Infinate and Eternal Universe theory

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Harro, Nov 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Harro Registered Senior Member


    The biggest flaw of the Bing bang theory is that something came from nothing. Any scientist should know that this is not possible.
    The current theory out of nothingness come everything has to be wrong and is biblical and magical thinking.

    The standard model is that there are 4 dimensions, 3 of space and 1 of time. The Doppler effect is not a measurement of time but a measurement of objects in space moving away or moving towards the observer. Time is relative to the observer, time is not distance and distance is not time. Both time and distance are relative, so the concept of the universe only being 13 billion years young is only relative to us at this moment of time. Red shifts and blue shifts are dependant on the observer, so you have to take into account the relative motion of earth in our solar system and the effects of our movement in the Milky Way. Not only that but the movements of faraway galaxies, which could at some point in time change from red shift to blue shift or visa versa relative to there movements to some unknown orbit.

    Consider for example Galaxy STIS 123,627 named Sharon; it has changed from a red shift and become blue shifted. It is the most distanced galaxy to be discovered and was considered to be 12.5 Billion light years away. Because of this light shift its now estimated to be between 9-12 billion light years away. A variable range of 3 billion light years. Scientists are forced to admit that their estimates are gross approximations. So Galaxies further away from earth used as evidence for time and distance become increasingly unreliable.

    Indeed what goes around comes around. The claim the universe is 13 billion years old is inaccurate. Red shifts and the speed of light are variable and are affected by numerous factors. Red shift is estimates of distance and tell us nothing of time. The use of hubbles law, hubbles constant and the use of light gives inaccurate predictions and give fantastic claims to a big bang.

    Light is not time. It is affected by many things such as galaxies and black holes. Space is mostly empty, but filled with gravitational fields. It makes sense that light losses energy from distance galaxies and is red shifted. The Shapiro effect on EM waves shows they are slowed down as they pass though a gravitational field. Also EM waves could loose energy when going though the coldest regions of space. Light can be slowed or sped up, bend, curve, and twist and can even be sucked up entirely by a black hole.

    In fact Black holes appear to play a central role in the formation and maintenance of many galaxies and may be essential for galaxy formation. The size of the black hole is highly related to the cluster or stars and gases that spiral around the black hole in the centre of galaxies. The spiralling spinning motion of a galaxy is due to the sucking power of the gravity created by the central black hole. The Black holes suck up its earliest victims of energy and matter that comes near it, such as stars, gasses and even light. It then spew it out in a steady stream, reminiscent of biological processes of consumption, digestion and rebirth.

    Since black holes appear to consume the oldest stars in its grip, the light emitted from theses stars may be altered slowed and trapped which would never even reach the earth. Any measurements of time based on the speed of light and red shifts would theoretically be unreliable. Not all space is the same and many forces affect Light, including gravity and even dark matter. Light can slow down and speed up, bend, twist, curve and can split apart creating galactic illusions which is displaced in space.

    One phenomenon known as gravitational lennsing, space and light can be twisted, curved, magnified and displaced by the combined gravitational pull of nearby galaxies. So for example a cluster of stars or galaxies behind a closer galaxy could appear to be nearby or adjacent to it but may instead be billions of light years away. In 2003 the hubble telescope pointed at galaxy Abell 2218 which was acting like a fun house mirror that was distorting light from an even more distant cluster of galaxies. It was found that at least 5 of the galaxies believed to be part of the cluster of galaxy Abell 2218 were in fact optical illusions. The true location of these galaxies is completely unknown.

    Light is also effected by the mysterious dark matter that doesn’t emit of reflect light. And the concept of dark matter was even introduced to account for the big bang to account for the spin and holding galaxies from flying apart. Dark matter is also believed to affect the speed and trajectory of light and is thought to play a role in gravitational lensing. Dark matter can only be inferred indirectly and is thought to be matter that should exist and considered to be heavy neutrinos, elementary particles and clouds of non-luminous gas. Dark matter is believed to account for 80% of the missing universe.

    The galaxies form in clumps that defy the predictions of the big bang. It is believed that an invisible repulsive force is responsible for the speeding up of the expansion of the universe and that force is dark energy. Which is picking and choosing to predict the unlikely out come of the big bang that may never have happened. Scientist are creating more convoluted theories to account for the big bang with more contradictory theories in order to preserve their theories of the big bang and possibly to keep priests and god theorist happy. In truth these are speculative flights of fantasy.

