Crises in Cosmology" and includes, Physics. wbw
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
[QUOTE]
The comments of W. Braxton Wilson on the June 2005 International Meeting on Cosmology, and new physics, are added to the bottom of Hilton's text and elsewhere. It is titled "The first Crises in Cosmology" and includes, Physics. wbw
[QUOTE]
That post has been "changed" again to wbwilson "gravity and matter comments" for an update. wbw
That post has been "changed" again to wbwilson "gravity and matter comments" for an update. wbw
QUOTE (Thrawn+Dec 2 2005, 07:50 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html
Read the arxiv paper. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this claim is supported by nothing. NO DATA IS PRESENTED, NO THEORY IS HASHED OUT. Either QM and GR have no predictive ability, or this is not a legitimate paper. It would be best not to be confused further by it.
~Thrawn
Physics, UCB
Hi, ~Thrawn of UCB Physics.
My advanced degree is in nuclear chemistry, but I was a student of Prof. John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley Physics myself in 1962-1964.
3,000 data points, the masses of all known nuclides, form the basis for our conclusion that neutron interactions are repulsive, these interactions power the Sun and the cosmos, and they prevent the collapse of neutron stars into black holes:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
Our conclusions have been published in several peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, e.g.,
01. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856
02. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
03. AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225
04. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) pp. 159–163
04. Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2004) pp. 55-62.
05. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) pp. 1959-1962
06. European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348
07. "Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?", Proceedings of the 2nd NO-VE Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations, Venice, Italy, 3-5 Dec. 2003.
08. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) pp. 3-7.
09. Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) pp. 193-198
10. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pp. 197-201
11. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2000) pp. 93-98
A new paper from Case Western Reserve University independently concludes that "black holes cannot exist."
http://tinyurl.com/24lxlq
http://tinyurl.com/2pg66j
That paper is scheduled for publication in Physical Review D.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Read the arxiv paper. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this claim is supported by nothing. NO DATA IS PRESENTED, NO THEORY IS HASHED OUT. Either QM and GR have no predictive ability, or this is not a legitimate paper. It would be best not to be confused further by it.
~Thrawn
Physics, UCB
Hi, ~Thrawn of UCB Physics.
My advanced degree is in nuclear chemistry, but I was a student of Prof. John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley Physics myself in 1962-1964.
3,000 data points, the masses of all known nuclides, form the basis for our conclusion that neutron interactions are repulsive, these interactions power the Sun and the cosmos, and they prevent the collapse of neutron stars into black holes:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
Our conclusions have been published in several peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, e.g.,
01. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856
02. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
03. AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225
04. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) pp. 159–163
04. Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2004) pp. 55-62.
05. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) pp. 1959-1962
06. European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348
07. "Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?", Proceedings of the 2nd NO-VE Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations, Venice, Italy, 3-5 Dec. 2003.
08. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) pp. 3-7.
09. Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) pp. 193-198
10. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pp. 197-201
11. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2000) pp. 93-98
A new paper from Case Western Reserve University independently concludes that "black holes cannot exist."
http://tinyurl.com/24lxlq
http://tinyurl.com/2pg66j
That paper is scheduled for publication in Physical Review D.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
QUOTE (omatumr+Jun 25 2007, 01:51 AM)
Hi, ~Thrawn of UCB Physics.
My advanced degree is in nuclear chemistry, but I was a student of Prof. John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley Physics myself in 1962-1964.
3,000 data points, the masses of all known nuclides, form the basis for our conclusion that neutron interactions are repulsive, these interactions power the Sun and the cosmos, and they prevent the collapse of neutron stars into black holes:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
Our conclusions have been published in several peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, e.g.,
01. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856
02. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
03. AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225
04. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) pp. 159–163
04. Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2004) pp. 55-62.
05. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) pp. 1959-1962
06. European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348
07. "Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?", Proceedings of the 2nd NO-VE Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations, Venice, Italy, 3-5 Dec. 2003.
08. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) pp. 3-7.
09. Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) pp. 193-198
10. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pp. 197-201
11. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2000) pp. 93-98
A new paper from Case Western Reserve University independently concludes that "black holes cannot exist."
http://tinyurl.com/24lxlq
http://tinyurl.com/2pg66j
That paper is scheduled for publication in Physical Review D.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr:
Thanks for the comment. In this same thread you will see the report of the internatonal cosmology meeting under Hilton Ratcliff. Both he, (and I) conclude that black holes do not exist, per se, nor do we subscribe to the expansion of the universe. My pseudo text simply starts with photons and follows their logical progression toward cold dark matter, where it is assumed to have "mass". That mass allows it to accrete to form matter constituents, by a process (below) to be determined, that is postulated to be gravity acting on photon mass. The end point was to describe a perpetual universe, infinite in space and time. It was written in 2003 and elicited no comments, since it assigned mass to the photon.
I welcome your response, because it is not at odds with your prior work, but rather is in agreement. I liked the neutron repulsion part of your comments. I had postulated the photon to be "repulsive in the near, but attractive in the far." It has been said that the photon, neutrino, exciton, are possibly variants of the same thing. My interest was to follow the cold exciton or photon at the nuclear interface to determine the beginning of the formation of the mass particles as given elsewhere in the Forum. The idea involved the neutrino charge binding half to the electron and half to the positron. In other words it functions as a binding agent in the exciton sense. Electron-hole excitons are "bound" in the solid state. This is quite vague here,but it gives you an idea of the concept. Thanks again. wbw
My advanced degree is in nuclear chemistry, but I was a student of Prof. John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley Physics myself in 1962-1964.
3,000 data points, the masses of all known nuclides, form the basis for our conclusion that neutron interactions are repulsive, these interactions power the Sun and the cosmos, and they prevent the collapse of neutron stars into black holes:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
Our conclusions have been published in several peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, e.g.,
01. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856
02. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
03. AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225
04. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) pp. 159–163
04. Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2004) pp. 55-62.
05. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) pp. 1959-1962
06. European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348
07. "Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?", Proceedings of the 2nd NO-VE Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations, Venice, Italy, 3-5 Dec. 2003.
08. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) pp. 3-7.
09. Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) pp. 193-198
10. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pp. 197-201
11. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2000) pp. 93-98
A new paper from Case Western Reserve University independently concludes that "black holes cannot exist."
http://tinyurl.com/24lxlq
http://tinyurl.com/2pg66j
That paper is scheduled for publication in Physical Review D.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr:
Thanks for the comment. In this same thread you will see the report of the internatonal cosmology meeting under Hilton Ratcliff. Both he, (and I) conclude that black holes do not exist, per se, nor do we subscribe to the expansion of the universe. My pseudo text simply starts with photons and follows their logical progression toward cold dark matter, where it is assumed to have "mass". That mass allows it to accrete to form matter constituents, by a process (below) to be determined, that is postulated to be gravity acting on photon mass. The end point was to describe a perpetual universe, infinite in space and time. It was written in 2003 and elicited no comments, since it assigned mass to the photon.
I welcome your response, because it is not at odds with your prior work, but rather is in agreement. I liked the neutron repulsion part of your comments. I had postulated the photon to be "repulsive in the near, but attractive in the far." It has been said that the photon, neutrino, exciton, are possibly variants of the same thing. My interest was to follow the cold exciton or photon at the nuclear interface to determine the beginning of the formation of the mass particles as given elsewhere in the Forum. The idea involved the neutrino charge binding half to the electron and half to the positron. In other words it functions as a binding agent in the exciton sense. Electron-hole excitons are "bound" in the solid state. This is quite vague here,but it gives you an idea of the concept. Thanks again. wbw
QUOTE (wbraxtonwilson+Jun 25 2007, 03:16 PM)
omatumr:
Thanks for the comment. In this same thread you will see the report of the internatonal cosmology meeting under Hilton Ratcliff. Both he, (and I) conclude that black holes do not exist, per se, nor do we subscribe to the expansion of the universe. My pseudo text simply starts with photons and follows their logical progression toward cold dark matter, where it is assumed to have "mass". That mass allows it to accrete to form matter constituents, by a process (below) to be determined, that is postulated to be gravity acting on photon mass. The end point was to describe a perpetual universe, infinite in space and time. It was written in 2003 and elicited no comments, since it assigned mass to the photon.
I welcome your response, because it is not at odds with your prior work, but rather is in agreement. I liked the neutron repulsion part of your comments. I had postulated the photon to be "repulsive in the near, but attractive in the far." It has been said that the photon, neutrino, exciton, are possibly variants of the same thing. My interest was to follow the cold exciton or photon at the nuclear interface to determine the beginning of the formation of the mass particles as given elsewhere in the Forum. The idea involved the neutrino charge binding half to the electron and half to the positron. In other words it functions as a binding agent in the exciton sense. Electron-hole excitons are "bound" in the solid state. This is quite vague here,but it gives you an idea of the concept. Thanks again. wbw
Thanks for your comment, wbw.
Mostly I wanted to correct the idea that neutron repulsion had
1. No factual basis (NO DATA), and
2. No peer-reviewed scientific papers (THEORY HAS NOT BEEN THASHED OUT).
In fact, I am an experimentalist who was troubled since the early 1960s by the sloppy defination of nuclear binding energy.
I could not identify the biggest mistake until 2000, when graduate students in my "Special Topics in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry" course (Chem 471) made 3-D plots of the nuclear surface defined by the 3,000 known nuclides.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
Trends in the data revealed that:
a.) The n-p interaction is strongly attractive,
b.) The n-n interaction is strongly repulsive, and
c.) The p-p interaction is equally repulsive, and becomes greater from repulsive Coulomb interactions between the positive (+) charges on the protons.
http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz
Some of the students who helped make the first 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface are Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Prashanth Jangam, Aditya Katragada, Daniel Ragland, Yashmeet Singh, Bing Zhang, and Qiqing (Max) Zhong.
James-Alan Holt Powers, an unusually talented senior in nuclear engineering who became fascinated with our results, was planning to work on ths project when he suddenly and unexpectedly died at 17 years of age.
Our next paper was dedicated to his memory.
http://tinyurl.com/38un57
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Thanks for the comment. In this same thread you will see the report of the internatonal cosmology meeting under Hilton Ratcliff. Both he, (and I) conclude that black holes do not exist, per se, nor do we subscribe to the expansion of the universe. My pseudo text simply starts with photons and follows their logical progression toward cold dark matter, where it is assumed to have "mass". That mass allows it to accrete to form matter constituents, by a process (below) to be determined, that is postulated to be gravity acting on photon mass. The end point was to describe a perpetual universe, infinite in space and time. It was written in 2003 and elicited no comments, since it assigned mass to the photon.
I welcome your response, because it is not at odds with your prior work, but rather is in agreement. I liked the neutron repulsion part of your comments. I had postulated the photon to be "repulsive in the near, but attractive in the far." It has been said that the photon, neutrino, exciton, are possibly variants of the same thing. My interest was to follow the cold exciton or photon at the nuclear interface to determine the beginning of the formation of the mass particles as given elsewhere in the Forum. The idea involved the neutrino charge binding half to the electron and half to the positron. In other words it functions as a binding agent in the exciton sense. Electron-hole excitons are "bound" in the solid state. This is quite vague here,but it gives you an idea of the concept. Thanks again. wbw
Thanks for your comment, wbw.
Mostly I wanted to correct the idea that neutron repulsion had
1. No factual basis (NO DATA), and
2. No peer-reviewed scientific papers (THEORY HAS NOT BEEN THASHED OUT).
In fact, I am an experimentalist who was troubled since the early 1960s by the sloppy defination of nuclear binding energy.
I could not identify the biggest mistake until 2000, when graduate students in my "Special Topics in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry" course (Chem 471) made 3-D plots of the nuclear surface defined by the 3,000 known nuclides.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
Trends in the data revealed that:
a.) The n-p interaction is strongly attractive,
b.) The n-n interaction is strongly repulsive, and
c.) The p-p interaction is equally repulsive, and becomes greater from repulsive Coulomb interactions between the positive (+) charges on the protons.
http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz
Some of the students who helped make the first 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface are Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Prashanth Jangam, Aditya Katragada, Daniel Ragland, Yashmeet Singh, Bing Zhang, and Qiqing (Max) Zhong.
James-Alan Holt Powers, an unusually talented senior in nuclear engineering who became fascinated with our results, was planning to work on ths project when he suddenly and unexpectedly died at 17 years of age.
Our next paper was dedicated to his memory.
http://tinyurl.com/38un57
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
One thing that is often left out of the genesis of structures in the universe are simple chemical processes early on. Currently, gravity is assumed to do it all using tiny density fluctuations, within a continuum of material so light that expansion diffusion should pose a problem maintaining any tiny center of gravity. If you include a little chemistry one doesn't have this problem. For example, clouds of hydrogen atoms and electrons should bind via the sharing of electrons between protons, with higher energy electrons sharing extended protons in a loose way The result is a cloud of hydrogen atoms and electrons staying in one spot. Loosely analogous to a cloud on earth which is bound by loose hydrogen bonds.
