Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Little Bang]

Pluto, do believe that a clock on earth runs slower than one in a geo-stationary orbit?

 

Moderation note: Replies to this post have been moved to the thread 14939, because they are primarily a discussion of relativity, not the Big Bang Cosmological model

[Jay-qu]

Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

CraigD said

 

That distant galaxies appear to be receding from one another – known as Hubble's law - has been observed since roughly 1920, and is critical data for which all cosmological theories must account. Although there exists many theories to account for this observation other than the most widely accepted Lambda-CDM model, some of which (for example “Tired light” theories) propose that the observed expansion is an illusion due to some not-yet-understood property of light or space, it’s simply incorrect to deny that these observations have been made.

 

Now apply science to it.

 

Prove it, show me the evidence, show me the images.

 

I do not want to see MATHS or ad hoc ideas supporting it

 

You also said:

 

 

Look, be enlightened: Hubble's Law

 

If you can give me a reason why the redshift is not due to an expanding universe, and Im talking data, not abstract ad hoc ideas, then I may accept the universe is not expanding, but until then I am going to follow the evidence.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

 

Jay-qu said

 

Look, be enlightened: Hubble's Law

 

If you can give me a reason why the redshift is not due to an expanding universe, and Im talking data, not abstract ad hoc ideas, then I may accept the universe is not expanding, but until then I am going to follow the evidence.

 

=====================================================

 

[0704.1631] Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components

Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components

 

Authors: M. B. Bell

(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, z_(i), out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes sub-luminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10^8 yrs, as z_(i) decreases and they evolve into mature AGN (Seyferts and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that low- and intermediate-redshift AGN are unquestionably sub-luminous to radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN (quasars) are also sub-luminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a logz-m_(v) plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. An increase in luminosity below z = 0.06 is also seen. It is associated in the DIR model with an increase in luminosity as the sources mature but, if real, is difficult to interpret in the cosmological redshift (CR) model since at this low redshift it is unlikely to be associated with a higher star formation rate or an increase in the material used to build galaxies. Whether it might be possible in the CR model to explain these results by selection effects is also examined.

 

 

=================================================

 

[0704.1671] Very Massive Stars in High-Redshift Galaxies

Very Massive Stars in High-Redshift Galaxies

 

Authors: Mark Dijkstra, Stuart Wyithe (Melbourne)

(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2007 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: A significant fraction of Lyman Alpha (Lya) emitting galaxies (LAEs) at z> 5.7 have rest-frame equivalent widths (EW) greater than ~100 Angstrom. However only a small fraction of the Lya flux produced by a galaxy is transmitted through the IGM, which implies intrinsic Lya EWs that are in excess of the maximum allowed for a population-II stellar population having a Salpeter mass function. In this paper we study characteristics of the sources powering Lya emission in high redshift galaxies. We propose a simple model for Lya emitters in which galaxies undergo a burst of very massive star formation that results in a large intrinsic EW, followed by a phase of population-II star formation with a lower EW. We confront this model with a range of high redshift observations and find that the model is able to simultaneously describe the following eight properties of the high redshift galaxy population with plausible values for parameters like the efficiency and duration of star formation: i-iv) the UV and Lya luminosity functions of LAEs at z=5.7 and 6.5, v-vi) the mean and variance of the EW distribution of Lya selected galaxies at z=5.7, vii) the EW distribution of i-drop galaxies at z~6, and viii) the observed correlation of stellar age with EW. Our modeling suggests that the observed anomalously large intrinsic equivalent widths require a burst of very massive star formation lasting no more than a few to ten percent of the galaxies star forming lifetime. This very massive star formation may indicate the presence of population-III star formation in a few per cent of i-drop galaxies, and in about half of the Lya selected galaxies

.

 

 

===================================================

 

[0705.0367] Is there Evidence for a Hubble bubble? The Nature of Type Ia Supernova Colors and Dust in External Galaxies

 

Is there Evidence for a Hubble bubble? The Nature of Type Ia Supernova Colors and Dust in External Galaxies

 

Authors: A. Conley, R. G. Carlberg, J. Guy, D. A. Howell, S. Jha, A. G. Riess, M. Sullivan