    In fact not only is the universe behaving in a manor that contradicts the big bang but there are rivers of galaxies flowing in directions that are incompatible the uniform of speed and movement that would be expected if given the big bang was true. For example Stephens Quartet consists of 5 separate galaxies that are crashing into each other from every direction. Colliding galaxies are common events though out the cosmos and represent a natural process when galaxies come together, interact and reproduce.

    Spiral galaxy C153 is flying though a cluster of galaxies at a speed of 3000 miles per second. The Gasses of this galaxy are also being blown away by galactic wind creating the fuel for the formation and birth of new stars.

    Small Galaxies slam in to larger galaxies. Large galaxies crash into even larger galaxies from every direction. The universe is full of wreckages of galaxies going the wrong way and crashing head on. M82 for example slammed into a much larger galaxy M81 billions of years ago, which stripped the galaxy and shrinking greatly in size. How ever this intergalactic matting ritual gave birth to millions of new stars. In fact parent galaxies swallow there own children there by creating super galaxies.

    What this tells us is the universe mimics or similarly reflects the biological processes of reproduction and is a natural phenomenon. Indeed new galaxies and stars are often formed in a violent process that can be likened to a matting ritual involving impregnation, fertilization and birth. A cosmic ballet.

    We are told that light from distance galaxies are proof that the universe was created 13 billion years ago in the mythical big bang. How ever we should ask 13 billion light years from what? Relative to what? From where the earth is now? Which is ridiculous. The universe simply ends 13 billion light years away? At the centre of this universe is our Milky Way galaxy and the earth? This is not unlike the belief the earth was flat in centuries past and similar thinking to all objects in space orbited the earth.

    The observable universe is limited by the capabilities of the telescopes employed. There visual circle comes to the end at 13 billion years away and the stars out side the circle of this visual field can not be seen. Modern day telescopes are incapable of detecting there light. Never the less knowing this people still cling to the belief that this is the end of the universe. What is beyond the range of the telescopes…Nothingness? Modern day science tells us the edge of the universe is the beginning of the big bang but forget to realize that our field of view my not be capable of detecting even further away light than 13 billion years ago or have been given insignificant time to detect farther away galaxies.

    There is no edge; there was no big bang. In fact when the Hubble is allowed extensive viewing time into a seeming empty patch of sky thus collecting more and faraway distant light, more and more galaxies are detected. There are galaxies and more galaxies as far as the Hubble eye can see, the evidence indicates the stars and galaxies continue outward for ever into all eternity. Instead when humbles deep field was allowed to stare for approximately 280 hours, it resulted in not the very beginning and edge of the universe but over 10,000 new galaxies existed where non should exist according to big bang theory. As long as it stared more and more galaxies are found.

    The Earth is not centre of the universe. Where ever we look there are galaxies and galaxies giving birth to galaxies. There are stares with old planets and stars giving birth to new planets. Cosmic events that do not require a big bang to explain their origin.

    Novas and nebular are remnants of old stars which are giving birth to 100s if not 10s of thoughsands of new stars, stars die in order to give birth. Some burning out and fading away others explode with a force of a hundred billion nuclear bombs. When stars erupt they expel masses of debris giving rise to majestic sculptures of light. Planetary nebular, which in turn become breading grounds for new stars. Stars such as our own red sun have life cycles that may live and die. Some become red giants, some become white dwarves and some explode. When stars explode they seed the cosmos with elements necessary to give birth to new stars as well as elements and materials that will eventually form new planets.

    With assistance of earth and space based telescopes such as the Spitser (sp), the Chandera (sp) X-ray observatory and the Hubble. Astronomers are able to analyse a variety of pictures in invisible light, ultraviolet light and infrared light. They can place together complex pictures of objects in space including: Capulous (sp) Nova, which is located in the constellation Aquarius. It is large enough and close enough to the earth to be seen by binoculars. The helix has a bubble like appearance, yet it is not a bubble but consist of membranous fallopian double tube like cylinders. They have finger like protrusions on the inner ring that extend and point back to the central star. Upon closer observation, these protrusions contain a sperm like head and tail which streams away from the central star. Reminiscent of biological processes of reproduction. It is possible these cosmic knots could form solar systems or giving birth to many a galaxy. Each of these sperm like bodies are several sizes larger than our own solar system. In 2002 in order for Hubble to protect its reflective mirror, it spun around from am incoming meteor shower. It Pointed at the Capulous(sp) Nova composing detailed a mosaic of the helix combined with images take b the national science foundations telescope. It appears that almost half the ejaculated material from the central dying star remains trapped within a membrane like outer bubble. However this is a two-step process involving first an explosive shock followed by the ejaculatory release of massive amounts of radiation, which rains outwards.