If one wants gamma bursts how about lightning type affects within such an hydrogen cloud arrangement, with strong discharges acting to lower global potential. Space is cold and energy needs to be vented from the cloud that is acting like one big thing. Lightning on earth gives huge voltages. In a massive cloud of pure hydrogen atoms higher voltage popagations could be expected, maybe enough for some fusion.
Once the cloud vents energy and the outer parts of the atomic H cloud cools, lower energy H2 should begin to form. Due to its chemical stability, H2 will diffuse away from the cloud into space. The entropy expansion into space lowers the temperature of the hydrogen and the perimeter of the cloud, i.e., cooling sweat. This esculates the formation of perimeter H2 with the cloud also trying to discharge potential. Eventually another chemical potential appears within the esculating H2 diffusion connected to the need to release the heat of vaporization (liquification). The initial formation of nano-droplets slows diffusion. It also creates extreme surface tension creating another chemical potential to make bigger and bigger drops. I usually like to add a hydrogen rain storm here. But irregadless, once droplets and H-snow forms we have the makings for better centers of gravity.
The idea of iron in the core of the sun make no sense from the point of view of gravity and density. The reason being density is mass/volume. The iron, although heavier, will occupy more volume than a hydrogen proton due to retaining electrons in its lower level orbitals. In the case of iron its electrons makes its volume greater in proportion to its mass. Iron is a battle ship that floats on the fusion sea.
If one wants gamma bursts how about lightning type affects within such an hydrogen cloud arrangement, with strong discharges acting to lower global potential. Space is cold and energy needs to be vented from the cloud that is acting like one big thing. Lightning on earth gives huge voltages. In a massive cloud of pure hydrogen atoms higher voltage popagations could be expected, maybe enough for some fusion.
Once the cloud vents energy and the outer parts of the atomic H cloud cools, lower energy H2 should begin to form. Due to its chemical stability, H2 will diffuse away from the cloud into space. The entropy expansion into space lowers the temperature of the hydrogen and the perimeter of the cloud, i.e., cooling sweat. This esculates the formation of perimeter H2 with the cloud also trying to discharge potential. Eventually another chemical potential appears within the esculating H2 diffusion connected to the need to release the heat of vaporization (liquification). The initial formation of nano-droplets slows diffusion. It also creates extreme surface tension creating another chemical potential to make bigger and bigger drops. I usually like to add a hydrogen rain storm here. But irregadless, once droplets and H-snow forms we have the makings for better centers of gravity.
The idea of iron in the core of the sun make no sense from the point of view of gravity and density. The reason being density is mass/volume. The iron, although heavier, will occupy more volume than a hydrogen proton due to retaining electrons in its lower level orbitals. In the case of iron its electrons makes its volume greater in proportion to its mass. Iron is a battle ship that floats on the fusion sea.
From the article:
Thanks, MDT, for your comments.
You may also want to comment on new evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14088
You are right, Z = 26 for iron (Fe), so it has 26 times as many e- and p+ as hydrogen (H).
A = 56 for the most abundant isotope of iron (Fe). So it has 56 times the mass of hydrogen's most abundant isotope with A = 1.
Two variables poorly understood for the Sun are:
1. The internal temperature, T, may play an important role in determining the overall density of the Sun, just as it does for an ideal gas [PV = nRT].
2. The equation F = G (m-1 x m-2)/d^2 has been verified for small objects of mass, m. Are there measurements which rule out the possibility that the outer layers of a massive object, like the Sun, shield the gravitational attraction of the Sun's core from acting on an object beyond the solar surface?
Here are the names of an undergraduate student, Matt Seelke, and a graduate student, Sumeet Kamat, that I should have included among the students who helped develop and interpret the "Cradle of the Nuclides"
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com
QUOTE (http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html+)
According to Manuel, all of the “fragmentation” created by neutron stars and the fission of heavy elements at the centers of galaxies can be explained by “neutron repulsion.”
“Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and south ends of magnets,” Manuel explains. “Neutrons repel neutrons, protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000.”
Does this seem a bit odd to you?
“Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and south ends of magnets,” Manuel explains. “Neutrons repel neutrons, protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000.”
Does this seem a bit odd to you?
Thanks, MDT, for your comments.
You may also want to comment on new evidence that neutrinos do not oscillate:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14088
You are right, Z = 26 for iron (Fe), so it has 26 times as many e- and p+ as hydrogen (H).
A = 56 for the most abundant isotope of iron (Fe). So it has 56 times the mass of hydrogen's most abundant isotope with A = 1.
Two variables poorly understood for the Sun are:
1. The internal temperature, T, may play an important role in determining the overall density of the Sun, just as it does for an ideal gas [PV = nRT].
2. The equation F = G (m-1 x m-2)/d^2 has been verified for small objects of mass, m. Are there measurements which rule out the possibility that the outer layers of a massive object, like the Sun, shield the gravitational attraction of the Sun's core from acting on an object beyond the solar surface?
Here are the names of an undergraduate student, Matt Seelke, and a graduate student, Sumeet Kamat, that I should have included among the students who helped develop and interpret the "Cradle of the Nuclides"
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 25 2007, 06:55 PM)
One thing that is often left out of the genesis of structures in the universe are simple chemical processes early on. Currently, gravity is assumed to do it all using tiny density fluctuations, within a continuum of material so light that expansion diffusion should pose a problem maintaining any tiny center of gravity. If you include a little chemistry one doesn't have this problem. For example, clouds of hydrogen atoms and electrons should bind via the sharing of electrons between protons, with higher energy electrons sharing extended protons in a loose way The result is a cloud of hydrogen atoms and electrons staying in one spot. Loosely analogous to a cloud on earth which is bound by loose hydrogen bonds.
If one wants gamma bursts how about lightning type affects within such an hydrogen cloud arrangement, with strong discharges acting to lower global potential. Space is cold and energy needs to be vented from the cloud that is acting like one big thing. Lightning on earth gives huge voltages. In a massive cloud of pure hydrogen atoms higher voltage popagations could be expected, maybe enough for some fusion.
