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

[Mike C]

Hello MikeC

 

 

There is alot of information that sheds light against the Big Bang.

 

You are right

 

The JWST will or may not support the BBT.

 

Deep field images 13.2 Billion years show clusters of galaxies in a very small area now imagine the total sky.

 

That last statement of yours ought to make the science community to start working on evidence to support a SSU.

I would consider that 13.2 billion years as enough evidence right now to refute the BBT.

The only reason they do not come up with deeper objects is because of the limitations of the current telescopes and technical equipment limitations.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mike C

 

You are 150% correct

 

 

What bugs me is the lack of evidence and the ad hoc ideas that support the BBT.

 

History shows that many scientists who went against any standard model or theory were brushed aside by limiting the access to tools such as telescopes and above all MONEY stream.

 

When the she------it hits the fan many will hide and go with the flow.

 

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

 

Excuse my French

 

Saying that there maybe parts of the BBT that maybe saved.

 

Such as the production of the elements, than again they took this from another theory.

[Mike C]

Hello Mike C

 

You are 150% correct

 

 

What bugs me is the lack of evidence and the ad hoc ideas that support the BBT.

 

History shows that many scientists who went against any standard model or theory were brushed aside by limiting the access to tools such as telescopes and above all MONEY stream.

 

When the she------it hits the fan many will hide and go with the flow.

 

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

 

Excuse my French

 

Saying that there maybe parts of the BBT that maybe saved.

 

Such as the production of the elements, than again they took this from another theory.

 

Ha Ha.

Yes, they are afraid of the establishment 'power' science that controls the money and the papal church and its political power here in the US and its influence in Europe.

However, Halton Arp does have the freedom to promote his Anomalous Redshifts in Germany that I agree with.

 

We alsoi have a similar problem here in the US with 'healthcare'.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mike C

 

You said

 

However, Halton Arp does have the freedom to promote his Anomalous Redshifts in Germany that I agree with.

 

I would love info on Arp

 

Halton to me is one of the true scientist.

[PhysBang]

Hello All

 

 

Does anybody wish to support the BIG BANG THEORY

 

 

In the last 2 years there seems to be alot of people who do not support the BBT.

 

Why is this so??????????????

You mean in general or on internet forums?

 

I suspect that you might get banned from most internet forums where they take science seriously, so you will get a biased sample on people who support or reject the Big Bang theory.

 

Frankly, the scientific community has gathered a ton of evidence for all aspects of the Big Bang theory over the last twenty years. A staggering amount that makes existing alternatives seem rather hopeless, including those from people who had aligned themselves with Arp.

 

Not only is there a host of evidence that there are things well beyond the redshifts that Arp used to work with that are genuinely at their redshift distance, the better observations and gravitational lensing measurements of quasars and distant galaxies always indicate that these objects are at their redshift distance, including many objects identified previously by Arp. So either there are two classes of visually indistinguishable quasars and all the "local quasars" happen to never be gravitationally lensed, or all quasars are at their suggested distance.

 

Of course, there is also the ton of evidence about the measurements of the amount of dark matter in the universe, the measurements about the amount of other mass-energy denstities in the universe, the determinations of primordial nucleosynthesis, and the measurements of the Hubble constant. All things that alternative theories cannot deliver to the same extent.

[modest]

You mean in general or on internet forums?

 

I suspect that you might get banned from most internet forums where they take science seriously, so you will get a biased sample on people who support or reject the Big Bang theory.

 

While I think you're correct about internet forums often being ripe with conspiracy theories and also correct that more moderation equals more bias (I apologize if I've misunderstood you) Hypography seems a good representation of the general public as far as proponents and skeptics of the big bang theory. I don't have any hard evidence to support this and I don't think a poll on the subject exists here but it seems correct to me. I'm rather fond of this representation of the general public (obviously - being a member here). It would seem to follow from their "science for everyone" principle. As I have noticed, all points of view are accepted as long as they are approached scientifically. You may agree with this (and I'm not saying you don't). But I do take issue with one thing you say (or imply):

 

most internet forums where they take science seriously

 

Skeptics of the big bang on hypography (that I've noticed) most often discuss the issues from a very scientific footing. I could reference Hilton Ratcliffe here or coldcreation and others I've had the pleasure of discussion, debate, and sometimes disputes but always on a scientific basis.

 

So, I think you are mistaken if you are implying otherwise. At least in my short time as a member, it wouldn't seem to be the case. I've followed other forums that I'm pretty sure you're referencing and the subject of discussion is often more moderated but there are a wide range of subjects here. All are moderated (as a rule) such that they've got to be approached scientifically. And most all members here seem to take science very seriously.