    Nebular come in all shapes and sizes, rings doughnuts and spidery webs of debris. A common pattern has not been assigned, all are rather unique and incredibly complex in configuration and omit multi wavelengths of light. This suggests that each one was uniquely formed and acts in different ways. Never the less there is no need to introduce a big bang or origin of the universe to explain their existence. Nebula believed to be the remanence of sun like stars, which prior to death where much like our own sun and planetary systems. When theses stars die they eject there outer envelope and the remaining core of the star becomes a white dwarf. Thus the hot central core is a bubble of expanding gas and debris half of which becomes trapped inside and may well become a protective cocoon, which contains and shields the new stars as they are born and develop.
    M17 is a star forming nebula which is giving birth to 10s of thoughsands of stars in there infancy. Many of which are born from the shock waves from yet other stars that have died and ejaculated their outer envelopes of gasses and essential elements.

    With in the Orion nebula 100s of new stars are forming and growing. Beginning as dusty discs. The ejector from the parent star fertilizes their creations with huge jets of gas and debris which come from the core. Orion’s central star is also ejaculating massive amounts of gas and debris which appears to be fertilizing adjacent stars and what appears to be dozens of solar systems forming around baby stars, some ringed with dust and debris and others already ringed with planets. Stars often form in great clouds of cosmic dust and gas, planets are believed to be formed from the debris surrounding them. In fact with in these discs gasses jell together and maybe forming giant gas planets like Jupiter. At the same time hard and rocky debris appear to collect together and form smaller planets like the earth. Thus galaxies like our own and stars like our own appear to be giving rise to new solar systems which likely harbour complex life. Much like the living creatures we find on planet Earth. Stars and galaxies continually interact to give birth to new stars. Galaxies give rise to new galaxies and stars generate new stars in a process that is also reminiscent of biological processes including pollination and ejaculation.

    The entire process appears to be highly organised ad follows a logical stepwise progression. There is nothing random about the generation of stars and planets. Like wise galaxy formation occurs in a logical progression. Stars are born and die and the stuff of stars are continually recycled to create new stars and planets. There is no need to introduce a big bang to explain their creation and existence. Indeed the process of star birth, star death and star regeneration has probably been ongoing for all eternity.

    The big bang is a myth; the age of the universe is unknown. The universe has likely no beginning and it has no end.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    A singularity is not "nothingness" so that should dispel your religious rejection of Big Bang theory.

    There are valid reasons to doubt Big Bang theory, however the argument that something came from nothing is not one of them.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Singularities are ultimately stable, IF they exist, which is unlikely. They do not inflate or expand.

    Well over 99% of the universe is a non-directional gravitational field. Light travelling through it is naturally red-shifted, so a measure of distance, not velocity.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Harro, true to form you again come up with interesting alternatives. The video link is about an hour long and I may get time to view it but ... in the first 2:45 minutes there arises a presentational problem. It expresses disbelief that the Big Bang could have any credibility on the basis that it claims that Big Bang Theory says everything came from nothing.

    That impression is not uncommon and I was once there myself. But Big Bang Theory only claims that inflation and expansion of the universe characterized the first picoseconds of what we call the event. It implies a Big Bang but says nothing about a big bang or precondtions. General relativity, which is the essentials of Big Bang theory, and the Cosmological Principle of homogeneity and isotropy on a grand scale, along with the theory of inflation combine to describe BBT. Anything about the cause, source, or precondtions of BBT are not part of the theory.

    I'm sure when I view the rest of the video link and read through your post in detail I will agree with a great deal of it, but I just wanted to let you know that I consider the initial two or three minutes of the video as setting up a strawman in the form of the physical beginning out of nothing. Not that there is anything wrong with a strawman if it conveys the route to a legitimate perspective

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , but BBT doesn't claim to know the origin of the universe.