(Submitted on 2 May 2007 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2007 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We examine recent evidence from the luminosity-redshift relation of Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) for the $sim 3 sigma$ detection of a ``Hubble bubble'' -- a departure of the local value of the Hubble constant from its globally averaged value citep{Jha:07}. By comparing the MLCS2k2 fits used in that study to the results from other light-curve fitters applied to the same data, we demonstrate that this is related to the interpretation of SN color excesses (after correction for a light-curve shape-color relation) and the presence of a color gradient across the local sample. If the slope of the linear relation ($beta$) between SN color excess and luminosity is fit empirically, then the bubble disappears. If, on the other hand, the color excess arises purely from Milky Way-like dust, then SN data clearly favors a Hubble bubble. We demonstrate that SN data give $beta simeq 2$, instead of the $beta simeq 4$ one would expect from purely Milky-Way-like dust. This suggests that either SN intrinsic colors are more complicated than can be described with a single light-curve shape parameter, or that dust around SN is unusual. Disentangling these possibilities is both a challenge and an opportunity for large-survey SN Ia cosmology.

 

 

 

=================================================

 

[astro-ph/0701671] Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys

Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys

 

Authors: Christopher M. Hirata, Rachel Mandelbaum, Mustapha Ishak, Uros Seljak, Robert Nichol, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Nicholas P. Ross, David Wake

(Submitted on 24 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Correlations between intrinsic shear and the density field on large scales, a potentially important contaminant for cosmic shear surveys, have been robustly detected at low redshifts with bright galaxies in SDSS data. Here we present a more detailed characterization of this effect, which can cause anti-correlations between gravitational lensing shear and intrinsic ellipticity (GI correlations). This measurement uses 36278 Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) from the SDSS spectroscopic sample with 0.15<z<0.35, split by redshift and luminosity; 7758 LRGs from the 2SLAQ Survey at 0.4<z<0.8; and a variety of other SDSS samples from previous, related work. We find >3sigma detections of the effect for all galaxy subsamples within the SDSS LRG sample; for the 2SLAQ sample, we find a 2sigma detection for a bright subsample, and no detection for a fainter subsample. Fitting formulae are provided for the scaling of the GI correlations with luminosity, transverse separation, and redshift. We estimate contamination in the measurement of sigma_8 for future cosmic shear surveys on the basis of the fitted dependence of GI correlations on galaxy properties. We find contamination to the power spectrum ranging from -1.5 (optimistic) to -33 per cent (pessimistic) for a toy cosmic shear survey using all galaxies to a depth of R=24 using scales l~500. This corresponds to a bias in sigma_8 of Delta sigma_8=-0.004 (optimistic), -0.02 (central), or -0.10 (pessimistic). We provide a prescription for inclusion of this error in cosmological parameter estimation codes. The principal uncertainty is in the treatment of the L<=L* blue galaxies. Characterization of the tidal alignments of these galaxies, especially at redshifts relevant for cosmic shear, should be a high priority for the cosmic shear community. (Abridged)

 

=================================================

 

If you have time read through this

 

arXiv.org Search

 

=================================================

 

International Workshop on

Redshift Mechanisms in

Astrophysics and Cosmology

(Clonakilty-Cork, Ireland, May 15-18, 2006)

 

http://redshift.vif.com/NewsWire/BrassTacksRelease1.pdf

 

 

An extraordinary event took place recently in Ireland. A group of

independent and professional researchers met to discuss an old

heterodox topic with important consequences in astrophysics and,

especially, in cosmology: possible causes of the redshifts in the

spectra of astrophysical objects other than a Doppler or expanding

universe mechanism. Many decades of work have been devoted to

this kind of research, most of it forgotten by the greater part of the

astrophysical community nowadays. But the question is still open, the

debate is still alive, as was shown by the participants in the present

Workshop. There is no smoke without fire, and the existence of many

facts and theories on alternative origins of redshifts may point to some

new pathways in physics that deserve further attention. This was

precisely the aim of this meeting.

 

 

==============================================

 

According to the Big Bang, it occured everywhere at the same time from some form of singularities.

 

Now! its funny that everything is expanding from earth in a pattern, that begs questioning.

 

What is the common error?

[Jay-qu]

You post many links but you fail to draw good conclusions from them. The intrinsic redshift of some quasars is most likely because they have being ejected at very high velocities from thier galactic cores. But there is two things wrong with trying to apply this to the whole universe expanding model. 1. Why dont we see an equal amount of non or even less red or blue shifted quasars, since they should be ejected in random directions? and 2. This data is applying anamolies to the whole - its a big universe there is sure to be deviations from what is expected but AFAIK the average galaxy is receding from us.

