The Big Bang Never Happened - Make way for Plasma

Red Shift.

The entire Big Bang theory rests on the red shift being due to the Doppler Effect, i.e. everything is flying away from us – expansion. That in turn leads to the assumption that there was a beginning and hence a big bang. Everything else about the theory including the cosmic background radiation (CBR) assumes that single critical assumption.

But actual expansion has not been observed by any means in fact I cannot find anything that shows the universe is expanding, and indeed in many studies just the opposite or just ambiguity. The red shift alone seems to be a very tenuous and fragile thread on which to rest such a major theory without additional corroboration.

If the red shift can be shown to be due to anything else other than Doppler then the entire BB theory instantly collapses, since there is no other credible observable evidence to support it. All other related ideas appear to have alternative explanations; some more reasonably support a static universe, or are just fudges (with dark matter a major fudge) to support the initial assumption.

So with that in mind I went in search of articles that either give alternatives to Doppler as an explanation for the red shift or that some entities with high red shift that should be far away are actually close. In this latter case we cannot then reasonably conclude that the observed red shift is due to Doppler, either entirely on only in part. I have examined many sites and articles and I thought I’d start with Halton Arp first. His short biography here reveals his formidable qualifications.

Short Biography for Halton C. Arp

Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt.Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!

References taken from his website http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts

This following abstract shows the discovery of objects with high red shifts that are close. BB says these should be far away. BB appears to be seriously broken since we cannot reliably use it to state that red shift is a result of Doppler.

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

From this I’d conclude that these red shifts must be due to other causes other than Doppler, and also that there appears little to conclude the universe is curved or expanding.

Some other websites of some interest.

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/PartIII/III15BigBang.html

Tired light revisited and variations - http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

http://www.mcn.org/c/irapilgrim/sci08.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Discovery of H2 explains redshift - http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/pc.html

A comedy reference http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm Pseudoscience at its worst.

Enough for now, although having spent the day reading articles again I do feel even more convinced that BB is quite wrong. And the rebuttals appear more like articles of faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi TS,

Nope. This is just another of my interests. I originally discovered sciforums as part of a web search on cosmology and I wanted a place to explore my hypothesis on bubble theory, which was my first post here.

LOL. It was Hubble himself who made the observation not the telescope that was named after him. Redshift refers to the wavelength of light shifted to the red when an object is traveling away from you. If it was coming towards you it would be shifted to the blue wavelengths. This is known as the Doppler effect that historically has been used to describe sound effects, e.g. a car coming towards you then going away. Hubble observed that all galaxies and objects were red shifted and reluctantly concluded that that probably meant the universe was expanding in all directions. From that BB was born.

Hey and the same to you.

Cris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James,

And the same for static universe models as well surely? What specifically did you have in mind that supports expansion rather than static/dynamic?

I didn’t note the references only remembered reading them in passing. I’ll need to deal with expansion/contraction evidence later. But essentially if the various constants are adjusted slightly then the universe would be contracting and not expanding, or that the rate of expansion is not credible. There were several paragraphs in several articles that alluded to those effects. It made me realize that these subtleties put BBT on a knife edge of credibility. I.e. modeling is being used to push the theory rather than observation.

But CBR is only supportive of expansion if expansion is true. It isn’t direct evidence of expansion. Other explanations are possible given a static or dynamic model. I’ll deal with CBR separately sine it is a key feature of BB. But I noted that the lower than expected temperature is more consistent with a static model rather than an expansion model.

What about the particle physics findings of symmetries and symmetry breaking among the fundamental forces?[/quote]Why is that relevant to expansion and redshift?

The major items are included in the articles I have already listed.

I looked briefly but couldn’t find anything that refuted his observations that he hasn’t already rebutted on his website. Do you know of any specific criticisms?

It isn’t necessary to offer an alternative only to show that within BB it is false in key areas, unreliable as a predictive mechanism, or entirely wrong. Other causes for Redshift must be the object of other research. Although several are offered in the articles I have referenced already.