    As you know from our past exchanges that I agree that the universe has alway existed. Though there are some (probably fewer and fewer as time goes on) reputable scientists that believe in something from nothing, not many will actually say that.
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    After my last post I viewed the next few minutes of the video, through 5:30. The "something from nothing" is followed by the idea that everything came from pure energy and asks the question, "Where did the energy come from?" It says that scientists (a vague classification of people who consider the Big Bang as a religion, sort of) say that energy is God and that this God energy was self causeing.

    Everyone I have talked with about the origin of the universe knows that there is a factor of infinite regression when you try to backtrack to the first cause. The conclusion, and after the first five minutes of the video, the idea must be that the universe has alway existed.

    That is fine, but protraying the great work of science as being the same as dull ideas about origins and theology doesn't do justice to science. The role of science is to investigate what we observe and give the best possible explanations. No one can explain the origin factually and no one can explain God or the role God plays in the universe factually. There is a point where each individual who cares about it makes a decision as to what they believe. That decision is not scientific. Only getting to the decision point can be scientific.
  9. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    The usual theories that I've heard is that the Universe is "Cyclic" and the beginning of the universe occurs sometime in our future. This of course doesn't mean we go full circle, far from it, we have a habit of tangenting. I guess you'd have to assign the Grandfather paradox to the creation of the universe and imagine a laboratory of people standing there watching the universes inception blow by blow.
  10. Vkothii Banned Banned

    There's a simple way to see the relation between stability and cycles, how something can change but not 'stretch', as it were, or equivalently it can stretch and still stay in a stable cycle.

    It's a torsion pendulum moving in a circular/elliptical orbit, then moving in a linear cycle - the SHM you see shows how the two things are like measuring a sort of linear/nonlinear 'universal' process. I mean, a pendulum measures inertia, right? It processes a locally flat gravitational potential - it works the same way even if the room is moving, or it's in an accelerating frame, like a train or a plane, say.
  11. Harro Registered Senior Member

    First off, I should apologise. It is not my intention to bring religion into a scientific debate and I also edited out the term “temple priests of science”. I believe the narrator brings up the scandalous issues to bring drama into his video, possibly to grab the audiences attention. So with some wit and humour we can all have a bit of a laugh with the term Temple priests of science.

    How ever as with any humour there is some meaning behind it, which is to draw your attention to how beliefs can shape evidence. For example it is possible for scientific evidence to be subject to interpretation by a previous belief. Though we should leave this discussion for another thread.

    The point of me bringing to your attention this video is to discuss the evidence presented in support for an Infinite and Eternal Universe theory and the flaws in Big Bang theory.

    The points brought up in the video I’d like to discuss:
    1. How are light waves or EM waves affected when travelling though the vast distances of the universe?

    Space is not a perfect flat volume of space and energy and mass affect the lights energy and trajectory though space particularly in areas of high gravity.

    Black holes, being the most massive/dense volumes of space, suck up the oldest mass and energy. There by meaning that there is loss of information from the oldest of galaxies, stars and star light. However the energy is not lost it is radiated outward in a steady stream 90 degrees from the orbiting and in coming mass and light. Natures recycling plant thus preserving the Law of Thermal dynamics where energy is neither created nor destroyed. How can we then infer the universe is only 13 billion years old?

    At the other end of the spectrum are places that are near void of energy and mass. Could these coldest regions of space cause light energy to loose some of its energy over vast distances thus causing a red shift?

    If light left a star 10 billion years ago at 10 billion light years away would it travel in a direct strait line to the Earth? Is it possible that gravity distorts the light to bend, twist, magnify, split and there by red shifting the lights energy and travelling approximately 11-13 Billion Light years of real distance?

    Perhaps the same light emitted 10 billion years ago could not all arrive to the observer at the same time, some arrives now, some arrive in the next few million years?

    2. Interpreting the field of view and use of current Telescopes.

    If we had a telescope 5 billion light years away from Earth, would it still see in all directions 13 billion light years away in all directions? The video suggests yes, BBT suggests after looking 13-5=8 billion light years in the direction of the so-called edge of the universe you’ll look into nothingness. Which is why the narrator of the video brings up the religious view of the Earth being the centre of the universe and stating this is not true.

