No Big Bang

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm
KH in 10.... 9..... 8......

You know me so well...

[Seeker]

I predict Ned's next physics 'discovery' will be the revolutionary Plasma Theory of the Universe............

[Darius871]

Originally posted by joncha
A more logical explanation is clearly Nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-day time cube.

Damn, somebody beat me to it.

[joncha]

Santa & God debase women as if non-existing opposites.
How evil unto their mothers.

[Darius871]

Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If someone mapped out the degree of red shift of distant galaxies would it not be possible to plot out the center of the universe? Surely this has been tried?

Please, it's already painfully obvious that I'm the center of the universe.

[Ned]

Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Just because everything is moving away from you doesn't mean you're at the center of anything. They're confusing proper motion with motion due to the expansion of space itself. Some galaxies (Andromeda, IIRC is one) are actually moving slightly towards us and are blueshifted - because they're close enough that the expansion of space isn't large enough to offset the proper motion in our general direction.

Get a balloon, blow it part way up, put some colored dots on it with marking pens. Then blow it up some more. You can see the dots all moving away from each other, no matter where any particular dot is with respect to the "center." It doesn't have to be a hollow shape, either. You could do the same thing on any elastic material.

Basic point being it ain't the galaxies moving, it's space itself (i.e. the universe) exanding.

Michael the Great, I'd like you to take a look at these simple geometry discussion at the very beginning of the cited article that addresses the issue of earth moving away from the universe's center as the other star systems are also moving away. The distances from the Earth to the various star systems would very as a cosine function and not lineraliy.

The proposition that only one Galaxy in the universe is actually moving toward us to provide a blue shift seems impossible on its face. At least some galaxy somewhere in the universe, rotating about its local star cluster, should be moving toward us even as the star cluster is moving away. These should be blue shifted. But we see no such blue shifting anywhere except locally. This implies that there is a relationship between distance and red shifting that overcomes any blue shifting caused by movement towards Earth.

[Ned]

Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

This theory explains why stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us appear to be much older than Earth and the Milky Way and therefor must be older than the universe itself under the Big Bang theory

What? This makes no sense.

Why is it that an object being older than the Milky Way means that it's older than the Universe?

It is my understanding that some of the galaxies 14+ billion light years from us are 20 billion years old. If the BB occurred 14 billion years ago, that means these galaxies too old by 6 billion years or so.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
As pointed out earlier tired light has been soundly rejected by the scientific comunity, without some groundbreaking new observation to support it and a coresponding failure of the current theory its dosn't have a chance.

This ofcorse make is the perfect explanation in the Nediverse

Impaler, why the attack since I just referred to the theory and invited comment.

As to the refutaion of tired light, no one has refuted in this thread or provided a link to a refutation. You statement stands there without support.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Perhaps in the Nediverse (Saying that Einstein's GTof Rel. does not call for a light red-shift....

"Gravitational Redshift

Another phenomenon predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity is that light loses energy as it emerges from a gravitational field. When light loses energy, its wavelength becomes longer and the color of the light shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (thus called the "redshift").

Two key tests of the gravitational redshift are the Pound-Rebka Experiment and NASA's Gravity Probe A. In 1960, physicists Robert Pound and Glen Rebka were able to detect the redshift of high-energy gamma rays in an elevator shaft at Harvard University. They sent gamma rays up from the bottom of the shaft to a sensor 74 feet high. As the gamma rays climbed the 74 feet out of Earth's gravitational field, they lost a minuscule amount of energy (~ 2 parts in a trillion), which Pound and Rebka were able to detect. Their measurement agreed with Einstein's predictions to within 10%, later improved to about 2%.

A more precise test of the redshift was conducted by Gravity Probe A in 1976, a rocket-based experiment, also known as the Vessot-Levine test. In this experiment, a hydrogen-maser clock was launched to an altitude of 6,000 miles. The frequency of the clock in flight was compared to the frequency of a matching clock on the ground. The experiment revealed that the frequencies of the clocks differed slightly, matching Einstein's predictions to within 70 parts per million. "

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d304/040417theory.html

[Bill3000]

As to the refutaion of tired light, no one has refuted in this thread or provided a link to a refutation. You statement stands there without support.

Argument from ignorance, as well as reversed burden of proof. You fail at debating.

[trev]

It is extraordinary that the Big Bang proponents deliberately ignore the many problems with the theory, but shoot down every other alternative. Big Bang ideas have had millions more time and money spent on research, yet seriously fall short in explaining the current large scale structure of the universe, while every other idea with complications no more serious is considered unscientific. If they use the same standard against themselves, the Big Bang model wold have to be declared unscientific as well. What hypocrits they are.
The organisation of the universe into walls of super clusters of galaxies with large voids in between the walls cannot be explained by the Big Bang model as the time frame required for these structures to develop naturally is many orders of magnitude larger than Big Bang lifetime of our universe. It is time for some serious research to be done on other options including Tired Light, maybe the answer to the universes contradictions will be found in one of the other competing theories.
Many proponents of tired light theories present a almost ageless universe, which is also a problem in explaining our solar system, in particular the rings around Saturn and Uranus, which would have trouble maintaining their shape for millions of years let alone billions, so a theory that allos much greater ages may not be a solution to the universes origions, but research is definitely needed into other theories as the Big Bang theory is not standing up well to the test of time.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by trev
It is extraordinary that the Big Bang proponents deliberately ignore the many problems with the theory, but shoot down every other alternative. Big Bang ideas have had millions more time and money spent on research, yet seriously fall short in explaining the current large scale structure of the universe, while every other idea with complications no more serious is considered unscientific. If they use the same standard against themselves, the Big Bang model wold have to be declared unscientific as well. What hypocrits they are.
The organisation of the universe into walls of super clusters of galaxies with large voids in between the walls cannot be explained by the Big Bang model as the time frame required for these structures to develop naturally is many orders of magnitude larger than Big Bang lifetime of our universe. It is time for some serious research to be done on other options including Tired Light, maybe the answer to the universes contradictions will be found in one of the other competing theories.
Many proponents of tired light theories present a almost ageless universe, which is also a problem in explaining our solar system, in particular the rings around Saturn and Uranus, which would have trouble maintaining their shape for millions of years let alone billions, so a theory that allos much greater ages may not be a solution to the universes origions, but research is definitely needed into other theories as the Big Bang theory is not standing up well to the test of time.

IIRC Inflation theory was developed to address the structural issues you raised.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bill3000

Argument from ignorance, as well as reversed burden of proof. You fail at debating.

Bill, he said this thread had refuted the "tired light theory." No one had actually addressed it though.

If you would like to address it, please do.

[TheStinger]

Could the someone explain the following for me.

IIRC the furthest objects we see are aprox 12 billion light years away although I'm not sure if the actual figure is that important.

However if light takes 12 billion years to reach us how can we observe them. what is the actual situation, are they 12 billion light years away or arewe just observing something 12 billion years ago. If it is the case that we are obseving something that tookplace 12 billion light years in a positional sense how did we get that far away.

I may just be stupid and I'm not sure I've even asked a question it might just be the numbers are too big.

[Lul Thyme]

Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If someone mapped out the degree of red shift of distant galaxies would it not be possible to plot out the center of the universe? Surely this has been tried?

He just explained it...
Take the surface of the balloon for example, all the points are going away from each other yet the whole situation is symmetrical and you couldn't say one is central with respect to the others.