Understood, that’s why I referenced the article as “tired light revisited”. Much of what I read today was about “tired light” which was refuted in many cases. However, despite those objections it keeps reappearing in different forms. The article here included a different definition to the others I saw, and is perhaps incorrectly titled since it doesn’t really promote light entropy.

 

Hum,
We can verify the redshift with supernova data, galaxy intrinsic brightness, and quasar gravitational lensing.
So even if the ESG theory were correct, it would only off set the true value by a small margin.
Not enough to show no expansion.

Just a thought.

 

Yeah, well... everything is connected anyways...... :m:

Huuuum.. he must have had a very good eye......!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, I know all that. Since the most boring times of my life- high school...

That's not correct. He actually said that the expansion of the universe should not be inferred from his data.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Cris,

Here is a clue for your quest. Altough distant galaxies show a redshift, the closest irregular galaxies and even the Andromeda galaxy actually shows a blueshift. In fact, even a huge globular cluster (Vega, I think) shows a blueshift. What does that mean? It means that all those galaxies are getting closer together. If you would guess, you would of course guess that the smallest galaxies are moving toward the bigger ones due to gravity.

This is not a very simple scenario. You have an entire universe to think about and the only observations you can make are close-by. So what you do, is that you infer what happens elsewhere in the universe by what is happening here. Once you observe what is happening around you, ask yourself what is going on on the other "side" of the universe. Is it the same thing? Well, likely yes. So think about this same scenario all over the universe. Close-by you have blueshift, elsewhere you have redshift. Where is the center of the universe? The answer is nowhere. This is one of the main questions of BB! In this scenario you have blueshift everywhere in the universe. An ET would observe the same thing. The ET would infer the same theory of expansion. But that is silly. You can't just look at the details, you have to look at the big picture as well!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What about our observations of the so-called "early" universe? Quasars? What do they mean? They are gigantic galaxies with massive black-holes inside them. Are they our past? In the BB theory, yes. However, look at the data! Do you think it is really the past? Think about the blueshift and observe what happens next, when all those galaxies come together. Once you think about that, you will have the answer. The same answer that the ancients somehow knew, long time before us.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

CBR, eh? Does that really prove BB? Or does it actually give evidence for brane theory!? Maybe neither......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Blobrana,

In what way? Could you be more specific please?

Yet this doesn’t appear to be the case.

Quote from Lerner -

“One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

I looked at this but couldn’t find any studies where this was used to verify expansion. Do you have anything? But doesn't this depend on using redshift as part of the calculation? If so then it cannot be used to verify redshift due to Doppler.

Clearly not really a justifiable statement from what I can see so far.

 

TS,

I would expect to see some blue shift even with expansion. Imagine radial lines coming from a center. Everything that is past us would be red shifted, anything still behind us that is moving faster than us would appear blue shifted. But still everything is flying outward.

But I think the dominant observation is red shift almost everywhere. There is not the random mix that you imply.

 

I didn't imply a random mix. I implied that from every point in the universe, the same observation is made- that is, blueshift close-by, redshift far away...

 

Hum,
i won’t bother to repeat the supernova data results, or the galaxy intrinsic and apparent brightness, which have no doubt has been covered elsewhere,
But a quick search on google will show that the supernova data shows a slight deviation from a linear graph; towards in particular to an acceleration in the expansion.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec13.html
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The gravitational lensing technique relies on simple geometry and the intrinsic brightness of that galaxy.
Quasars by their nature are small compact sources a few light years big, so that any feeding frenzy and their associated change in luminosity are easy to see and time.
So when we see two or more images of a quasar on either side of an intervening galaxy with the same spectra; then because the paths of the light beams take different routes and lengths of times to arrive here - we can work out the ratio of the distance that the quasar is behind the galaxy.