    Also noted was when the Hubble is given sufficient time to look into seemingly empty space, more and more light from far away stars and galaxies where observed.
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    The last I knew, the usual science claim is that no matter where 1 is in the universe, it will seem to be the center with all other galaxy groups speeding away in all directions. Which is absurd unless beyond the edge of what we can see there is much more.
  13. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    If you want to debunk Big Bang theory, find an alternative explanation for the CMB radiation.
  14. goose Registered Senior Member

    Its not absurd... if you want, draw many evenly spaced dots on a balloon, and say each is 1mm apart.

    Begins like this:

    when you blow it up, it looks like:
    . . . . .

    The first dot is in the same place... the second dot has moved 1mm farther away from dot1... the 3rd dot has moved 2mm away from dot1... and the 4th dot has moved 4mm away from dot1

    They each move at the same rate away from each other, but the farther-away dots seem to move at a faster rate... now just imagine this in 3-d form and you go it
  15. Harro Registered Senior Member

    How does CMB radiation suport a bigbang?
    2.725degress above absolute zero is the tempurature of CMB and is very uniform in all dirrections. Perhaps one could infer that The CMB is fairly uniform in an infinate universe. Also note there are areas in the universe ,large patches of space colder than 2.725 degrees.
    I'll see if I can find a link or reference, I know it was mentioned in the video as areas that light would loose some energy, thus again redshifting the light.
    Also there are many places in space where the temperature is much much hotter than 2.725degrees Kelven, our sun is one of billion and billion and trillions of them.

    Black holes would suck up the oldest of galaxies, stars and star light, it is more than plausable that mass and energy from less than and over 13 billion years would be sucked up. It has been observed that black holes spew out energy and debris.

    If BB was true, where is the centre of the universe?

    IF BB was true and the so called outer limits of the universe was the centre of the universe 13 billion years ago why are we recieving light from them now if the earth is now the center of the universe or neer it? Think about it.

    Imagine light emitted from galaxy STIS 123,627 about 9-13 billion years ago, which according to the BBT is only 1 to 5 billion years after the BB thus would only be 1 to 5 billion light years away from the so called centre of the BB. How did this magical light emitted 9-13 billion years ago reach earth NOW, did the light wait around or spiral the centre of the BB to only travel a few light years to where the earth is NOW at neer the centre of the so called BB?

    If BB is true, whats at the edge of the universe? Nothng? You know once apon atime people thought the earth was flat and it was as far as could be observed, beyond that limmit was the edge of the earth like a cliff, nothing, an abiss. Sound familliar to BB?

    If the universe is expanding like the surface of a balloon structure where is the void or middle of the balloon?

    You know why the furtherest galaxies appear to be more red shifted?
    BB theorist get confused and have to make up explainations like the universe is accelerating in its expansion. While wouldnt it be more plausable that its slowing down, if the outer universe looks to be accelerating in expansion, thats light from 9 -13 billion years ago and its more red shifted becasue the universe was expanding faster 9-13 billion years ago. Either way I dont buy it.

    Wouldnt the most logical explanation be, when light travels billions and billions of years it looses energy, there by streching the light waves, there by red shifting. Wouldnt it be more logical that nothing can travel in a strait line in space with out its trajectory being pushed and pulled by gravitational forces, tuhus traveling a further distance and being more red shifted the further away the object is?
    Locally Light might be very usfull for calulations and appear invariant in a vacuum, but let that light travel though space full of matter, gavity, and energy dont you think light will be affected in any way?
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I've finally read the whole thread

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I haven't viewed the whole video. Correct me if I am wrong but I am of the impression that the content of the video is encompassed in your posts. If not let me know and I will view the rest of it.

    I'm tempted to address some of the interesting points individually and maybe will do so later but first let me test my understanding.

    This video is one of a series of videos from A quick visit to their site yields a list of videos focusing on the "God and the Myth of the Big Bang" video and the content of your original post, so let's start there.

    Does your support for an Infinite and Eternal Universe (IEU) come from the video or does the video support your Infinite and Eternal Universe theory. If it is the latter then are you drawn to the IEU because of the difficulties you have with BBT or do you see the ideas of the IEU to be reasonable and responsible enough to beg the question, "who needs the Big Bang"?
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I know you haven't had time to answer my question but I want to push on so that you can address something else at the same time.

    Olbers’ Paradox is often discussed in the context of a steady state universe. But an infinite and eternal universe has to address it as well.

