Is big bang proven to be solid true?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Here's one test. Draw a triangle. Measure all three corner angles. If they add up to 180 degrees, then your triangle is in a Euclidean geometry. If not, then your triangle is in a non-Euclidean geometry.
An example: Draw a triangle on the Earth's surface, with one corner at the North pole, the next corner on the equator, and the third corner also on the equator but 90 degrees of latitude around from the second corner.
So, the two of the three sides of the triangle follow lines of longitude, and the third side follows the equator.
The three corner angles are all 90 degrees, adding up to a total of 270 degrees. So, the Earth's surface is a non-Euclidean geometry.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I stopped reading this before the end of the first paragraph. There you state " However, recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured and the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations."
Since Hubble's Law is not a consequence of the Doppler effect, you will understand if I question anything cosmological written by someone who states that it is.
Firstly, that's not even coherent. Secondly, the metrics which describe an expanding universe, such as the FRW metric, are 3+1 dimensional and people have done higher dimensional extensions of that, or tried viewing inflation in terms of higher dimensional spaces.
I assume you wanted to say that the Hubble law is not claimed to be a consequence of the Doppler effect (but of space expansion). Note that even hard-core Big-Bang proponents admit that this is merely a question of viewpoint (i.e. of the coordinate system you are using) ( see for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/hubble.html ). So nothing prevents you from seeing it as a Doppler effect (for sufficiently small redshifts anyway).
Moderator comments
Woo-woo concepts and link to woo-woo site deleted.
Thomas, please desist from posting your personal conjectures in this sub forum. Consider this a formal warning.
Thomas
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read the link you provided, or just read into it what you wanted to read into it? The link specifically starts with (emphasis mine) "the Doppler shift explanation is a linear approximation to the 'stretched light' explanation" and concludes with "Let me close by emphasizing the word 'approximation' from the first paragraph of this entry. The Doppler explanation fails for very large redshifts, for then we must consider how Hubble's 'constant' changes over the course of the journey."
Your view is that the two viewpoints are equivalent. This is nowhere close to what the linked article says.
That is why I like rasin cake baking analogy more. I.e. as the cake expands all the rasins separate from each other in 3D. If rasins a,b & c were initially at x= 0, 1 & 2 and we live on rasin a at x=0, then later when the rasin (Seen by us) are at 0, 2, 4 we conclude rasin c is moving away from us at twice the speed of rasin b. I.e. Hubble's law is as simple as a baking rasin cake.I think thinking thinks the balloon analogy means the Big Bang is a two dimensional theory. That's one dimensional thinking for you.
In my opinion the big bang is the best expanation for the observational evidence. Dose this mean it is the last word on the subject? Absolutely not. I do have one question though and please correct me if I'm wrong. Has it been assumed that the "origin" of the big bang was destroyed as a result of the big bang or could it be that the "origin" still exists as every point of the universe? Meaning that at a small enough scale any two points will "draw back down" to a single point (except for the fact that this single point would be "falling away" from the two points at a relative velocity equal to the speed of light). This can also be worded as; the distance between any two points is relative to there distance from the "origin" meaning that the distance between the earth and the moon is closer to the "origin" than the distance between the earth and the sun. The reason I ask is because I have discovered a simple numerical pattern which suggests that this may be the case (it is from this that I drew my interpretation of the cosmological red-shift).
Moderator comments
Woo-woo concepts and link to woo-woo site deleted.
Thomas, please desist from posting your personal conjectures in this sub forum. Consider this a formal warning.
Pardon me? You apparently also took the liberty to delete without warning 1) my first post (on which Ophiolite's comment was based), 2) my first response to Ophiolites comment that I posted yesterday, and 3) the second part of my last post, in which I emphasized that Ophiolites point is merely a semantic one, because in any case the redshift is assumed to be associated with a recession of galaxies. I quote from the Wikipedia entry regarding Hubble's law : "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the earth is proportional to their distance from us". This is factually an incorrect statement because observationally the velocity as such can not be measured. What is being measured is the redshift and it is assumed that this is related to a recession of galaxies. The point is that such a model leads (as already indicated in my deleted opening post) in my opinion to problems for instance with the mass conservation law, and that therefore one has to look for other redshift mechanism (and I was suggesting here the stretching of light waves in the intergalactic plasma as a possible mechanism).