 

I do apologize if I've not understood what you were saying or misrepresented it at all.

 

- modest

[Mike C]

Hello Mike C

 

You said

 

 

 

I would love info on Arp

 

Halton to me is one of the true scientist.

 

Below is an URL about Arp and his work.

I consider NGC 7603 as the best examples of his evidence.

I think anyone who refutes this is definately biased.

See below:

 

NGC 7603

 

Here is a brief biography of his science experience in the US below:

 

A blatant example of censorship of science in the United States.

 

HALTON ARP

First of all, I would like to give a brief biography of Halton Arp and his work.

He received his bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his PhD from the California Institute of Technology in 1953, both *** laude. For 29 years, he was a staff astronomer at the Observatories known originally as Mt Wilson and Palomar observatories. A recognized observer of quasars and galaxies, Arp is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and numerous scholarly publications.

He has been awarded the Helen B Warner prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983 and received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award in 1984.

 

In 1983, because of some political shenanigans, Halton ARP was denied observing time on the 200 inch Hale telescope by the committee that allocated observing time. The obvious reason was his research on anomalous redshifts that he observed, since this cast a lack of credibility on the big bang concept of the Universe. This denial was immediately publicized on the front page of the Los Angeles Times and subsequently posted on all the bulletin boards of other observatories around the world. Many directors from these other observatories and other astronomers condemned this action, but to no avail.

 

He is currently on the staff of the Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich, West Germany.

He is the author of a book about his work entitled Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.

 

For those of you who are not familiar with the meaning of the cosmological redshift, I will give a brief description. Known as the Doppler effect, it was first predicted by Christian Doppler in 1842 and three years later confirmed by experiment on a moving train. You will notice that when you stand near a moving train with its whistle blowing or a race car passing you at high speed, there will be a change in sound pitch from a higher to a lower frequency. The waves approaching you are compressed while they are expanded when the object is moving away. The same principle applies to light waves.

 

However, in the cosmological redshift, space is supposedly expanding the light waves while it carries the galaxies away from us. But Halton Arps anomaly proves that this expansion is not space related but is temperature related. The high redshift quasars are radiating at higher temperatures than their companion galaxies.

 

The redshifts are currently given in recessional km/s. The actual redshift is given as a percentage of the spectrum shift as measured by a spectrograph in comparison to our Suns spectrograph.

 

The best examples that prove Arp’s contention are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 in the southern sky and AM 0328-222. These three are 100% conclusive in support of Arps theory. Other examples that are less conclusive are: NGC 53, AM 2006-295, NGC 4319/Markarian 205 and NGC 195 where a quasar appears to be in front of this galaxy.

He proved that quasars were associated with galaxies and the establishment astronomers refuted his argument contending that those were chance alignments. There is now conclusive proof that quasars are associated with galaxies in most cases.

 

There are some astronomers that have selected single examples to refute Arps theory and I think he should not have included those and others in his collection. Some of his examples are chance alignments but the vast majority are not and I think the statistical proof he provides in his book confirms that. Another example he could leave off his list is AM 0213-2833 in his Sky and Telescope article that he had published in 1983 in the April issue on page 307. Refuting one example of his given anomalies is unrealistic and does not disprove his theory.

Incidentally, the S & T photos are positive prints and are much better illustrations than his negative illustrations in his book.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

G'day all

 

Sorry I have been away for sometime:

 

People will support the Big Bang without scientific evidence.

 

I came across this deep field image

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/

How much viewing time was needed to make all the exposures?

 

 

The 800 exposures amounted to about 1 million seconds or 11.3 days of viewing time. The average exposure time was 21 minutes.

 

5. How many galaxies are in the image?

 

 

The image yields a rich harvest of about 10,000 galaxies.

 

6. How many colors (filters) were used to make the observations?

 

 

The colors used were blue, green, red, and near-infrared. The observations were taken in visible to near-infrared light.

 

7. If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

 

 

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.

 

 

If this deep field image is 13.2 Gyrs

 

We see 10,000 Galaxies in one spot.

There are 12.7 million spots

If there was 10,000 galaxies per spot than the total number of galaxies in deep field would be.

 

10,000 * 12,700,000 = 127,000,000,000 galaxies in deep filed images if we covered the sky with spots.

 

Now! Imagine making all these galaxies in just 500 million years.