Once the cloud vents energy and the outer parts of the atomic H cloud cools, lower energy H2 should begin to form. Due to its chemical stability, H2 will diffuse away from the cloud into space. The entropy expansion into space lowers the temperature of the hydrogen and the perimeter of the cloud, i.e., cooling sweat. This esculates the formation of perimeter H2 with the cloud also trying to discharge potential. Eventually another chemical potential appears within the esculating H2 diffusion connected to the need to release the heat of vaporization (liquification). The initial formation of nano-droplets slows diffusion. It also creates extreme surface tension creating another chemical potential to make bigger and bigger drops. I usually like to add a hydrogen rain storm here. But irregadless, once droplets and H-snow forms we have the makings for better centers of gravity.
The idea of iron in the core of the sun make no sense from the point of view of gravity and density. The reason being density is mass/volume. The iron, although heavier, will occupy more volume than a hydrogen proton due to retaining electrons in its lower level orbitals. In the case of iron its electrons makes its volume greater in proportion to its mass. Iron is a battle ship that floats on the fusion sea.
MDT: Thanks for the reply and the information. I did not go into hydrogen and atom synthesis, as in the Gamow sense. I did conclude that hydrogen was the likely synthesis product and I appreciate your comments in regard to the hydrogenous bonds. I did note in your comments the possibility of fusion but it is my thought that we lack the implosion needed to obtain that. Since fusion has not been observed one could say that some of this might even occur and it could be a form of synthesis, but the products ought to be detectable. My own thought about hydrogen was how it escapes our gravity, and more importantly what gravity field is required to hold it. I have never seen this discussed. As for the miscibility of substances in liquids, I have never seeen a treatment of that either. Usually it is just measured as the solubility product. I do note however that Einstein got the Nobel, not for relativity but for Brownian motion, which is the random motions as you know. That however was the concept applied to gases. WBW
If one wants gamma bursts how about lightning type affects within such an hydrogen cloud arrangement, with strong discharges acting to lower global potential. Space is cold and energy needs to be vented from the cloud that is acting like one big thing. Lightning on earth gives huge voltages. In a massive cloud of pure hydrogen atoms higher voltage popagations could be expected, maybe enough for some fusion.
Once the cloud vents energy and the outer parts of the atomic H cloud cools, lower energy H2 should begin to form. Due to its chemical stability, H2 will diffuse away from the cloud into space. The entropy expansion into space lowers the temperature of the hydrogen and the perimeter of the cloud, i.e., cooling sweat. This esculates the formation of perimeter H2 with the cloud also trying to discharge potential. Eventually another chemical potential appears within the esculating H2 diffusion connected to the need to release the heat of vaporization (liquification). The initial formation of nano-droplets slows diffusion. It also creates extreme surface tension creating another chemical potential to make bigger and bigger drops. I usually like to add a hydrogen rain storm here. But irregadless, once droplets and H-snow forms we have the makings for better centers of gravity.
The idea of iron in the core of the sun make no sense from the point of view of gravity and density. The reason being density is mass/volume. The iron, although heavier, will occupy more volume than a hydrogen proton due to retaining electrons in its lower level orbitals. In the case of iron its electrons makes its volume greater in proportion to its mass. Iron is a battle ship that floats on the fusion sea.
MDT: Thanks for the reply and the information. I did not go into hydrogen and atom synthesis, as in the Gamow sense. I did conclude that hydrogen was the likely synthesis product and I appreciate your comments in regard to the hydrogenous bonds. I did note in your comments the possibility of fusion but it is my thought that we lack the implosion needed to obtain that. Since fusion has not been observed one could say that some of this might even occur and it could be a form of synthesis, but the products ought to be detectable. My own thought about hydrogen was how it escapes our gravity, and more importantly what gravity field is required to hold it. I have never seen this discussed. As for the miscibility of substances in liquids, I have never seeen a treatment of that either. Usually it is just measured as the solubility product. I do note however that Einstein got the Nobel, not for relativity but for Brownian motion, which is the random motions as you know. That however was the concept applied to gases. WBW
wbraxtonwilson, CHILL OUT. STOP POSTING THAT HUGE QUOTE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Do you even know how to have a conversation? You don't need to repeatedly post until somebody answers you. I hope you get your warning level increased due to spam.
QUOTE (omatumr+Jun 25 2007, 04:30 PM)
Thanks for your comment, wbw.
Mostly I wanted to correct the idea that neutron repulsion had
1. No factual basis (NO DATA), and
2. No peer-reviewed scientific papers (THEORY HAS NOT BEEN THASHED OUT).
In fact, I am an experimentalist who was troubled since the early 1960s by the sloppy defination of nuclear binding energy.
I could not identify the biggest mistake until 2000, when graduate students in my "Special Topics in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry" course (Chem 471) made 3-D plots of the nuclear surface defined by the 3,000 known nuclides.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
Trends in the data revealed that:
a.) The n-p interaction is strongly attractive,
b.) The n-n interaction is strongly repulsive, and
c.) The p-p interaction is equally repulsive, and becomes greater from repulsive Coulomb interactions between the positive (+) charges on the protons.
http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz
Some of the students who helped make the first 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface are Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Prashanth Jangam, Aditya Katragada, Daniel Ragland, Yashmeet Singh, Bing Zhang, and Qiqing (Max) Zhong.
James-Alan Holt Powers, an unusually talented senior in nuclear engineering who became fascinated with our results, was planning to work on ths project when he suddenly and unexpectedly died at 17 years of age.
Our next paper was dedicated to his memory.
http://tinyurl.com/38un57
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr: The concept of neutron replusion is not mine and I do not see why there should be such a thing. I have never gotten to the neutron yet, using the postulate that matter can be synthesized from radiation. To do that, one has to satisfy the demands of particle physics and that is a real brick wall, unless there is a simplification that can emerge. That would be like a repeat of the Gelman work to develop the quark scenario. I simply believe that radiation from high temperature must "dethermalize" and form matter and this as a repetitive process for a cyclic infinite universe. It is obvious that the model must receive the support of further investigation to establish it as valid. It is direct competitor of reductionism, either cosmologically or in accelerator physics. I have made a comment that I think the photon is repulsive in the near but attractive in the "far". That concept applied to the nucleons sugests they too may have such properties, but I have no information in this regard. Nature may abhorr a vacuum, but she also remains dispersive by repulsion. Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract. Strange but true. WBW
Mostly I wanted to correct the idea that neutron repulsion had
1. No factual basis (NO DATA), and
2. No peer-reviewed scientific papers (THEORY HAS NOT BEEN THASHED OUT).
In fact, I am an experimentalist who was troubled since the early 1960s by the sloppy defination of nuclear binding energy.
