Is Big Bang wrong?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Reiku, Dec 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, it is based in topics such as magnetohydrodynamics.

    The only link between them is the work of Alfven.

    No, they are not a part of steady state theory. They would simply work exactly the same way in expanding, contracting, steady state and static universes.

    Big Bang Cosmology doesn't have to explain sunspots, because they're explained by magnetohydrodynamics.

    You're beginning to sound like you're trolling, to be honest.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Right. Because it was never intended to explain them.

    Sunspots are outside the scope of the big bang theory.

    It's like complaining that the laws of arithmetic can't explain why it rains when the air pressure is low. Or why the theory of gravity can't explain why you get an electric shock sometimes when you touch your car door handle.

    Are we there yet?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    BB isn't about sunspots.

    Sunspots have nothing to do with either the BB or Steady State.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,094
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Been following this post for a while, and although I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as many of the people who post, I believe I kind of understand most of the different ideas that have been exchanged.
    I believe the OP (Mister) was stating that due to new observations, he was not entirely as comfortable as he was at one time in believing that the "Big Bang Theory" was the "end all, rock steady, never to be better explained, taken as a given FACT" that some people tend to lend it.
    I have no doubt that Mr. Hubble was a quite intelligent fellow and coming up with the whole "Red Shift" idea, theory, measurement thingy, was an exciting mental leap.
    I have, personally, over too many decades, been open to new criteria and evidence, and hence feel much the same as the OP (Mister0. I realize we, as a civilazation have gained quite a bit of knowledge over the past couple thousand years. However, that knowledge has only been physically tested LOCALLY.
    We seem to have totally locked onto the idea that the speed of light (c) is a constant and could never be exceeded by anything, anywhere, anywhen.
    Lately, we have come to begin to give creedence to some shadowy, phantom, not nearly fully examined or explained, elusive substance caled "Dark Matter".
    What if, now remember my moniker, what if this as yet unexplained "Dark Matter" in someway affected the speed, propagation or even the frequency of light over different distances or even differently in other areas of our known universe - could that possibly influence the percieved "Red Shift" and hence whether or not galaxies were "receding" or that the space between said galaxies was "expanding" ?
    It is just that over time, I've begun to wonder if the physical constants that we take for granted, might indeed be just "locally" true. How do we know, without physical testing, that everywhere in the whole of the universe, is just exactly as it is here.
    In these posts I have read of the "Cosmic Backround Radiation", "Dark Energy", "Dark Matter" and those are only a few of the things we have not got a full grasp of yet.
    In a few other posts I've mentioned that we have only been expanding our knowledge and actually been contemplating these things for a few thousands of years - and again, ONLY LOCALLY!! We have quite far to go before we ever hope to believe we have empirical universal knowledge. I firmly believe that we are only now beginning to develop the technology to truly get us into and through the "kindergarden" of said universal knowledge!
    Mind you now, and remember my moniker, I've been wrong a few billion times already, in this life - and I will be again - but these are just a few of my thoughts on the subject!
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    Who is judging and on what basis
     
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Experiments and pretty much all of physics.

    Except that you're mistaken. Recent results from the LHC have shown that physicists are open to such principles. Theoretically tachyonic processes are actually common place in physics, the Higgs mechanism is itself a tachyonic process due to its non-stable unbroken vacuum state. As are branes in string theories, they are tachyon condensates.

    Observations of distant galaxies have been examined in order to see whether the speed of light there is different, because it affects quantum processes which fuel stars. As such we can say that the speed of light hasn't changed by more than a section of a percent over the last 10 billion years.

    The fact the answer always comes back with "No" when we ask the question "Does this phenomenon imply something is moving faster than light" doesn't mean people aren't asking the question.

    Which is an entirely different phenomenon from tachyons.

    Dark matter indeed has an effect on the CMB but not so much on redshift from galaxies. Remember, a particle has to escape the gravity well of a distance galaxy and then fall into the gravity well of ours, the effects are opposite to one another. And this wouldn't explain the correlation between distance and redshift, because the dark matter distribution doesn't line up with this observation. Dark matter hangs around galaxies, it isn't uniformly distributed.

    As I said, we have been looking into such things and bounds on how much they can have changed have been deduced. It's generally a very very small amount over a very very long time.

    That doesn't mean they are all one and the same.

    Do you think these things haven't crossed the mind of physicists, particularly cosmologists?
     
  11. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Some alternative cosmological hypotheses, many of which have been posted on Sciforums, speculate that 'tachyonic entities' and unobserved tachyonic action may be a reality. We are just not 'yet' at that point in our intellectual development of either experimentally or mathematically demonstrating such.
     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Hi guys. Just a quick 'Dark Matter' alternative hypothesis to explain the so-called cosmological redshift (conventionally attributed to expansion/recession) for your consideration and discussion if you are so inclined...

    If dark matter is what the relevant models say it is, then it will be evident that in earlier epochs both dark matter and ordinary matter occupied common locations now seen as galaxies/groups. If so, then the GRAVITY ONLY effect of dark matter must have added to the gravity effect of normal matter, so making the gravity well of distant galaxies etc THEN much more extreme than what we presently observe in our/nearer galaxies NOW.

    Hence, because the dark matter concentrations/distributions may have altered over the epochs since the light from distant galaxies was emitted (and which we are receiving now), the gravity wells in OUR (receiving) galaxy, which may not be as extreme as it was in earlier epochs due to intervening dark matter distribution/dispersal dynamics etc, then we cannot compare directly between the source (far distant) gravity wells and the receiving (our) gravity well.

    In short, given that dark matter exist, and given the dynamics has altered the earlier distribution/contribution of its gravity in distant source galaxies, it may be HYPOTHESIZED that the observed REDSHIFT was mostly the result of greater gravity well redshift AT the distant sources (due to then greater gravity due to dark matter gravity contributions), which redshift is not fully 'reversed' by entry into our gravity well NOW (which may be drastically 'shallower' because less dark matter in our galaxy compared to earlier epochs when the light was emitted.

    Sorry I don't have time to pursue detailed discussion for the next few months. I nevertheless will read with interest any further discussion this post elicits.

    Cheers all.

    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page