    Over time the solution has included various ideas like the finite size of the universe, the finite life of stars and even galaxies, the shielding effect of stars in front of other stars or behind dust clouds, but all of these “solutions” fail for one reason or another. When the universe was considered static, a finite universe is a very specific solution to Olbers’ but there was no observable end to the universe and so even at that time they had to consider that the universe might not be finite at all.

    The infinite life of stars and galaxies with an infinite time frame would eventually all be black and that conclusion was not preferred. The death and rebirth of stars was mainstream then (and now for that matter).

    The shielding effect was debunked by the conclusion that the heat of stars would eventually heat up the shielding medium to incandescence and so the night sky should still be bright as day.

    But the current solution to Olbers’ is considered to be the expansion of the universe. There are other aspects to the solution of course but an expanding universe is sufficient to solve the paradox IMHO.

    Therefore, I have to ask you how Olbers’ is solved in the Infinite and Eternal Universe theory if the universe is not expanding.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  18. Harro Registered Senior Member

    hey QW, IM not sure if I understand Olbers Paradox.

    As far as I can Imagine, is it asking the question, if the universe was not expanding then the night sky would be filled with light?

    Could you explain it to me please?
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Sometimes when I insert a link in the text people miss it all together. This link is in the text of my recent post.

    Here is the conclusion of that particular site:
    Olbers' is solved in QWC by the nature of the landscape of the greater universe and by the fact that the primary luminescent phase of each arena is during the arena expansion phase.

    Each arena is dark until the point where light begins to shine within it as matter forms from the expanding dark energy. Entire arenas and their galaxies and stars have finite luminescent lives, but their remnants gather into dark big crunches. Those crunches are great distances apart. When they burst they expand into an aether filled emptiness left as the big crunch formed by sweeping in galactic remnants from played out arenas across vast reaches of space.

    Beyond the local arena, the galactic remnants in all directions are being drawn away by the formation of other surrounding arenas and as those arenas form they go dark as they enter their big crunch. So in QWC, expansion and the finite life of stars and even the finite life of arenas makes the night sky dark.

    In terms of the ideas of QWC, the average energy density of the greater universe is not high enough to cause arenas to be close enough together to cause active overlapping during their lighted phase.

    Also, it is appropriate to refer to the universe as infinite and eternal in QWC, but the arena landscape of the greater universe is required to both defeat entropy and to solve Olbers'.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  20. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Olbers’ paradox –'s_constant

    The expansion of space summarized by the Big Bang interpretation of Hubble's Law is relevant to the old conundrum known as Olbers' paradox: if the universe were infinite, static, and filled with a uniform distribution of stars (notice that this also requires an infinite number of stars), then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star, and the sky would be as bright as the surface of a star. However, the night sky is largely dark. Since the 1600s, astronomers and other thinkers have proposed many possible ways to resolve this paradox, but the currently accepted resolution depends in part upon the Big Bang theory and in part upon the Hubble expansion. In a universe that exists for a finite amount of time, only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an expanding universe distant objects recede from us, which causes the light emanating from them to be redshifted and diminished in brightness. Although both effects contribute, the redshift is the less important of the two; remember the original paradox was couched in terms of a static universe.


    the Universe is finite in size
    the stars fill the Universe uniformly
    It is interesting that in asking and answering the seemingly trivial question, "Why is the night sky dark?" one could have inferred that the Universe was expanding and that the Universe had a finite age (or at the least the stars and galaxies had finite ages).

    Firstly an infinite and eternal universe is not static, it is constantly evolving and changing, the oldest light, stars and galaxies are eaten up by black holes. However energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Black holes spew out energy and debris 90 degrees from the spherical disc of incoming stars, dust and galaxies. Hawking’s radiation even suggests that if a black hole is starved of input it will in fact evaporate.

    An infinite and eternal universe does in fact have finite qualities, stars and galaxies do in fact have finite ages, and is part of the evolving and changing nature of the universe.

    An explanation for red shift is proportional to distance from the observer. Space in not a constant vacuum, it is full of energy and mass. How ever the vast majority that we consider to be empty space is about 2.7 degrees Kelvin, being the CMB. When we observe space at these wavelengths the night sky is considered bright and luminescent and remarkably uniform. So in fact the night sky in not “Dark” as Olbers’ paradox suggests.

    The Shapiro effect is observational proof that light is effected by gravity and in fact slows down the speed of light as would be predicted if light did travelled in a constant unchanging vacuum of space.

