1 of 3
1
Physics Nobel to Big Bangers
Posted: 03 October 2006 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]
New Friend
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2006-08-25

Nothing new there..disappointing that the Big Bang clerics still rule
Mather and Smooth get it for the COBE measurements of the microwave background. Big Bang first predicted perfect isotropy. So when a tiny fraction of anisotropy no longer can be denied, inflation and quarks parameters are just introduced or tweeked to fit..

However, the dipole component is of course aligned with the Milky Way. The dipole can’t be explained away by elementary particles or clumping of primordial matter states. Now that should alone make bells ring for any type of Big Bang model.
I still get facinated by the herd behaviour of scientific communities as a social phenomena, in particular when confronted with indeniable proofs to the contrary.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2006 11:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

The Big Bang is considered such a given that most people accept that every finding is confirmation, despite the anomalies that show that something is wrong with their conclusion. Ah well. Time will tell.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2006 06:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
New Friend
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2006-08-25

Read what Tom van Flandern thinks of this year’s physics prize.

http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2006issues/0915/Mrb06cp8.asp#T1

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2006 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2006-11-26

The Big Bang theory has never implied perfect isotropy. The observed near isotropy of the universe was actually a problem for big-bang theory just as it is for most other cosmological theories. This was addressed by the much more controversial add-on of inflation, a period of rapid expansion after the big bang.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2007 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello All

Rather than talking about the Big Bang that never happened. What about talking about the universe that did happen.

The Big Bang had its day. How it got to be a standard model will always stay in the minds of simple people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2007 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Pluto,

          Let me start you off at what lies beyond. Not beyond Pluto the planet, but what lies beyond that tiny part of the universe - the cosmos or metagalaxy - visible in our telescopes.

Firstly, the firm evidence for galactic recession reveals a universe homogeneous and isotropic i.e. with increasing mutual galactic recession, not just as seen from the Milky Way. In telescopes directed at opposite regions in the sky we can see objects moving away at more than 50% of the speed of light relative to us. Such objects on opposite sides of sky are receding from each other mutually faster than light. At this point you can start to understand that special relativity (SR) is bunk. See my profile for my published patent which works off experimental evidence that demonstrates that SR is false.

Throwing aside SR, the next step is now simple. Just as we see galaxies receding with increasing velocity at greater and greater distances, this phenomenon continues for galaxies redshifted to invisibility, galaxies moving away from us faster than light. We seem to be in a gigantic explosion - one whose components are moving away from each other faster than light.

This brings up the next questions - but I will let you raise them here first!

Yours faithfully

Mark Lofts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2007 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Mark

With great respect.


You said

Firstly, the firm evidence for galactic recession reveals a universe homogeneous and isotropic i.e. with increasing mutual galactic recession, not just as seen from the Milky Way. In telescopes directed at opposite regions in the sky we can see objects moving away at more than 50% of the speed of light relative to us. Such objects on opposite sides of sky are receding from each other mutually faster than light. At this point you can start to understand that special relativity (SR) is bunk. See my profile for my published patent which works off experimental evidence that demonstrates that SR is false.

There is no evidence of galactic recession. The error is in the readings by man. Get upto date info.

In telescopes pointed out in opposite north and south and focused for about 1000000 secs on the size of a rice seed 13.2Gyrs no evidence of recession but a collection of super clusters of clusters of galaxies. Only the assumption from the Big Bang observers assuming that the universe is expanding.


Observations of the universe and the images of star types and galaxies has given us a pattern of formation.

Star bodies form clusters, that form into galaxies that form into cluster of clusters of galaxies and so on.

When people talk about the expanding universe, they talk about time and space not the actual distance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2007 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Pluto,

Unfortunately you have misunderstood what I was saying. When I wrote of ‘galactic recession’ I mean that the distance between us and any redshifted galaxy indicates that that galaxy is receding from us. I am not claiming that this is Big Bang-type expansion. Rather I wish the readers to reconceive what is going on with this large scale mutual galactic recession.

Rejecting any idea that space can somehow expand - which is what is meant by “the expanding universe” - I assert instead that space is infinite and Euclidean. Space does not expand nor contract but the measures of distance in it are objective.

