The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory

[Buffy]

F. Hoyle, Shyamal K. Banerjeew, Jayant V. Narlikarw, W. H. CcCrea, J. P. Wesley, Toivo Jaakkolo, G.burbidge, LingJun Wang, Harutyunian, H.A., Cooperstock, F. I., Faraoni, V., Vollick, D. N. , Zhou Yao qi, Chen Hai Yun,and so on ...... the above are against the big bang

 

I'll have to come back to this for a complete deconstruction (others jump in!), but a quick check shows that most of these people are A) dead (e.g. Hoyle, McCrea), B ) not really anti-Big Bang (e.g. Faraoni), or C) don't even show up in a cursory Google search.

 

The request is really about current researchers. The issue is that folks like Hoyle (who actually admitted being unable to disprove the early complaints about his Steady State theory), were never faced with all of the current data that supports the Big Bang. Maybe you can point some out and provide a quick summary of statements they've made backing your characterization of their positions with links that provide validation of those characterizations.

 

 

The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie, :phones:

Buffy

[xps13579]

There are thousands and tens of thousands of people absolutely opposing the big bang cosmology all over the world,it is neither possible nor necessary to tell names one by one clearly,and again the head post is to introduce the new gradualistic theory of universe alternative to the big bang cosmology and the advantage of the new theory is already said in the post and the purpose of the head post is not to talk about who oppose the big bang.

[exchemist]

There are thousands and tens of thousands of people absolutely opposing the big bang cosmology all over the world,it is neither possible nor necessary to tell names one by one clearly,and again the head post is to introduce the new gradualistic theory of universe alternative to the big bang cosmology and the advantage of the new theory is already said in the post and the purpose of the head post is not to talk about who oppose the big bang.

Do you really think we are so stupid that we don't know you are citing long dead people in your list, plus a load of non-entities that you may even have made up? Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick are real, serious and alive, it is true, but I can find no trace of a rejection by them of the Big Bang. They have some ideas on dark energy/expansion etc but that is quite another issue. 

 

You have no evidence at all to support your claim that cosmologists are abandoning (note the present tense, right?) the Big Bang theory. 

 

It is all in your mind. You, personally, may have abandoned it, but there is little serious dissent from the general principle at the moment in the science community.  

 

You obviously want us to read your pet theory and be impressed by it. But how likely is that, when you open the discussion by making false assertions? 

Edited May 12, 2017 by exchemist

[xps13579]

there are thousands and tens of thousands of students and professors,such as Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok alive, opposing the instantaneous creation of matter namely the big bang theory, if you question, may as well go to visit a university, I am sure that none really believe the big bang theory

[OceanBreeze]

there are thousands and tens of thousands of students and professors,such as Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok alive, opposing the instantaneous creation of matter namely the big bang theory, if you question, may as well go to visit a university, I am sure that none really believe the big bang theory

 

Probably most, if not all, current scientists accept that the Big Bang Theory is incomplete and not an entirely accurate cosmology. And, there are some maverick scientists, such as Steinhardt and Turok, who are working on alternative theories. At the same time, the BBT is well supported, both by the mathematics of General Relativity as well as the empirical evidence (cosmic microwave background, cosmological redshift, expanding universe, gravitational waves etc.)

 

So, making exaggerated claims that “thousands” have "abandoned" the BBT and there is a “crisis” in cosmology only damages your credibility, even before you have established any.

 

If you want your theory to get a fair hearing, either here or anywhere else, I suggest you cut out the hyperbole and just present your theory in a coherent manner and show us why you think it fits both the math and the observations at least as well as the BBT, and preferably better.

 

If you can do that, I am sure you will find some people here who are interested and will engage you in discussion.

If you cannot do that you are wasting your time and ours.

[exchemist]

there are thousands and tens of thousands of students and professors,such as Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok alive, opposing the instantaneous creation of matter namely the big bang theory, if you question, may as well go to visit a university, I am sure that none really believe the big bang theory

Well I notice you are now starting to narrow your personal definition of the Big Bang theory. The "instantaneous creation of matter" does not, so far as I can see, seem to be an essential part of the concept.

 

I quote Wiki: " The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe^[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.^[2][3][4] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,^[5][6] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.^[7] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." 

 

The earliest phases are said to be "subject to much speculation", i.e. are not essential parts of the concept. 

 

 

But here is some information about Paul Steinhardt, one of the founders of inflationary cosmology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Steinhardt

 

Where does it say he does not accept the Big Bang theory?