    One can assume that the greater the distance light has to travel though the universe the greater the Shapiro effect would have on the lights wave length. Light there for over great distances is not constant and the greater the distances involved the more unreliable and inaccurate our predictions of a heavenly body’s location and distance from the observer can be calculated.

    When the Hubble telescope is allowed sufficient time to observe a seemingly empty portion of space it has been observed star light and galaxies in fact fill the telescopes field of view. With wonderful new discoveries of stars and galaxies.

    A notable point about the Law of evolution in relation to the universe is the universe is not static but is constantly evolving. The best way I can explain this is change is time. What exists today may not exist tomorrow and what doesn’t exist today might exist tomorrow. This is the process of creation via evolution. A constant cycle of evolution is the creation and destruction of defined entities. For example a star wasn’t always a star and a star will not always be a star. They are born, they live and then they die. There death gives birth to new stars and there life creates simple elements into higher complex elements. Nuclear reactions.
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Just to clarify, you added the comment in parentheses that the assumptions include an infinite number of stars. Are you saying there are a finite number of stars in the IEU?

    To address the impact of the Shapiro delay, see this link.

    It seems to minimize the impact of the Shapiro delay saying, "Even in the case of a high velocity pulsar in the Galactic Plane, the stochastic Shapiro delay is typically expected not to have a substantial influence on the timing properties. In consequence the viability of a pulsar-based time standard is not adversely affected by gravitational lensing."

    But I would be OK with an IEU if expansion is a misread of the evidence. Still I choose QWC over IEU since expansion is mainstream.

    Tentativeness is always a factor in science and if expansion turns out to be superseded scientific theory then QWC simply fails to describe the landscape of the greater universe properly. At that time the IEU would be worth serous consideration and your preference would be confirmed over mine until some new cosmology becomes mainstream.

    QWC does offer ideas about the cause of mass and gravity that would still operate under IEU theory as far as I can tell. The beauty of QWC is in the way energy density plays a role in both quantum action and big crunch/burst action; similar effects at two levels of order on the spectrum of scale.

    However if expansion was replaced by the Infinite and Eternal Universe theory I would have to rethink the energy density thresholds that work nicely at both levels of order in QWC. I would gladly do that if expansion is superseded in my lifetime

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Harro Registered Senior Member

    Yes I virtually dictated the video but intentionally edited out and condenced its contents that deal with alarming attention grabbing controversy. I think science is great and I dont accept the term "temple priests of science". I think theories are an important part of our evolving knowledge in understanding the workings of nature.

    The last half of the video is the best part. I really hope you do watch the whole video if you get the time. I found I needed to watch it twice to really understand it and it makes me want to learn and research current cosmology.

    Yes, I already had the resonating view that the universe is Infinate and Eternal in my mind. However I watch alot of science documetaries and was convinced that the BBT was true, but now I must question my beliefs again.
    How ever an Infinate and eternal universe does not suport the view the universe is static but on the contray it is Constantly evolving and its processes are not unlike that of biological processes when you analize how energy and matter interact. A Birth, reproduction and death cyclical process.

    Very much like QWC theory but the scales of the events are much smaller scale than partrayed in QWC, where black holes are the crunch/bang, contracting arenas. In fact according to Nassim Haramein there is the possibility of scale dependant "bangs" to to speek.

    With in the infinate and eternal universe is the Law of scale which is observer dependant. We observe that stars and galaxies are finite within an infinate system where energy is not created nor destroyed but evolving where by systems are constantly changing form. In essence constantly creating new forms into observable existance. We humans as the observer can define somethings existance as finite but given enough time even the existance of what is observed will not exist for ever in its current form. Simply stated things radiate, merge, combine, evaporate and change forms into new existance.

    Science is already starting to discover the important roll Black holes play in the universe. If we apply BBT to black holes we could find they suck up the oldest of star light and star matter, this information is lost to the observer but it is not lost to the universe, the energy is eventually released back into into space when it is expelled. It cools and condences forming new matter and paricles just like BBT. This is not the only roll Black holes play in the universe, they hold galaxies together. Massive gravitaional forces which relativley slow light and slow time. A massive store of energy is possesed by mass and gravity. Where by things radiate, merge, combine and massive galaxtic collisions occur and seed new stars and new galaxies.