 

This is one reason why I cannot support the Big Bang.

 

There are many other problems. Later

[Mike C]

Hello Mike C

 

You said

 

 

 

I would love info on Arp

 

Halton to me is one of the true scientist.

 

He wrote a book on his Anomalous Redsshifts.

The best examples to prove his theory is NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210.

 

You can access his website by simply using his name in a search engine.

It allows you to post as a member or read the posts of others .

 

I think I mentioned previously that the BBT is NOT considered to be a 'bang '.

So that brings up a new problem, what is driving the 'expansion of space'?

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mike C

 

Thank you for the links

 

NGC 7603

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0203466] Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

 

 

 

This questions redshifts and therfore questions the standard model.

[Mike C]

Hello Mike C

 

Thank you for the links

 

NGC 7603

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0203466] Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

 

 

 

This questions redshifts and therfore questions the standard model.

 

Yes. And there are others to add to that one.

 

That is why I say the BBT is cosmoGONY rather than true science.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mick C

 

If that is the case, than why do so many try to support a theory without foundations.

 

Science needs to be applied to what ever theory.

 

 

If you have more links, please post them.

[modest]

I would love info on Arp

 

Halton to me is one of the true scientist.

 

Halton Arp’s life story is a case study in confirmation bias. In the 1960’s he built a theory on very little evidence as there was little evidence on the topic at the time. The evidence has since come in and invalidated his ideas. I don’t think he noticed.

 

We can paint the picture like this:

 

It’s 50 years ago and Arp sees his first picture of the sun. This is the first real image of the sun and people wonder what's going on with it (this is obviously an analogy)

 

source

 

Not knowing too much what to make of the funny-looking orb, he formulates a theory to explain things. It’s easy enough to see that the sun is being held by the tree so he starts there. This is confirmed by the way the tree buckles to the right. Perhaps the sun is heavy. He looks at the branch holding the sun and notices how it is bent down from the mass of the sun clearly validating his idea. The sun is a glowing ball being held by a tree which strains to keep it off the ground. The sun and the tree are the same distance from the camera and are motionless to each other.

 

Arp looks closer:

 

 

The parts of the tree that are touching the sun are red. In fact, the only part of the tree that’s red is the part touching the sun. Arp therefore proposes that there is a reaction between the sun and tree creating heat. He looks at the sun itself and notices it is red on the bottom and white on top. The white part is clearly hotter than the red part. This confirms his hypothesis showing that the sun is hottest where it’s white and touching the tree and the tree is hottest where it’s red and touching the sun.

 

With just this one picture this isn’t a bad theory. It is not yet confirmed, but it does make some sense. But, then another picture comes in. In the new picture the sun is a bit lower in the sky and it’s no longer visibly touching the tree. While this might seem to be a problem for Arp’s theory - he sees it as supporting evidence (confirmation bias hard at work). Clearly the tree has dropped or ‘ejected’ the sun and it is falling to the ground. Arp supposes that the sun became too hot for the tree to hold and ejected it. This is Arp’s theory in its final version.

 

Over the next few decades hundreds of meteorologists obtain millions of pictures of the sun and trees and sky and so on. It becomes clear to everyone that the sun is in fact not part of the tree at all. In fact, the sun is measured at millions of miles away while the tree is right up close. To Arp this doesn’t make sense at all. His evidence shows that the tree and sun are part of the same system regardless if there are millions of pictures that show otherwise. So, he goes on a fact-finding mission.

 

He pours through millions of pictures of trees and suns and finds 10 or 20 that support his position, such as:

 

 

They show the tree connected to the sun. While most meteorologists simply ignore the crazy old man, some try to show him the error of his ways. They develop his 10 or 20 images at a higher resolution and better developing equipment. The better images clearly show no connection between these two things. However, there are still a couple images Arp holds to and slightly over a billion other pictures and data that disagree. This is where we are today. Arp continues to believe that the sun (or quasars) are part of the tree (or local galaxy) and the distance to the sun being 93 million miles is wrong. Therefore the method of measuring distance is wrong.

 

There are other ways of measuring distance such as how things appear smaller the further away they are. All other ways of determining distance confirm the fact that redshift is a good measure of distance and are (as they must be) ignored by Arp.

 

This is confirmation bias. It’s ugly and it’s part of human nature. All evidence such as the hubble deep field must be ignored for his clearly-wrong theory to work. That's not good science and I see no reason to say "Halton to me is one of the true scientist" because he does this. To ignore all the evidence in order to protect a belief and propagate a falsehood is very bad science indeed.