I could not identify the biggest mistake until 2000, when graduate students in my "Special Topics in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry" course (Chem 471) made 3-D plots of the nuclear surface defined by the 3,000 known nuclides.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
Trends in the data revealed that:
a.) The n-p interaction is strongly attractive,
b.) The n-n interaction is strongly repulsive, and
c.) The p-p interaction is equally repulsive, and becomes greater from repulsive Coulomb interactions between the positive (+) charges on the protons.
http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz
Some of the students who helped make the first 3-D plots of the nuclear energy surface are Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Prashanth Jangam, Aditya Katragada, Daniel Ragland, Yashmeet Singh, Bing Zhang, and Qiqing (Max) Zhong.
James-Alan Holt Powers, an unusually talented senior in nuclear engineering who became fascinated with our results, was planning to work on ths project when he suddenly and unexpectedly died at 17 years of age.
Our next paper was dedicated to his memory.
http://tinyurl.com/38un57
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr: The concept of neutron replusion is not mine and I do not see why there should be such a thing. I have never gotten to the neutron yet, using the postulate that matter can be synthesized from radiation. To do that, one has to satisfy the demands of particle physics and that is a real brick wall, unless there is a simplification that can emerge. That would be like a repeat of the Gelman work to develop the quark scenario. I simply believe that radiation from high temperature must "dethermalize" and form matter and this as a repetitive process for a cyclic infinite universe. It is obvious that the model must receive the support of further investigation to establish it as valid. It is direct competitor of reductionism, either cosmologically or in accelerator physics. I have made a comment that I think the photon is repulsive in the near but attractive in the "far". That concept applied to the nucleons sugests they too may have such properties, but I have no information in this regard. Nature may abhorr a vacuum, but she also remains dispersive by repulsion. Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract. Strange but true. WBW
QUOTE (wbraxtonwilson+Jun 25 2007, 11:33 PM)
omatumr: The concept of neutron replusion is not mine and I do not see why there should be such a thing. I have never gotten to the neutron yet, using the postulate that matter can be synthesized from radiation. To do that, one has to satisfy the demands of particle physics and that is a real brick wall, unless there is a simplification that can emerge. That would be like a repeat of the Gelman work to develop the quark scenario. I simply believe that radiation from high temperature must "dethermalize" and form matter and this as a repetitive process for a cyclic infinite universe. It is obvious that the model must receive the support of further investigation to establish it as valid. It is direct competitor of reductionism, either cosmologically or in accelerator physics. I have made a comment that I think the photon is repulsive in the near but attractive in the "far". That concept applied to the nucleons sugests they too may have such properties, but I have no information in this regard. Nature may abhorr a vacuum, but she also remains dispersive by repulsion. Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract. Strange but true. WBW
I agree: "Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract."
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
I agree: "Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract."
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
QUOTE (omatumr+Jun 26 2007, 01:28 AM)
I agree: "Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract."
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
omatumr:
In my mind I come up with the notion that bosons and fermions are made for each other. Bosons repel, but if a fermion is added is attractive. Similarly, a fermion prefers to attract charge to move toward a boson. This interplay goes on throughout the particle system. It becomes complicated when you move into particles and have only half the information. The devil is in the spin system apparently, too.If you do not see a particle you cannot conclude. For example, a neutrino passes through undetected. How do you conclude all of them went through? Incoming counts, and outgoing counts are apparently insufficient to conclude. This is just an example. You cannot draw a positive conclusion from a negative result. In the threads I made the point that the photon splits and "gives" its charge to the electron, as per Feynmann. The split charge alters the boson to be a fermion and it then becomes available for interplay. Just a thought that I have expounded on elsewhere. WBW
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
omatumr:
In my mind I come up with the notion that bosons and fermions are made for each other. Bosons repel, but if a fermion is added is attractive. Similarly, a fermion prefers to attract charge to move toward a boson. This interplay goes on throughout the particle system. It becomes complicated when you move into particles and have only half the information. The devil is in the spin system apparently, too.If you do not see a particle you cannot conclude. For example, a neutrino passes through undetected. How do you conclude all of them went through? Incoming counts, and outgoing counts are apparently insufficient to conclude. This is just an example. You cannot draw a positive conclusion from a negative result. In the threads I made the point that the photon splits and "gives" its charge to the electron, as per Feynmann. The split charge alters the boson to be a fermion and it then becomes available for interplay. Just a thought that I have expounded on elsewhere. WBW
QUOTE (omatumr+Jun 26 2007, 01:28 AM)
I agree: "Likes stilll repel and opposites still attract."
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
omatumr:
Concur. likes can join, as in the diphoton and the diquarks etc. I have the notion that it is spin related and there are models to that effect on the Forum as a model depicting the item like a dipole with the axes crossed. Also I have always been interested in the way a broad band flash tube could be put in a cavity resonator and emerge as a unique frequency. The exchange is in the walls as a photon solid reaction apparently, although there are comments that photons "sense" the properties of its neighbors, and accordingly can be modified. By now, I should imagine this is reasonably well understood. wbw
Even more strange: Particles that repel also pair up!
Electrons form pairs.
Protons form pairs.
Neutrons form pairs.
Science leads to humility; pseudo-science leads to false pride.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
"To know that you do not know is the best.
To pretend to know when you do not know
is a disease."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
omatumr:
Concur. likes can join, as in the diphoton and the diquarks etc. I have the notion that it is spin related and there are models to that effect on the Forum as a model depicting the item like a dipole with the axes crossed. Also I have always been interested in the way a broad band flash tube could be put in a cavity resonator and emerge as a unique frequency. The exchange is in the walls as a photon solid reaction apparently, although there are comments that photons "sense" the properties of its neighbors, and accordingly can be modified. By now, I should imagine this is reasonably well understood. wbw
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
latrosicarius: I noted your comment in which you draw a conclusion about me being repititious, when you have NO information. That is not science. I do not repeatedly post anything and the only posts made recently were either peripheral reply comments or on an entirely different subject area. The Forum has administrators who know what they need to do and need no help from you. They also [QUOTE]do not need every hack with an axe to grind making mindless inane useless comments. (The post was originally in "This is Nonsense", but was removed sequentially to different threads, as new ones emerged. I did not start new threads; they are started by others and the administrators make the changes to build the strucure they want. The original "text" was in 03-04 with changes to update added in 06. I plan to revise it further and will post that with new undated NASA material as it emerges. Have you read the companion and collected comments of HIlton Ratcliffe and his symposium on internal cosmology and new physics? WBW
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
latrosicarius: I noted your comment in which you draw a conclusion about me being repititious, when you have NO information. That is not science. I do not repeatedly post anything and the only posts made recently were either peripheral reply comments or on an entirely different subject area. The Forum has administrators who know what they need to do and need no help from you. They also [QUOTE]do not need every hack with an axe to grind making mindless inane useless comments. (The post was originally in "This is Nonsense", but was removed sequentially to different threads, as new ones emerged. I did not start new threads; they are started by others and the administrators make the changes to build the strucure they want. The original "text" was in 03-04 with changes to update added in 06. I plan to revise it further and will post that with new undated NASA material as it emerges. Have you read the companion and collected comments of HIlton Ratcliffe and his symposium on internal cosmology and new physics?