(ie one quasar will brighten or dim before the other one)

And we know how far the galaxy by it intrinsic brightness.
( for example, the brightness of a spiral galaxy is directly related to its rotational velocity - Tully-Fisher Relation, or through intrinsic brightness of its planetary nebulas, or just of it total brightness etc)

So when we compare the redshift against the results from distant and near sources (say, Cepheids) and medium distance indicators and they tally, then we can be fairly sure that the redshift data can be relied upon.


BTW, on a slightly different note, here is a link to some research done at the Green Bank Telescope to detect and study radio emissions at four specific frequencies between 1612 MHz and 1720 MHz coming from hydroxyl (OH) molecules in a galaxy more than 6 billion light-years from Earth, (at a time when there is a kink in the expansion graph), which you may find interesting.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/constants/

 

Blobrana,

Ok thanks. Some nice references. I've started reading and need to continue. My first confusion is that I can see how the distances are being determind but not the velocities. I.e. I'm not sure I yet see a confirmation of expansion without using redshift.

The disagreement over the Huble constant though is somewhat revealing of the problem with BBT.

 

Hum,
i`ll just add that the velocities are `<i>apparent velocities</i>` (as its really space that is expanding).
The first link i gave shows the stepping stones that are used to piece it all together. Treat it like a detective novel with `<b>the steady state theory</b>` as the dead victim.

Yeah,
the disagreement is a major upset for BBT.
It means that we have to invent a mechanism (<i>i`ll call it `dark energy`</i>) that seems to have kicked in about 6 billion years ago and is slowly accelerating the expansion.

 

Blobrana,

Ok I'll go back and re-read. And I really have a problem with "space expanding", not that I can't understand the concept but that it seems contrived.

So we have a Hubble constant, an Einstien constant, dark matter, and dark energy. Any chance you can put the peices together for me and show me how it is all now meant to work?

 

Isn't that what everyone has been trying to do?
What are the chances WE will succeed if they themselves can't!? :bugeye:

 

Hum,
you naturally assumed that i hadn't worked out that matter inside blackhole is perhaps be transformed into a negative space-time geometry (Dark energy) , or that Dark Matter is perhaps the shadow remnant of the E8 x E8` super symmetry breaking?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

@Cris
As TruthSeeker pointed out these are the current problems being worked on.
The LHC that is being built may be able to shed some light (hehe) as to how it all fits together.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

 

What are the measures for dark matter and dark energy? Is it the same? Is it proportional? If they are, maybe they are related.....

 

I dont think anything remotely resembling dark matter even exists. It's a made up hypothesis in order to make assertions work.

(The overall galaxy's gravity "feeds its own motion ... unlike the case of the solar system," Cooperstock told SPACE.com.

The science of the new argument is complex, but here goes:

"In the galaxy case, having rotation, we have found that general relativity provides a very important potential that is connected to the density of the galactic matter in what we call a 'nonlinear' manner,'" Cooperstock says. "This is unlike Newtonian physics."

This nonlinear effect has been noted before. "The interesting twist is that this holds also for the simpler steady rotational motion under gravity as in the galaxy," he said.

The upshot: The motions of stars in galaxies "is realized in general relativity's equations without the need to invoke massive halos of exotic 'dark matter' that nobody can explain by current physics," Cooperstock said.

A small percent of what used to be considered dark matter is made of burned-out stars that are hard to see. Predictions for how much of that material exists would not change.

Also, the new idea does not yet explain how large clusters of galaxies bind together. Further research by other theorists might solve that problem too, however, Cooperstock said. The new analysis has been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal but has yet to be reviewed by other scientists.) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051010_dark_matter.html

Godless

 

^{(just joking)}

Hum,
But, i know what you mean.
Similar to when the `<i>undetectable</i>` neutrino was proposed...

But that first theory you mention was chewed up and spat out,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51264&page=2&pp=5

Though,
it seems they have come back for more....

I don`t know.

 

>> This nonlinear effect has been noted before.

Just need a new theory of gravity.... seems all 'old' theories are inadequate

Fudging figures (complex or not) is not the way forward IMO