 

And here is information about Turok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Turok

 

Again, he seems to have devoted much of his academic life to developing the Big Bang theory, with no hint that I can see that he now disavows it. In fact I quote:

 

" Most recently, with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, Turok has been developing a cyclic model for the universe, in which the big bang is explained as a collision between two "brane-worlds" in M theory. The predictions of this model are in agreement with current cosmological data, but there are interesting differences with the predictions of cosmological inflation which will be probed by future experiments (probably by the Planck space observatory)."

 

Doesn't sound like someone who has "abandoned" the big bang theory, does it? 

 

So I think we need to understand, at the very least, what YOU think you mean by the big bang theory, as it is possible you are disagreeing with something that is not fundamental to the model in the first place - and which in consequence may not be endorsed by a lot of people in the field. For what it is worth, my limited understanding is that nobody says matter was created instantaneously. The main speculations seem to presume progressive particle production at a very early stage of the process.

[Super Polymath]

(cosmic microwave background,

 

 

'Tugs from beyond' article in my Fractal Dust Model thread begs to differ.

 

 

 

cosmological redshift,

 

Refer to Exponentially Special Relativity in 'Is Space Zero Gravity (0G) thread'

 

 

 

expanding universe,

Galaxies flying apart ftl?

Doubly Special Relativity, again refer to the 'is space 0g threadd'

 

 

 

,gravitational waves etc.)

 

Never proven, again refer to 'is space 0g thread'

 

You have much to learn young grasshopper. :) 

[Super Polymath]

If we're talking about subjective majority>informed minority.

 

Refer to Trump's election.

 

 

We should never rely on majority, "most people" accepting the Big Bang practically proves how wrong it is. 

[OceanBreeze]

'Tugs from beyond' article in my Fractal Dust Model thread begs to differ.

 

 

 

 

Refer to Exponentially Special Relativity in 'Is Space Zero Gravity (0G) thread'

 

 

 

Galaxies flying apart ftl?

Doubly Special Relativity, again refer to the 'is space 0g threadd'

 

 

 

 

Never proven, again refer to 'is space 0g thread'

 

You have much to learn young grasshopper. :)

 

Idiot

[Super Polymath]

Idiot

Nice non-rebuttal though. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Super Polymath

[xps13579]

it is certain that big bang theory will soon be abandoned because it cannot deal with the continuous change of galaxies or celestial bodies and only tell that universe came from a singular point,except this it solved no question about formation and evolution of galaxies.and that big bang are accepted isn't because it is right but it isn't disprovable .it seems exggerated to claim thousands” have "abandoned" ,in actuality people putting doubt on big bang indeed are more and more.cosmic microwave background has no thing to do with big bang and has other more rational explanation, so-called in accordance with observations only draw a forced analogy, in a word the big bang must be replaced by the gradualistic theory of universe

[exchemist]

it is certain that big bang theory will soon be abandoned because it cannot deal with the continuous change of galaxies or celestial bodies and only tell that universe came from a singular point,except this it solved no question about formation and evolution of galaxies.and that big bang are accepted isn't because it is right but it isn't disprovable .it seems exggerated to claim thousands” have "abandoned" ,in actuality people putting doubt on big bang indeed are more and more.cosmic microwave background has no thing to do with big bang and has other more rational explanation, so-called in accordance with observations only draw a forced analogy, in a word the big bang must be replaced by the gradualistic theory of universe

OK, this is getting beyond me. We have on this forum a highly erudite physicist called (with becoming modesty) "Super Polymath".

 

I suggest maybe you and he should discuss this between you, and the rest of us can watch and learn from it. :)

[A-wal]

Idiot

Further evidence that the rules don't apply to those who happen to take the same position as the mods!

 

The request is really about current researchers. The issue is that folks like Hoyle (who actually admitted being unable to disprove the early complaints about his Steady State theory), were never faced with all of the current data that supports the Big Bang. Maybe you can point some out and provide a quick summary of statements they've made backing your characterization of their positions with links that provide validation of those characterizations.

 

 

The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie, :phones:

Buffy

I think you're the one who's confused dear. There is nothing to support the big bang model other than red-shift that already been proven to be sometimes caused by something other than the object moving away from us and radiation that was detected by an instrument that had a greater margin of error than the observed results.

 

Even if red-shift were only related to distance and even if the detected radiation turns out to be real and to be coming from deep space, it doesn't necessarily mean that the red-shift is caused by recession or that the radiation is left over from the big bang. For a start the radiation isn't uniform enough and could even be coming from Earth. Light has to travel through interstellar and intergalactic space to become red-shifted, so it has to pass through hydrogen and plasma which could be responsible for the wavelength stretching. I still think that traveling across curved spacetime would also cause a greater red-shift at greater distances.