WBW
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr:
I note that you have had worked with Hilton Ratcliffe at times in the past. It is my belief that Hilton and I have advanced very similar concepts but he has never spoken in support of the synthesis of matter via the accretion of matter from photons. He has preferred to remain aloof from the concept. As stated elsewhere, it seems logical that light does not evaporate, as Hilton has stated, but remains in the universe and is involved in a/the cyclic mode. From your particle physics days you undoubtedly know of the Gamow theory for isotope synthesis which was not adopted, as I recall. (I lost my chart of the isotopes in moving!) I am curious to know if you had ever considered isotopes to be initiated from serial low energy particle accretions as opposed to (accelerator reductions) or the cosmic model of UHP/T compression (fusion). One involves nature "building" particles as opposed to the process of "reduction" that does not produce new elements, only particles. I am curious if you had given this any thought in your prior work in isotopes. That[QUOTE] concept emerged because of the ubiquitous role of the photon in all physics. wbw
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr:
I note that you have had worked with Hilton Ratcliffe at times in the past. It is my belief that Hilton and I have advanced very similar concepts but he has never spoken in support of the synthesis of matter via the accretion of matter from photons. He has preferred to remain aloof from the concept. As stated elsewhere, it seems logical that light does not evaporate, as Hilton has stated, but remains in the universe and is involved in a/the cyclic mode. From your particle physics days you undoubtedly know of the Gamow theory for isotope synthesis which was not adopted, as I recall. (I lost my chart of the isotopes in moving!) I am curious to know if you had ever considered isotopes to be initiated from serial low energy particle accretions as opposed to (accelerator reductions) or the cosmic model of UHP/T compression (fusion). One involves nature "building" particles as opposed to the process of "reduction" that does not produce new elements, only particles. I am curious if you had given this any thought in your prior work in isotopes. That[QUOTE] concept emerged because of the ubiquitous role of the photon in all physics. wbw
Dear friends,
Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", will be a delight to anyone seriously interested in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
This is a bombshell for the smug community of scientists that have controlled research funds, publications, and access to large research facilities and telescopes to promote the illusion of the universe described by the standard model.
Hilton is a great storyteller.
Curious minds of all ages will thrill to his telling of a journey through the real universe.
This is science unplugged, without the magical thinking and mathematical models that have mystified our heavens and isolated us from our own exciting universe.
I purchased this 400-page paperback book from the publisher for only $15.20 plus shipping. It is also available from several bookstores,
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", will be a delight to anyone seriously interested in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
This is a bombshell for the smug community of scientists that have controlled research funds, publications, and access to large research facilities and telescopes to promote the illusion of the universe described by the standard model.
Hilton is a great storyteller.
Curious minds of all ages will thrill to his telling of a journey through the real universe.
This is science unplugged, without the magical thinking and mathematical models that have mystified our heavens and isolated us from our own exciting universe.
I purchased this 400-page paperback book from the publisher for only $15.20 plus shipping. It is also available from several bookstores,
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
QUOTE (omatumr+Jul 21 2007, 05:58 AM)
Dear friends,
Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", will be a delight to anyone seriously interested in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
This is a bombshell for the smug community of scientists that have controlled research funds, publications, and access to large research facilities and telescopes to promote the illusion of the universe described by the standard model.
Hilton is a great storyteller.
Curious minds of all ages will thrill to his telling of a journey through the real universe.
This is science unplugged, without the magical thinking and mathematical models that have mystified our heavens and isolated us from our own exciting universe.
I purchased this 400-page paperback book from the publisher for only $15.20 plus shipping. It is also available from several bookstores,
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr: Thank you for the recommendation for Hilton's book. I will get it and I am sure I will enjoy it. As you know from posts like the above, I have commented especially in regard to his symposium of cosmologists, and his recommendation as to the need for some revisions in physics, that has long been dominated by dogma. My comments indicated I concur with Hilton, noting only that he avoided addressing the fact that light is, as a reviewer commented, "rejuvenated", as I had postulated for consideration for a cyclic infinite universe. wbraxtonwilson.
Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", will be a delight to anyone seriously interested in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
This is a bombshell for the smug community of scientists that have controlled research funds, publications, and access to large research facilities and telescopes to promote the illusion of the universe described by the standard model.
Hilton is a great storyteller.
Curious minds of all ages will thrill to his telling of a journey through the real universe.
This is science unplugged, without the magical thinking and mathematical models that have mystified our heavens and isolated us from our own exciting universe.
I purchased this 400-page paperback book from the publisher for only $15.20 plus shipping. It is also available from several bookstores,
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
omatumr: Thank you for the recommendation for Hilton's book. I will get it and I am sure I will enjoy it. As you know from posts like the above, I have commented especially in regard to his symposium of cosmologists, and his recommendation as to the need for some revisions in physics, that has long been dominated by dogma. My comments indicated I concur with Hilton, noting only that he avoided addressing the fact that light is, as a reviewer commented, "rejuvenated", as I had postulated for consideration for a cyclic infinite universe. wbraxtonwilson.
Does anyone remember that claim or if u like, that theory that claims that (that that that :) nothing ever wandered past the event horizon :) Its a new one. Maybe the authors? of that one got their idea from this one???