    We could conclude that when mass occupies too small a quantity of space, under the pressure and heat of its own density such as black holes all the stored energy mass possess is converted into massless energy and thus spewed out. This massless energy then fills the less dence vacuums of space, a property of the law of thermal dynamics, and as it has a cooling property apon the massless energy that then forms the building blocks of mass particles, a cycle, not unlike BBT.

    How ever I believe an expanding universe is just an illusion of spacetime placed on the observer. Just as the uncertainty priciple is observed in quantum mechanics, we observe uncertainty on the universal scale. The greater the distance from the observers field of view the greater the uncertainty of a star lights origin and location in spacetime.

    The greater the distance light travels in space the more it is dealing with warping forces because of energy, gravity and the obscuring properties of particles. For example Light emitted from a star 13 billion light years away would suffer a LOSS of information, the greater the distance the more uncertain one could be of the location of source of the light, its position and time it travelled to get to the earth (observer) becomes less certain.

    We know that energy, which travels though a near vacuum, travels at C, the speed of light. How ever, how accurate is the so-called constant speed of light in the vast distances and forces of the universal scale? We know light can speed up, slow down, bend and even split. So all the constants in mathematics that use C in its equations would require the account for unreliability or uncertainty when dealing with the nature of space in the universe. Thus the complexity of accounting for such things increases by magnitude the greater the scale being applied.

    For instance, instead of observing the apparent red shift of objects in space and conclude the universe is expanding. Perhaps we could define how much red shift has occurred and apply it to a mathematical correction equation to arrive at a more certain position of an objects place in space and time. The further away an object the more the apparent red shift could be inferred. How ever we could not be exactly certain of the objects direction of momentum because we need to include our own movement in orbiting the sun, which also orbits the milky way and conversely the observed objects own orbital trajectory can all alter the apparent blue and red shifting.

    It is apparent the further light travels in space the more it appears to be red shifted. Again instead of concluding the universe is accelerating in expansion we could also assume that the further light travels in space the more it is subject to astronomical forces hence a greater red shift imparted on the light being observed.

    We could state the earth is the centre of the universe, although in real life its not, but assume the observer is the centre. We can now draw a radius from this centre of observation and define a boundary within the infinite universe and apply maths to this finite system. It is apparent that, with our current telescope technology, about 13 Billion light years as the limit of our field of view. However it may be inaccurate up to 9 –14 billion years. That’s an error margin of around 1-5 billion light years of time and space, which is a huge uncertainty, not unlike the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. We could now scale down to half that, say draw a radius of 6 Billion light years. Although we are still working with a large error margin because of the huge numbers involved, we could say our error would be less than half that of 1-5billion to say 1-2 billion. But we can also observe out side of the 6 billion light year radius of our finite system if required.

    Can you see what I’m getting at?

    Start small, observe all the stars at 10 light year radius, and find the statistical red shift of all light sources at that distance, find an average.
    Then step up to 20 light years and again find the statistical red shift. Keep doing this in up to the limit of our telescopes field of view (say 10 billion Light years) and see if there is a statistical incremental increase of red shifting the further we observe.

    If there is a correlation, greater distance in space equals greater red shift, could astronomical forces account this for this, instead of expansion of space proposed by the big bang theory?

    Does the Shapiro effect also support the correlation that red shifting is because of gravitational effects on light rather than an expanding universe?
  23. Harro Registered Senior Member

    "In consequence the viability of a pulsar-based time standard is not adversely affected by gravitational lensing"
    I sugest that would be the case becasue the forces the light has to travel though would be relativly constant for that light soarce, ie the timeing would be rather constant.

    Yes, An infinite and eternal universe does in fact have finite qualities, stars and galaxies do in fact have finite ages, and is part of the evolving and changing nature of the universe. The CMB could be the star light coming from all dirrections, so the night sky isnt as black as Olbers’ paradox states and is rather uniform and bright when you observe in the long wave spectrum. Observe a seemingly empty dark space with a powerfull enough telescope, allow time to fill the field of view and its observed that more and more galaxies are discovered.

    I have read QWC and I do note you your self state the universe is infinate and eternal in QWC. I prostulate that the scales of the arenas could be at a much smaller scale, so QWC can still stand in IEU. Black holes could be the crunch/bang on a more local perspective of the universe in the cyclical nature of energy and mass.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page