 

The evidence for the big bang is slim and very unconvincing to anyone with a basic understanding and any level of honesty.

 

 

Science advances one funeral at a time. :phones:

Edited May 18, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

Further evidence that the rules don't apply to those who happen to take the same position as the mods!

 

Naw. Everyone gets slapped here for getting out of line.

 

You *are* special though!  :cheer:

 

I think you're the one who's confused dear. There is nothing to support the big bang model other than red-shift that already been proven to be sometimes caused by something other than the object moving away from us and radiation that was detected by an instrument that had a greater margin of error than the observed results.

 

"Nothing! There's no proof AT ALL! Wah!"

 

You've already provided ample proof here that you know just enough to demonstrate rather well that you think you're smarter than all those cosmologists in the world who've built years of work on a "fallacy."

 

Yes, you're *special*!

 

You know there are lots of alternative theories out there, some of which--like m-theory, about which there was a really good episode of Space's Deepest Secrets on the Science Channel this week--that attack Inflation, but they all have just as many holes as the "accepted" theories do. There's lots of data for all of them for which, as one of the proponents for m-theory said, "we're still working on that." Specifically, m-theory is great as an alternative to Inflation, but it's got some real contradictions on explaining current expansion, which fall back to "oh well it's just like BBT after that." :rolleyes:

 

What comes across in your rantings though is just the usual conspiracy theory tripe that "The Establishment" is "out to get" the "mavericks."

 

Honestly, by making idiotic statements like "detected by an instrument that had a greater margin of error than the observed results," the m-theory folk would find you to be an embarrassment. 

 

Even if red-shift were only related to distance and even if the detected radiation turns out to be real and to be coming from deep space, it doesn't necessarily mean that the red-shift is caused by recession or that the radiation is left over from the big bang. For a start the radiation isn't uniform enough and could even be coming from Earth. Light has to travel through interstellar and intergalactic space to become red-shifted, so it has to pass through hydrogen and plasma which could be responsible for the wavelength stretching. I still think that traveling across curved spacetime would also cause a greater red-shift at greater distances.

 

Okay, you make a scientific-like statement, so I'll reply: Your implication here is that no one, anywhere in the field of cosmology, has ever considered your brilliant discovery and adjusted for it.

 

Really?

 

Climate change conspiracy theorists use this general approach as a go to excuse for why the "theory is all wrong" and then when they see people adjusting the raw data it's yet another conspiracy to "save the model by The Establishment."

 

So yah, we adjust for exactly these kinds of effects, we see anomalies (ooh! it's moving faster!), come up with modifications to the theory (dark energy!), and go from there. 

 

Have you got a big shift you're proposing? Cute. You and what data. No one took Einstein very seriously until the eclipse data came in. 

 

Are we complaining about your alternative theories? Sure, cuz you don't have the data yet to back 'em up, we'll push back with questions about it's weaknesses.

 

That's Science!

 

But when you get off track like this thread has with positively bizarre conspiracy theories and wildly transparent claims that no one who's an expert on this stuff has ever stopped to consider the "obvious" (and endlessly asked-and-answered) complaints that only a few have thought of, well that's no longer cosmology, that's psychology.

 

So really when you say stuff like:

 

The evidence for the big bang is slim and very unconvincing to anyone with a basic understanding and any level of honesty.

 

You just make it very clear to everyone that you not only have no idea what you're talking about, you're not really interested in physics or cosmology, you're interested in being the only one who's in the know about "the truth." 

 

And that's the psychology of conspiracy theorists.

 

We'd be glad to discuss that in a different thread! :cheer:

 

 

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! :phones:

Buffy

[OceanBreeze]

Buffy, you slay me!

[A-wal]

"Nothing! There's no proof AT ALL! Wah!"

Is this the level of argument that lead someone to see fit to make make you a mod? You also stole that exact response from me! I'm not a mod though, and you really don't behave like one.

 

You've already provided ample proof here that you know just enough to demonstrate rather well that you think you're smarter than all those cosmologists in the world who've built years of work on a "fallacy."

 

Yes, you're *special*!