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 21 2007, 12:22 PM)
Does anyone remember that claim or if u like, that theory that claims that (that that that nothing ever wandered past the event horizon Its a new one. Maybe the authors? of that one got their idea from this one???
yor on:
It would seem to me that most observers would have noted that the BH concept is being modified on a continuing basis, however reluctantly. Specifically, the more recent position is that some "Hawking" radiation can leak from the former absolutism of the now questionable BH. It is just physics as usual, and it appears that these former "a priori" concepts are being modified as positions change. I have referred to this in a recent post, that investigators are moving away from early "dogma" and that is good. But there is also the need for new experimental backup or other unequivocal data to "prove" any of the mew emerging concepts. The old original concepts emerged from mathematical physics, even in the absence of supporting experimental data, and indeed may never be fully resolved by the requirement for valid proofs, due to the inherent, even impossible, difficulties. It is turtles all the way down again, isn't it? wbw
nothing ever wandered past the event horizon Its a new one. Maybe the authors? of that one got their idea from this one??? yor on:
It would seem to me that most observers would have noted that the BH concept is being modified on a continuing basis, however reluctantly. Specifically, the more recent position is that some "Hawking" radiation can leak from the former absolutism of the now questionable BH. It is just physics as usual, and it appears that these former "a priori" concepts are being modified as positions change. I have referred to this in a recent post, that investigators are moving away from early "dogma" and that is good. But there is also the need for new experimental backup or other unequivocal data to "prove" any of the mew emerging concepts. The old original concepts emerged from mathematical physics, even in the absence of supporting experimental data, and indeed may never be fully resolved by the requirement for valid proofs, due to the inherent, even impossible, difficulties. It is turtles all the way down again, isn't it? wbw
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr:
[QUOTE]
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr:
[QUOTE]
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr: Institutions block all attempts to access you. Comments may be obesrved placed elsewhere on the forum. wbw[QUOTE]
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
omatumr: Institutions block all attempts to access you. Comments may be obesrved placed elsewhere on the forum. wbw[QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wbraxtonwilson,Aug 6 2007, 07:02 PM] omatumr: Institutions block all attempts to access you. Comments may be observed placed elsewhere on the forum. wbw[QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Thanks for the message, W. Braxton Wilson.
I do not understand how the web works or how institutions can block attempts to access me. But we live in very strange times.
You might try a google search for Oliver K. Manuel.
Or this profile: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Or this web page: http://www.omatumr.com/
Or this summary: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
My opponents are politically powerful, but they cannot change "what is".
http://www.omatumr.com/three_truths.pdf
"What is" includes overwhelming experimental evidence that:
a.) The Sun is a plasma diffuser that formed on the core of a supernova.
b.) The Sun is made mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca.
c.) Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos.
d.) Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is "smoke" from the nuclear furnace at its core.
Please send an e-mail <omatumr@yahoo.com> or call [1-573-647-1377] and let me know if these links work for you.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
1-573-647-1377
omatumr@yahoo.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Thanks for the message, W. Braxton Wilson.
I do not understand how the web works or how institutions can block attempts to access me. But we live in very strange times.
You might try a google search for Oliver K. Manuel.
Or this profile: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Or this web page: http://www.omatumr.com/
Or this summary: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
My opponents are politically powerful, but they cannot change "what is".
http://www.omatumr.com/three_truths.pdf
"What is" includes overwhelming experimental evidence that:
a.) The Sun is a plasma diffuser that formed on the core of a supernova.
b.) The Sun is made mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca.
c.) Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos.
d.) Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is "smoke" from the nuclear furnace at its core.
Please send an e-mail <omatumr@yahoo.com> or call [1-573-647-1377] and let me know if these links work for you.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
1-573-647-1377
omatumr@yahoo.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
QUOTE (Hilton Ratcliffe+Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM)
Hi Asgard,
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Omatumr: My block was in regard to Journals, not Forums. Attempts to reply to you indicated I was blocked by being in "flood stage", so I could not comment. If this gets through, I will try again. Wendell
Thank you for your comments. I will follow your numbering in my response below.
1a. There is no experimental or observational evidence that the universe is expanding. You selectively attribute the vague redshift correlation seen by Hubble to the Doppler Effect, i.e. the lengthening or shortening of the wavelength of a wave oscillation dependent on relative motion of the wave source with respect to the observer. This is a simplistic view, long since abandoned by Big Bang theorists. It seems, Ansgard, that you do not know very much about redshift or indeed the Standard Model of cosmology as it currently stands. The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 are arguably the root cause of modern cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: “Actually, a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed how he could reach such a conclusion—galactic velocities seem almost uncorrelated with their distance… It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that… Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.” Big Bang is a mathematically derived theory. Lemaître (the original author) based it on Friedmann’s solutions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which suggested that, mathematically at least, the universe should be expanding or contracting (although Einstein himself steadfastly disagreed). This became formalised as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Walker-Robertson (FLWR) metric, which is the basis of the Standard Model. The idea of an expanding universe appealed to both Lemaître and Hubble for philosophical reasons, although it must be said that Hubble left the door open to a non-Doppler explanation right up to his last lecture in 1952.
Redshift in light can have any of a combination of causes. Gravity causes redshift, Compton scattering causes redshift, in fact any interaction that causes photons to lose energy will result in longer wavelengths and therefore a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Arp and Burbidge are at the forefront of showing that there is not a fixed relationship between redshift and distance. Arp has produced catalogues of observational evidence showing the physical association of low redshift active galaxies with high redshift quasars, thereby demonstrating that objects at the same distance from us can have highly varying redshifts. This conclusively falsifies the Hubble Law. The reason that Big Bang has abandoned Doppler effect as a cause of redshift is too involved to deal with here, but it is equally invalid. By the way, Ansgard, Doppler effect does not change the visual colour of galaxies and stars. That is determined by other factors and tells us other properties of the light source.
The only observational evidence we have of relative motion at the scale of galaxies is that of galaxy collisions, and that of course shows the direct opposite of expansion. There is no empirical evidence supporting expansion, and as scientists we should therefore not assume that the universe is expanding.
1b. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.
1c. I’m surprised that you bring up Olbers’ Paradox. It is something that has been dealt with and settled long ago, and fallen completely from favour, even with mainstream cosmologists. Briefly, the arguments against it are: Firstly, over very large distances (somewhat greater than 1.4 x 1010 light years), light redshifts so severely that it is no longer in the range of visible radiation. Secondly, adherents of Big Bang cosmology point out that light from these distances would not be visible anyhow, since it had not yet had enough time to get to us. Of course, there’s another angle on it; darkness is most often an illusion conjured up by the limitations of human eyesight. If we look unaided at a scene where there is an absence of radiation in the very narrow range that we are capable of seeing, then it will appear dark. We would remain blissfully ignorant of radiation streaming towards us in X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio, just as we hear silence amid a cacophony of infra- and ultrasound. If our eyes were tuned in to those wavelengths, then the night sky really would be bright as day!