[modest]

Yeah, that's just fine.

 

I'm also curious if that's fine with Pluto. The pillars of the Big Bang will persist in the absence of a relativistic framework. But, if we do acknowledge general relativity (and I don't know if pluto does) the case for a young, hot, dense, universe seems even more airtight and inescapable.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

G'day

 

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

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

 

Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

(Submitted on 20 Sep 2005 (v1), last revised 26 Sep 2005 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.

 

 

Whether the universe is expanding or not?

 

The issues with the Big Bang model needs to be addressed

 

 

=============================================

 

Modest said

 

I'm also curious if that's fine with Pluto. The pillars of the Big Bang will persist in the absence of a relativistic framework. But, if we do acknowledge general relativity (and I don't know if pluto does) the case for a young, hot, dense, universe seems even more airtight and inescapable.

 

I cannot see any evidence for a young, hot, dense universe. Blond babe maybe.

 

There are observations of stars in varies stages and galaxies in varies stages of evolution that can be expalined by a recyclic process. Even deep field images 13.2 Gyrs show all types of galaxies in varies stages and forms. For a galaxy to change its form from elliptical to spiral to elliptical requires a few billion years. But if the deep field is 13.3 Gyrs there is not enough time, just 500 million years.

 

====================================================

 

The following links are for information.

 

The redshift distribution of SWIFT Gamma-Ray Bursts: evidence for evolution

 

Authors: F. Daigne (1), E.M. Rossi (2), R. Mochkovitch (1) ((1) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris - UMR 7095 CNRS et Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, (2) JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder)

(Submitted on 27 Jul 2006)

 

Abstract: We predict the redshift distribution of long Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) with Monte Carlo simulations. Our improved analysis constrains free parameters with three kinds of observation: (i) the log(N)-log(P) diagram of BATSE bursts; (ii) the peak energy distribution of bright BATSE bursts; (iii) the HETE2 fraction of X-ray rich GRBs and X-ray flashes. The statistical analysis of the Monte Carlo simulation results allow us to carefully study the impact of the uncertainties in the GRB intrinsic properties on the redshift distribution. The comparison with SWIFT data then leads to the following conclusions. The Amati relation should be intrinsic, if observationally confirmed by SWIFT. The progenitor and/or the GRB properties have to evolve to reproduce the high mean redshift of SWIFT bursts. Our results favor an evolution of the efficiency of GRB production by massive stars, that would be ~6-7 times higher at z~7 than at z~2. We finally predict around 10 GRBs detected by SWIFT at redshift z>6 for a three year mission. These may be sufficient to open a new observational window over the high redshift Universe.

 

 

A Proposed Mechanism for the Intrinsic Redshift and its Preferred Values Purportedly Found in Quasars Based on the Local-Ether Theory

 

Authors: Ching-Chuan Su

(Submitted on 16 Aug 2006)

 

Abstract: Quasars of high redshift may be ejected from a nearby active galaxy of low redshift. This physical association then leads to the suggestion that the redshifts of quasars are not really an indication of their distances. In this investigation, it is argued that the high redshift can be due to the gravitational redshift as an intrinsic redshift. Based on the proposed local-ether theory, this intrinsic redshift is determined solely by the gravitational potential associated specifically with the celestial object in which the emitting sources are placed. During the process with which quasars evolve into ordinary galaxies, the fragmentation of quasars and the formation of stars occur and hence the masses of quasars decrease. Thus their gravitational potentials and hence redshifts become smaller and smaller. This is in accord with the aging of redshift during the evolution process. In some observations, the redshifts of quasars have been found to follow the Karlsson formula to exhibit a series of preferred peaks in their distributions. Based on the quasar fragmentation and the local-ether theory, a new formula is presented to interpret the preferred peaks quantitatively.

 

 

 

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

 

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.

The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.

In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

 

 

==================================================

[Little Bang]

Is the universe going to expand forever? In my humble opinion I think not. The BB has happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of times after. We can calculate the required amount of mass to close the universe. If we knew the exact volume of the universe and the exact amount of radiation, using the equation M = Ef/C^2 I think we would find that there is enough mass to close the universe. Let's say for a second that there is not enough. That would mean that enough energy came from a point which exists somewhere that we can't go. If the universe expands forever that would imply this (somewhere) would eventually run out of energy. That is why I think the universe must collapse. Is this an Ad Hoc idea Pluto?

[coldcreation]

G'day

...[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

 

Nice...