 

You know there are lots of alternative theories out there, some of which--like m-theory, about which there was a really good episode of Space's Deepest Secrets on the Science Channel this week--that attack Inflation, but they all have just as many holes as the "accepted" theories do. There's lots of data for all of them for which, as one of the proponents for m-theory said, "we're still working on that." Specifically, m-theory is great as an alternative to Inflation, but it's got some real contradictions on explaining current expansion, which fall back to "oh well it's just like BBT after that." :rolleyes:

 

What comes across in your rantings though is just the usual conspiracy theory tripe that "The Establishment" is "out to get" the "mavericks."

You're assuming that the interpretation of the data that presumes an expanding universe is accurate though. There is no real evidence that the universe is expanding! The level of crap they put out to try to plug the holes in the theory is astounding. M-theory or inflation? How about the red-shift and microwave radiation are actually evidence of something other than this silly idea? It's so stupid that the people who don't buy into inflation and/or m-theory or considered the crackpots!

 

Honestly, by making idiotic statements like "detected by an instrument that had a greater margin of error than the observed results," the m-theory folk would find you to be an embarrassment.

That's what I was told. I'll admit that I don't know and I'm just taking the word of somebody else but that's exactly what you're doing. I believe it because I know how science works. It's so far away from honest that it's a joke. This applies only to the w-map, not to COBE. I was told COBE was nowhere near far enough away to rule out terrestrial radiation or give any kind of indication of how far away the radiation is coming from. Could be the heliosphere. This is an example of data dishonestly being made to fit a model.

 

Okay, you make a scientific-like statement, so I'll reply: Your implication here is that no one, anywhere in the field of cosmology, has ever considered your brilliant discovery and adjusted for it.

 

Really?

 

Climate change conspiracy theorists use this general approach as a go to excuse for why the "theory is all wrong" and then when they see people adjusting the raw data it's yet another conspiracy to "save the model by The Establishment."

 

So yah, we adjust for exactly these kinds of effects, we see anomalies (ooh! it's moving faster!), come up with modifications to the theory (dark energy!), and go from there. 

 

Have you got a big shift you're proposing? Cute. You and what data. No one took Einstein very seriously until the eclipse data came in. 

 

Are we complaining about your alternative theories? Sure, cuz you don't have the data yet to back 'em up, we'll push back with questions about it's weaknesses.

 

That's Science!

 

But when you get off track like this thread has with positively bizarre conspiracy theories and wildly transparent claims that no one who's an expert on this stuff has ever stopped to consider the "obvious" (and endlessly asked-and-answered) complaints that only a few have thought of, well that's no longer cosmology, that's psychology.

You think they know exactly how much hydrogen and plasma light passes through before it reaches us and are able to accurately account for it? There's also other stuff that could be causing it, electromagnetic fields, curvature of spacetime, etc. It very silly to claim that they know the exact properties of everything light passes through to reach us and the effects that would have on its wavelength.

 

I disagree with 'almighty science' so I must be a conspiracy theorist? :)

 

So really when you say stuff like: "The evidence for the big bang is slim and very unconvincing to anyone with a basic understanding and any level of honesty."

 

 

You just make it very clear to everyone that you not only have no idea what you're talking about, you're not really interested in physics or cosmology, you're interested in being the only one who's in the know about "the truth." 

 

And that's the psychology of conspiracy theorists.

 

We'd be glad to discuss that in a different thread! :cheer:

Looky here dear, the stuff you're arguing for right now (big bang/dark stuff) is on its way out. A lot of scientists know that it's hanging by a thread and isn't going to last much longer because it's junk science and you're going to feel very silly when that happens.

Edited May 19, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

Is this the level of argument that lead someone to see fit to make make you a mod? You also stole that exact response from me! I'm not a mod though, and you really don't behave like one.

 

Gosh, maybe you could start your own science forum and be the mod for it! What a thought! :cheer:

 

Unfortunately in the real world, you get treated the way you treat others. I'm only a mirror for you. That's kind of what mods do.

 

 

 

You're assuming that the interpretation of the data that presumes an expanding universe is accurate though. There is no real evidence that the universe is expanding! The level of crap they put out to try to plug the holes in the theory is astounding. M-theory or inflation? How about the red-shift and microwave radiation are actually evidence of something other than this silly idea? It's so stupid that the people who don't buy into inflation and/or m-theory or considered the crackpots!

 

That's cuz it is sweetie pie. what you ignore here (and again below) is the notion of directionality. The Cosmological Principle is an incredibly inconvenient thing for most of what you argue. The Cosmological Principle of course started out as an assumption, and mighty difficult assumption to deny: either the universe is expanding roughly uniformly, or we're at the *exact* center of the place in the universe where steady state matter is being created and is moving away from.