1d. The presence of dark matter and dark energy is controversial and far from proven. They most certainly have not been observed, and cannot be, by definition. Both of these hypothetical entities are required by Big Bang theory, so remove that and the problem goes away. Big Bang attempts to explain only self-inflicted problems, and I repeat, we do not need it to explain anything we can see. The rotational speed of galaxies is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, and that has been resolved by astronomers (I am one of them) by the use of MOND. Furthermore, rotational speeds are calculated without involving the effects of electricity, which is an unforgivable oversight.
2. The attempts by Big Bang cosmologists to arrive at a “geometry” for the universe are absurd. There are several models, and the analogy that you use of the expanding surface of a balloon is often raised. It doesn’t work. Firstly, even if radiant structures were arranged on a 2-dimensional surface (and we can see that they are not), then as that surface expands the objects on it would not only move away from each other but also radially away from the centre of the balloon. There would be a central “point of departure” in the mathematical sense. Secondly, any sphere containing objects with mass would have a centre of gravity approximately at its geometrical centre. The idea of a finite but unbounded universe (like you suggest) runs into numerous practical problems, not the least of which is the fact that all astronomical observations show a 3-D Euclidean space not in any way resembling the one that you describe.
3. We cannot by any realistic means calculate the age of the universe.
Even assuming that it is expanding, the rate (H0) is not known with certainty or agreement, since the expansion itself is not observed and cannot therefore be measured. It is simply postulated from the theoretical base.
4. The best optical-infrared image we have currently of the distant universe is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF). Analysis of these data shows mature galaxies containing very old, iron-rich and red giant stars at a distance of 12 billion light years. We conservatively estimate that these structures are at least 10 billion years old. Add the 12 billion years travel time for the light to get to us and we have a minimum of 22 billion years for the age of the observed systems. Also the gigantic superclusters now seen and the huge voids between them are calculated by all known physics to have required at the very least 60 billion years to form. You say “But now there is no problem with this issue.” Really? What science do you base that sweeping statement on?
5. The mechanism of the Big Bang explosion (or whatever word you want to use for it) is not described by known physics. For example, the singularity (or the “primeval atom” which followed it) would of course have been a black hole (all matter within the Schwarzschild radius). By what physics do you suggest that a black hole can explode? Big Bang invents physics (and mathematics!) as it goes along to cope with insurmountable problems created by a totally unrealistic theory.
6. You say that nothing can travel at the speed of light. I presume that you believe also that nothing can travel faster than light. What happens to your receding galaxies that go faster the further they are away? Eventually (well within the observable universe if 55< H0 <200 km sec-1 kpc-1) they will recede at >c. Also, what about inflation, a crucial ingredient of Big Bang? The current model suggests that the rate was 10 to the power 1,000,000 (1 and a million zeroes) times the speed of light. Even Guth’s original model had initial expansion many times the speed of light. By what physics do you explain that? “There is no privileged direction” you say. I agree, but for different reasons. How do you explain the privileged direction obtained by WMAP from CMBR (600 km/sec in the direction of Virgo)?
7. You should get past references to COBE. It’s ten years out of date. “If there is Big Bang, there is expansion.” Why? What was the nature of that bang, in real terms, that it could impart such kinetic force on the entire universe? The formation of structure in Big Bang relies on the principle gravitational aggregation about a point (for your interest, plasma cosmology does not depend on this). If you hypothetically reverse time, the Big Bang universe would at some stage have been localised at a point, i.e. it would have had a centre of gravity. Bring in escape velocities, densities, and total gravitation (initially infinite) and you surely can see how badly your theory runs into trouble.
Am I a scientist? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so. I’ve been involved in astrophysics for more than 30 years and have numerous publications to my name. Are you? Critical thinking is essential to the progress of science. “Science is the culture of doubt.” – Richard Feynman.
For an overview of how organised alternatives to Big bang are, you may care to read my review on the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, published in the journal Progress in Physics, vol 3, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
Some other useful references:
1. Curtis Struck Galaxy Collisions (Physics Reports, archived at arXiv.org 9908269, 1999). Dr Struck published a revised and updated paper in 2005: Galaxy Collisions – Dawn of a New Era (arXiv:astro-ph/0511335 v1, 10 Nov 2005)
2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998
3. http://metaresearch.org
4. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)
5. http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
6. http://bigbangneverhappened.org
7. http://altcosmology.org
8. http://cosmologystatement.org
Regards, Hilton Ratcliffe
Omatumr: My block was in regard to Journals, not Forums. Attempts to reply to you indicated I was blocked by being in "flood stage", so I could not comment. If this gets through, I will try again. Wendell
Thanks, Wendell.
Science is a search for truth. In that sense it is sacred.
We live in an era when politicians use scientists, scientists use politicians, and our tax funds finance this fraud.
This unholy alliance has successfully sold the public on Anthropologic Global Warming [AGW], the Big Bang [BB], the Standard Solar Model [SSM], and Oscillating Solar Neutrinos [OSN].
However, we should not be discouraged. Political power and federal tax funds cannot change what is. The oldest scriptures tell us the eventual outcome:
"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
Mundaka Upanishad, III.1.6
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr@yahoo.com
Science is a search for truth. In that sense it is sacred.
We live in an era when politicians use scientists, scientists use politicians, and our tax funds finance this fraud.
This unholy alliance has successfully sold the public on Anthropologic Global Warming [AGW], the Big Bang [BB], the Standard Solar Model [SSM], and Oscillating Solar Neutrinos [OSN].
However, we should not be discouraged. Political power and federal tax funds cannot change what is. The oldest scriptures tell us the eventual outcome:
"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
Mundaka Upanishad, III.1.6
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr@yahoo.com
i don't know why you people try to support theory's that cant be pr oven,like take Einsteins theory's,we know black holes exist,but we still don't understand what causes them in a atomic particle perspective,like i have some interest in that area,but not too many scholars like me where i come from,I'm always trying to give a more logical perspective to people without harming the laws of time and space,as far as i am concerned the universe is a cosmic law where no laws conflict with one another,if they did,then we wouldn't be alive,like take time travel for instance,there is no possible way that such technology would ever be invented in the hands of a human being,because its too much power to give any person,it is probably the ultimate power that any human being could build,but it is impossible,because we have very little understanding of how the universe See's us in the past and future,so we have to be carefully for what we wish for,you can find me at www.myspace.com/levetate,professor b
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.