 

 

Hello all,

 

This paper by Narlikar, Vishwakarma and Burbidge (2002) is kinda cool too:

 

Interpretations of the Accelerating Universe

 

It is generally argued that the present cosmological observations support the accelerating models of the universe' date=' as driven by the cosmological constant or `dark energy'. We argue here that an alternative model of the universe is possible which explains the current observations of the universe. We demonstrate this with a reinterpretation of the magnitude-redshift relation for Type Ia supernovae, since this was the test that gave a spurt to the current trend in favour of the cosmological constant.[/quote']

 

 

 

And this one, signed and dated G. Burbidge, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp, 2002:

 

The nature of the ultraluminous X-ray sources inside galaxies and their relation to local QSOs

 

Here is a map of QSOs in the region of NGC 3628.

 

 

 

Here are a few more

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello Coldcreation

 

Thank you for the information.

[Jay-qu]

Is the universe going to expand forever? In my humble opinion I think not. The BB has happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of times after. We can calculate the required amount of mass to close the universe. If we knew the exact volume of the universe and the exact amount of radiation, using the equation M = Ef/C^2 I think we would find that there is enough mass to close the universe. Let's say for a second that there is not enough. That would mean that enough energy came from a point which exists somewhere that we can't go. If the universe expands forever that would imply this (somewhere) would eventually run out of energy. That is why I think the universe must collapse. Is this an Ad Hoc idea Pluto?

There are solutions to Einstein's equation that allow this, have a read about the Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) Metric and cycloid solutions to it.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

 

Hello Coldcreation again thank you for those links, I opened them and found that I have read them before and yet reading them again confirmed and allowed me to understand redshift a little better.

 

 

You maybe interested in Intinsic redshift:

 

arXiv.org Search

 

================================================

 

Hello Littlebang

 

You said

 

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Is the universe going to expand forever? In my humble opinion I think not. The BB has happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of times after. We can calculate the required amount of mass to close the universe. If we knew the exact volume of the universe and the exact amount of radiation, using the equation M = Ef/C^2 I think we would find that there is enough mass to close the universe. Let's say for a second that there is not enough. That would mean that enough energy came from a point which exists somewhere that we can't go. If the universe expands forever that would imply this (somewhere) would eventually run out of energy. That is why I think the universe must collapse. Is this an Ad Hoc idea Pluto?

 

To begin with, the universe is not actually expanding as to the metric distance. The Big Bang refers to space/time expansion. Also the Big Bang occured everywhere at random at the same time. It would be impossible for collapse at the same time. Some think that the BBT originated from the same point, being one singularity. This is not the case.

 

To close the Universe is not as easy as it looks, the complications are huge and when you are dealing with an observable over 100 billion galaxies, thats a great ask.

 

The parts within the universe undergo a cyclic process of expansion and collapse, we observe this in starformation stages and galaxy evolution, where we find the activity of the Nucleon, being the so called black hole is directly related to the form of the galaxy. Matter is sucked into the compacted core ( so called black hole) and ejected via jets back into space, recycling and reforming the galaxies millions of light years.

 

As for the universe expanding for ever is a bit of santa clause and as for running out of energy, you cannot create matter or destroy it. You can change its phase.

 

Matter is evenly distributed through out the infinite universe. Some define a universe as a finite unit as in the known universe and thus we end up with multiuniverses. I tend to think of it as one total infinite and thus unable to expand or collapse, but the parts within do their thing, recycle and recycle in an endless process of colliding and merging, changing matter from one form to the other and so on.

 

As for being an ad hoc idea. You maybe right. Than again we all use ad hoc ideas to make our models work.

[Little Bang]

You are hung up on the idea that space is something the universe expanded into. The BB electromagnetic pulse was the space of the universe and would have expanded as a sphere. There was no space before the BB. You of course will discount this idea because it totally disagrees with you own views and I respect that.

[Pluto]

G'day all

 

 

Little Bang said

 

You are hung up on the idea that space is something the universe expanded into. The BB electromagnetic pulse was the space of the universe and would have expanded as a sphere. There was no space before the BB. You of course will discount this idea because it totally disagrees with you own views and I respect that.

 

No, I do not agree that space is something the universe expanded into.

 

I see the parts within the universe have a rcycling process that we can observe and study.

 

The BBT states that there was bangs all over the place at the same time and not one place or one sphere.

 

Making a statement no space before the BB is like living in la la land. Do you know the meaning of your statement.