 

-modest

[CraigD]

People will support the Big Bang without scientific evidence.

People support or oppose all sorts of theories and beliefs both with and without scientific evidence. Certainly many people support any particular known theory without even the necessary education to understand its scientific support or lack of support. However, in the case of the Big Bang model of the universe, many very well educated people support it based on a large body of scientific evidence. There is also scientific evidence suggesting the Big Bang model is incorrect. It’s not unusual for a scientific theory to be supported by some data, and contradicted by other.

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Introduction

…

127,000,000,000 galaxies in deep filed images if we covered the sky with spots.

This number is on the order of the commonly given “hundred billion galaxies observable with present-day instruments”. :)

Now! Imagine making all these galaxies in just 500 million years.

 

This is one reason why I cannot support the Big Bang.

I imagine these galaxies were not “made” in the sense that an artifact is made in a factory, but formed under the influence gravity. I also imagine that all galaxies of a given stellar population (or “generation”) formed concurrently (at the same time), rather than consecutively (one after another, the way artifacts produced by a single factory assembly line are).

 

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. :) One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

[jackson33]

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. :) One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

 

The galaxy from 'The Deep Field Images' are said to be from the early years of the Universe. The 10k estimates are from a very tiny area and you are welcome to estimate what should be if the total was viewed. Certainly in the billions...

 

Those said galaxy, would have to be all the near same age, if the Universe has a limited age. The images represent what was 13-13.5 billion years ago and all in existence at that one moment. There is a consistency of density and even our own galaxy is assumed about 13byo or so. There is no logical or mathematical explanation to explain what existed 13-13-5 byo and what should have been under BBT 14.5 byo......IMO.

 

We have determined these figures to begin with on the premise our that dating systems are correct, carbon dating, half lives or however. Everything we measure in our little solar system that has been measured, Earth, Moon, comets and space dust, and from our understanding points to 4-4.5 byo, for all in our system. We all accept, I think, what all is here, was from extinct or dead systems which existed prior to our system. All that was then from before. Even if we could determine the ages of atoms that made our solar system, I think those ages would be the same. Someway, somehow when a star is in formation or possibly on ignition, all matter becomes or is new. If incorrect and when possible, we can determine the age of elements in there simplest state, you might get a more accurate estimate, but I would bet in the regeneration of matter and all matter, our primitive methods will give only the age of the last matter that those elements existed in...

 

Pluto; Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition. The folks that fought the acceptance of BB, for all practical purposes have retired, died or gone into economics to make a living. For years, you would receive 'low grades' if questioning BB and if lucky enough to graduate with a degree, jobs in the field would be short lived or non-existent to promoting, exploring or testing for anything contrary. Even here on this fine forum, you will get little 'red dots' for advocating, even the possibility.

Keep up your interest, learn BBT first, understand where opposition is coming from and by all means accept the remote possibility, they may be right. Its the only way to get along...

[Pluto]

Hello Jackson33

 

You said

 

If incorrect and when possible, we can determine the age of elements in there simplest state, you might get a more accurate estimate, but I would bet in the regeneration of matter and all matter, our primitive methods will give only the age of the last matter that those elements existed in...

 

I agree with you.

This is one point that is missed by many.

 

 

Pluto; Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition. The folks that fought the acceptance of BB, for all practical purposes have retired, died or gone into economics to make a living. For years, you would receive 'low grades' if questioning BB and if lucky enough to graduate with a degree, jobs in the field would be short lived or non-existent to promoting, exploring or testing for anything contrary. Even here on this fine forum, you will get little 'red dots' for advocating, even the possibility.

Keep up your interest, learn BBT first, understand where opposition is coming from and by all means accept the remote possibility, they may be right. Its the only way to get along...

 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

I have read hundreds of papers on the BBT and the more I read the more I find that science went walking elsewhere.

 

Its like going down a river, the force keeps you in line with current thinking called main stream. Even a dead log floats down stream. To talk against the BBT is like swimming upstream and working against the current thinking.

 

So the application of science comes into play to overcome those currents.

 

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

[modest]

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

 

CraigD explained very well. They were formed in parallel, not series. If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

 

Think of a rain storm. If it's nearly 100% humidity and there is a slight change of temperature or pressure then you can get trillions of rain drops over a city in an hour. You can go from no drops to trillions in an hour. Science doesn't make it impossible for a few trillion to form that quick because rain doesn't form one drop at a time. In the same manner, galaxies wouldn't form one at a time.

 

-modest