Clarifying that the Hubble law is in the first place a redshift-distance law and not a velocity-distance law is not woo-woo, but should just rectify a misconception that some people on this forum may have.
Thomas
Woo-woo concepts and link to woo-woo site deleted.
Thomas, please desist from posting your personal conjectures in this sub forum. Consider this a formal warning.
Pardon me? You apparently also took the liberty to delete without warning 1) my first post (on which Ophiolite's comment was based), 2) my first response to Ophiolites comment that I posted yesterday, and 3) the second part of my last post, in which I emphasized that Ophiolites point is merely a semantic one, because in any case the redshift is assumed to be associated with a recession of galaxies. I quote from the Wikipedia entry regarding Hubble's law : "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the earth is proportional to their distance from us". This is factually an incorrect statement because observationally the velocity as such can not be measured. What is being measured is the redshift and it is assumed that this is related to a recession of galaxies. The point is that such a model leads (as already indicated in my deleted opening post) in my opinion to problems for instance with the mass conservation law, and that therefore one has to look for other redshift mechanism (and I was suggesting here the stretching of light waves in the intergalactic plasma as a possible mechanism).
Clarifying that the Hubble law is in the first place a redshift-distance law and not a velocity-distance law is not woo-woo, but should just rectify a misconception that some people on this forum may have.
Thomas
I did not give you any infraction points, either. I did post a reason for deleting those messages yesterday and when you persisted I asked you to stop, this time with a warning. Please do not make me learn how to use sciforum's infraction system.
First off, Wikipedia is not a scientific source. Secondly, where does that statement say anything about how velocity is measured? You are playing semantic games.
No scientific theory can be proven true. They can however be proven false. The same goes for the big bang theory. The big bang theory is not a complete theory, but it is, so far as we can tell, a consistent theory.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is a fundamental one. Under Big Bang Theory the redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is a result of the expansion of space. I fully accept that there could be another explanation for the redshift other than BBT. However, that is not what you are saying. You keep saying that the redshift in BBT is a Doppler effect. How often do I need to repeat - that is simply wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
If you can get something so fundamental wrong that even a mathematically deficient, intellectually challenged, spatially dyslexic Earth scientist recognises you have made an error, then it makes it seem extremely unlikely that anything else you are saying is of much value.
There is a fine but important difference between measuring velocities when you know there is actually one (e.g. the police measuring the velocity of your car with a radar speed gun) and inferring a velocity by means of an indirect method when otherwise there is no way to verify that there is actually one in the first place.
Hubble himself was well aware of this problem. I quote from his book "The Realm of the Nebulae (1936)"
This explanation interprets red-shifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that red-shifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics. [...]
Meanwhile, red-shifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage. --pp. 122-123
From these statements it is evident that Hubble used the term 'velocities' lastly only in a semantic sense for the redshifts, leaving open the possibility that the latter could still be due to other physical mechanisms.
Thomas
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You don't think we may have moved forward in our thinking from 1928?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The two types of non-Euclidean geometry that I studied fifty years ago were:
Riemannian geometry. On a Euclidean surface or "plane," it's possible to construct two straight lines that do not cross; we call them "parallel." On a Riemannian surface, such as the surface of a sphere, every straight line eventually crosses every other straight line.
Lobachevskian geometry. On a Lobachevskian surface, there is an infinite family of straight lines that do not cross any given line. A saddle, extended to infinity in all directions, is a Lobachevskian surface.
Haven't been back for a while to answer your inevitable idea that I am wrong because I do not quote the wiki. There are serious flaws in the BB. We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen) so other ideas should at least be considered. I appreciate this is something alien to you since you are a scientific creationist with every word in a text book true from the first to the last. Don't worry! No one will ever accuse you of having an original thought.
We have computer simulations like a recent one which said that gravity worked down to 10^92 tons per cubic meter but no further. I don't see why it should not go further but that will do.
It has been said that if black holes were large enough (like the size you said humans could enter alive), then there could be ordinary matter inside them as in the Universe itself might be a black hole. To form a black hole, all it needs is sufficient matter in a small enough area. It does not have to be "in casual contact".
Who cares? I'm more worried how right it is. A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. Whoever they are.
I have an amulet which keeps away green elephants. Proof that it works is that there are no green elephants. DM and DE are an embarrassment.
- Status