Alternative Explanations to Redshift and Background Radiation

It appears that the two "proofs" of Big Bang are the background radiation and redshift. But what if there is an alternative explanation to them?

Background Radiation
How does that prove the Big Bang? Why wouldn't it also prove Brane Theory, for instance? The branes colide, there's a huge amount of heat that forms the universe and then it cools down as time goes by. Why not?

Also, why there is a concentration in the "equator" of the universe?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, keep in mind that expansion requires that mysterious "dark energy" that we, conveniently, cannot find.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Redshift
All that redshift proves is that the distance between us and most stars is greater then expected. That's all that it proves. The expansion is only inducted from that.

What about the blueshift we observe around us? The local group is blueshifted. Why? There's also a big cluster that is blueshifted (the Virgo one, I think). Why? What if we could look at a distance galaxy. Would the galaxies around it all be blueshifted in relation to that galaxy? So we have a blueshift closer to points all over the universe and a redshift around the universe when points are far apart. What does that mean? How about a rotating universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is just the milky way.

Wrong! Redshift means galaxies are moving away from us and further galaxies are moving faster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh! So the milky way is in the centre of the universe......

Says who?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consider this, if the universe is expanding, we need to invent dark energy to account for such expansion. And that makes up over 50% of the entire universe. Now explain to me how you can account for this mysterious invisible energy...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No but you can't take a picture of the entire sky without the milky way being smack in the middle of your way. That image is an uncorrected image of the CMBR.

Says science. Although it would be more proper to say that redshift is the shifting of light toward the red end of the spectrum. The redshift that we observe in the universe is caused by objects moving away from us. The farther away the object is the more it seems to be red-shifted, therefore, the faster it is moving away.
On a side note, redshift can also be caused by gravity.

 

Actually, we do not need dark energy to explain expansion. Dark energy is something that would go far in explaining the apparent acceleration of the expansion.

 

That's a hypothesis. You don't really know. That's why you say "oh it can also be caused by gravity". You don't really know the answer.

 

And that's what the big bang hypothesis suggest. That's my point.

 

How old are you?

We know that red-shifting is caused by objects moving away. Therefore, we assume that that is what is causing the red-shift that we see in distant objects. We don't know for sure, but damn the evidence sure points in that direction, so that's what we are going with right now.
Do you have a better theory of what is causing the redshift?

 

What's your point? That the BB theory is just a theory? Are you trying to convince me that it is possible that the BB theory is wrong? Of course it's possible. If a theory comes along that better fits the data, then that will be the accepted theory, but until then it sure looks like a BB happened.

 

What's the point of that question? How old are you?

Oh please! You know that as much as people knew the earth was the centre of the universe...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. Your assumption is redshift=expansion.

It's called a "hypothesis". Don't confuse that with "theory".

There's no better hypothesis- there are only different ones. Mine is that the universe is rotating.

 

Replace "theory" by "hypothesis" and I will agree with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is possible if and only if the universe is finite. Don't you think?

I do have an other hypothesis, instead. (Maybe a little bit better, i.e. not so difficult.)

 

Sorry, I just picture a little kid jumping around all excited, pointing his finger and yelling, "See!, You don't really know! You don't really know the answer!"

Actually this is a fact. The faster an object moves away from you, the more it's light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

Alright, so how does your 'hypothesis' fit the data? What evidence did you come across that made you decide the universe is rotating? What is outside your rotating universe? Obviously you're throwing redshift = expansion out the window. What is causing the redshift? And where does the CMBR fit into your rotating universe?

 

You should check out physorg.com's forums some time. I can't think of a better example of child care gone awry.

 

Huuum.... I'm not sure. Maybe it doesn't really matter. Altough how could the universe be infinite anyways?

Let's hear it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Conversely, I can picture you pouting and saying "it is true because the big people on white coats said so!"...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's a hypothesis, not a fact. We don't really know why it shifts to the red. We only inducted that by comparing stars with the doppler effect. The big fallacy here is that the analogy is not good enough. The doppler effect happens on earth, where there is air, and it happens with sound. We are comparing that with the light from the stars in a vacuum. You don't see the danger of such analogy, do you?

It does!?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. I don't have evidence yet. Altough the data does support this hypothesis just as much.

Another universe. With greater apparent size.

The rotation.

Such an universe would be just as uniform as the CMBR suggests.



But it's all hypothesis, of course. It will be hard to prove any of the hypothesis we are talking about in this thread.....

 

The danger here is assuming that wave behaviour is limited to matter and sound waves. Energy within an electromagnetic field is also wavelike, and depending on the relative motion of the emitter and observer, the wavelength will appear to shift.

This generalization of the Doppler effect was presented in Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', his first of many papers regarding relativity.

Of course, whether or not this is the reason why universal redshift occurs is another story. I must agree that it's a pretty good idea though.

 

Do we have a language barrier? I asked how your hypothesis fits the data, I didn't say that it did.

No, it wouldn't. And the uniformity of the CMBR is just one detail. The fact that there even is a CMBR doesn't fit in your universe.

A universe that rotates will tend to flatten out, it would have a center around which it rotates, and objects nearer the center would tend to rotate faster... all of this making the universe quite non-uniform. This is not what we see. The model does not fit the data.

 

First of all Truth Seeker, stop saying "inducted"! Induction is totally different frome the word deduce, which I think better suits the sentences in which you use it. Second of all, from what I've read of "big brane theory", the only reason they came up with it was to explain WHY the BIG BANG actually started in the first place! I could be wrong, but that's just the impression that I got.

And don't trifle with the words hypothesis and theory... You got it all mixed up... Your "hypothesis": the universe is spinning fits the definition of hypothesis from dictionary.com: "A mere guess." On the other hand the Big Bang theory fits within the definition of the word theory: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

And red-shift, as part of the doppler effect, has been proven over and over again, so I don't know why you even bother questioning it.