 

In actual fact I'm more interested in the workings of stars and the evolution of galaxies and the process of recycling.

 

 

My views are not important, here one day gone the next.

[Little Bang]

The BBT states that there was bangs all over the place at the same time and not one place or one sphere.

 

 

I have not heard your statement and question how we could know about any events outside of our universe.

[Pluto]

G'day all

 

 

There are main scientific events happening in the next 6 months. Maybe they will reolve some issues based on science rather than ad hoc ideas.

 

Science needs to go back to basics and look at the properties and workings of stars and galaxies, in particular compact matter that is able to create electromagnetic forces that prevent light from escaping. In these compact cores of matter the nucleus acts as though it is one, similar to and if greater density than the nucelus of an atom.

 

================================================== ===

 

As for the Big Bang, in my opinion will be put aside in place of a theory that can explain the observation.

 

Facts about WARP

WMAP News: Facts

 

 

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

WMAP Mission Results

 

Quote:

WMAP measures the composition of the universe. The top chart shows a pie chart of the relative constituents today. A similar chart (bottom) shows the composition at 380,000 years old (13.7 billion years ago) when the light WMAP observes emanated. The composition varies as the universe expands: the dark matter and atoms become less dense as the universe expands, like an ordinary gas, but the photon and neutrino particles also lose energy as the universe expands, so their energy density decreases faster than the matter. They formed a larger fraction of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It appears that the dark energy density does not decrease at all, so it now dominates the universe even though it was a tiny contributor 13.7 billion years ago.

 

 

Before WARP started it project. First it assumed the Big Bang theory was the standard model than proceeded to fit the finding to the BBT. Political pressure and cash flow dictated the end result. Big Mistake.

 

Future science will correct this and this will take time. No hurry, the universe will be there for years to come.

 

Big Bang Cosmology

WMAP Big Bang Cosmology

 

Quote:

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

 

 

Foundations of the Big Bang Model

 

The Big Bang Model rests on two theoretical pillars:

 

General Relativity

 

The first key idea dates to 1916 when Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity which he proposed as a new theory of gravity. His theory generalizes Isaac Newton's original theory of gravity, c. 1680, in that it is supposed to be valid for bodies in motion as well as bodies at rest. Newton's gravity is only valid for bodies at rest or moving very slowly compared to the speed of light (usually not too restrictive an assumption!). A key concept of General Relativity is that gravity is no longer described by a gravitational "field" but rather it is supposed to be a distortion of space and time itself.

 

The mistake that they did here is that they did not look at other options, rather stuck with the Big Bang theory and tried to make it fit.

Notice the distortion of space and time, and not actual distance.

Also notice a few millmeters across than read further down, simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. I love their logic, it does not add up.

 

 

The Cosmological Principle

 

Quote:

After the introduction of General Relativity a number of scientists, including Einstein, tried to apply the new gravitational dynamics to the universe as a whole. At the time this required an assumption about how the matter in the universe was distributed. The simplest assumption to make is that if you viewed the contents of the universe with sufficiently poor vision, it would appear roughly the same everywhere and in every direction. That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales. This is called the Cosmological Principle.

 

But in actual fact galaxies collect into clusters of clusters of galaxies forming super units units of thousands of galaxies.

 

Quote:

addition the cosmic microwave background radiation, the remnant heat from the Big Bang, has a temperature which is highly uniform over the entire sky. This fact strongly supports the notion that the gas which emitted this radiation long ago was very uniformly distributed.

 

A simple scientific test is a shadow test that CMB fails.

 

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

Quote:

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the

Quote:

simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe.

That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

 

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

 

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

 

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

 

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.

 

Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.

 

Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.

 

Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.

 

 

In my opinion, the Big Bang needs to be looked over by a scientific body, not controlled by politics, churches and cash flow that dictates the projects.

[CraigD]

Science needs to go back to basics and look at the properties and workings of stars and galaxies, in particular compact matter that is able to create electromagnetic forces that prevent light from escaping.

I’m aware of no theoretical prediction or observed data – basic or otherwise - suggesting that electromagnetic forces can have any effect on light, or any other elementary particle with zero charge.

 

Pluto, can you back up this claim with links or references? Can you provide an example of light being affected by electromagnetic force? Are you perhaps misunderstanding basic physics?

[Pluto]

Hello CraigD

 

Please explain how the so called black holes prevent light and other electromagnetic radiation from escaping.