 

And that's just one item. There are dozens at many levels of specificity, and the "crackpots" keep bringing up the same simplistic arguments and we explain them again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again...

 

But no, it's has nothing to do with your unwillingness to listen to the answers and understand them, it's that we're all in a grand conspiracy against you.

 

So when we get tired and call you "crackpots," you scream "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" 

 

That's what I was told. I'll admit that I don't know and I'm just taking the word of somebody else but that's exactly what you're doing. I believe it because I know how science works. It's so far away from honest that it's a joke.

 

Cool! To misquote Rick Blaine, you may have been misinformed.

 

To clarify your misunderstanding, Science doesn't say, all hypotheses should be considered equal, even if one is not supported by the data. It says if the data doesn't support the claims of the hypothesis, it's best to ignore that hypothesis.

 

What's going wrong here is that no, you don't really know how science works, and you're making claim after claim about what science is an what it stands for and how it operates that just aren't true.

 

 

This applies only to the w-map, not to COBE. I was told COBE was nowhere near far enough away to rule out terrestrial radiation or give any kind of indication of how far away the radiation is coming from. Could be the heliosphere. This is an example of data dishonestly being made to fit a model.

 

That's misinformation from someone who finds the data inconvenient: COBE didn't have to be very far away because even *with* all the noise from the sun, it would still detect directionality. It didn't. WMAP provided more sensitivity at a further distance and it confirmed the same data.

 

It's notable that the disproven argument you've chosen to "believe in" takes a few "facts" jumbles them up, ignores the objections and to close warns you that you can't trust the others.

 

Very conspiratorial.

 

Now the defense to being bamboozled is to educate yourself and question. That's science!

 

What will get you far is in asking the question "what about the fact that the Sun is a huge source of microwaves? What is done in the experiment to account for it?" Heck even Wilson and Penzias had to account for and adjust for the microwaves coming from the tower that their antenna was *intended* to be listening to!

 

So you notice that that question is interesting and relevant to natural doubts about the subject at hand?

 

That it does NOT instantly focus on "OMG! They *adjusted* their data! THERE'S A CONSPIRACY TO STIFLE MY QUESTION BECAUSE I ALONE THREATEN THE HEGEMONY OF SCIENTISTS WHO ARE OUT TO SQUASH THE TRULY INTELLIGENT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS!!!!"

 

Do you notice a difference in those two approaches?

 

No, really, think about it.

 

I'll wait.

 

 

You think they know exactly how much hydrogen and plasma light passes through before it reaches us and are able to accurately account for it? There's also other stuff that could be causing it, electromagnetic fields, curvature of spacetime, etc. It very silly to claim that they know the exact properties of everything light passes through to reach us and the effects that would have on its wavelength.

 

They actually don't need to know the exact distribution before hand, they can....look and measure it! Spectrographs tell us all sorts of things about the composition of gasses floating around in the middle of nowhere. Observation of movement indicates density. Physics and chemistry can predict how it's distributed and moves. Counterintuitively stellar nebulae actually obey fluid dynamics.

 

Now the fact is that science rarely requires exact knowledge of everything going on in a system in order to make useful predictions. You don't need to know the exact location of each water molecule in a tornado to be able to make rough predictions about which neighborhoods ought to duck and cover immediately and save lives. Does the fact that we can't predict in advance exactly which houses will be hit prove that everything we know about weather and fluid dynamics is "on it's last legs" and will be replaced by something completely different that no one who is in the weather business agrees with?

 

:umno:

 

The fact is that approximations get us really, really close to knowing exactly how these systems operate, at a level that allows us to make predictions that are so close to what we'd know if we had perfect information that the difference is meaningless.

 

And that's the problem with most of your arguments here: you're picking one little inconsistency and then screaming that it proves that all that is known is wrong. 

 

I disagree with 'almighty science' so I must be a conspiracy theorist?  :)

 

Nah, you're actually not disagreeing with "science," you're simply saying everyone's an idiot. Which is pretty meaningless.

 

Looky here dear, the stuff you're arguing for right now (big bang/dark stuff) is on its way out. A lot of scientists know that it's hanging by a thread and isn't going to last much longer because it's junk science and you're going to feel very silly when that happens.

 

So dear, I don't really hear you proposing anything useful here. M-theory is pretty radical. If you don't understand that you're really missing all the fun. And go tell the M-theory folks that they're just a part of the scientific hegemony and the theory is "status quo."

 

They'll get a pretty big laugh out of that! 

 

 

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover, :phones:

Buffy