From what you say you too are also anti-Big Bang but if you refuse the interpretation of the redshift as a measure of galactic recession and distance then you are caught in Olbers’ Paradox trying to explain the dark sky in an infinitely old universe. My theory tries to avoid all these pitfalls - so please reread my submission with this new proviso in mind.

Remember that if one invokes ‘tired light’ to explain the redshift instead, this invokes not only a redshift with distance nevertheless but also brings up the question as to what is happening to all the energy which is somehow being lost by the countless photons as they ‘redshift’ while traveling through space. Please also look at my other posts to see where I am coming from,

Thank you for your interest. I hope you post again to clear up details here,

Yours faithfully

Mark Lofts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2007 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Mark


Which galaxy is moving away?

Or are they all moving away.

==============================

I know that there are some moving away and there are some moving towards us.

There is no great pattern.

Read this link

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2007 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Elling

Tom is a very logical person.

I think he is frustrated by the BiG Bang people and their ad hoc ideas.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2007 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Pluto,
          Thank you for your prompt response and weblinks.

You ask “which galaxy is moving away”. The answer is that the two galaxies are in mutual motion, i.e. as Galileo’s Principle of Relativity says - “All motion is relative”. Consequently to ask which galaxy is moving is merely to situate oneself at some position relative to the two galaxies, this situation not comprising any sort of ‘absolute motion’ or ‘absolute rest.’

Having checked up the two weblinks, I thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that Arp has published his book “Seeing Red” in English - as I thought it was only available in German. Admittedly for unrelated reasons I happen to be learning German - but you have obviated the problem here anyway.

The second link, concerning the galaxy-quasar pair, reveals the conundrum. It is quite clear that the quasar is very tiny relative to the galaxy i.e. it is about one hundredth of the diameter of the galaxy. In fact, were it not for its redshift I would merely have presumed that it was a globular cluster within the galaxy. The problem is here is that the sizes of most spiral galaxies are usually within one order of magnitude of each other. As Lerner shows by the fact that a quasar is a galaxy in formation, a quasar and a galaxy at equal distance should be roughly the same size. (See my other postings on the redshift question).

The fact that the quasar is so much smaller than the galaxy indicates that it is much further away. However, its redshift is certainly excessive, but this is explained, as I show in the other posting, by infalling material in the outer layers of the quasar, the infalling material having a redshift of its own added to the ‘general redshift’ of mutual galactic recession.

Once again I have to bring up the cosmological questions with Olbers’ Paradox etc. As you reject the Big Bang presumably you accept the universe to be infinite in time and space. Were galaxies static as Arp thinks, the universe could not be infinite in matter content and infinite in time since over the countless aeons light from the farthest reaches of the universe would ensure that the night sky would be as bright as the surface of the sun. To invoke intervening matter to block the light does not help since over an infinite time this matter too would incandesce.

Consequently an ‘Arp Universe’ would end up like the old Newtonian Model modified by Olbers. That is, static galaxies out to a certain point but a finite amount of matter overall - with absolutely nothing beyond a certain point, just empty space, the finite universe then but some sort of ‘spherical’ shape in an infinite space. We would then be left wondering as to whether it was temporally finite as well - so speculation would very soon turn back to the Big Bang.

Hence we have two different questions at issue:

1) The Arp interpretation of galaxy-quasar redshifts.
2) The implications for an infinite universe of accepting Arp’s idea that there is no large scale galactic recession.

I hope you will ponder over these questions. Looking forward to your next posting.

Yours faithfully

Mark

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2007 08:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Mark

1) There are galaxies moving towards each other, eg Andromeda and the Milky Way. The evolution of the Milky Way and the satellites that surround the milky way indicate a galactic collision.

2) Arp should have been given greater respect.

3) A quasar can be a dwarf or as huge as they come.
Quarsar is a resultant star like body, its size is dependant on the compacted neucleon of the galaxy. Hubble noted that galaxies evolve from elliptical to spiral, main stream thinks spiral to elliptical.

http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/basic/galaxies/tuningfork.asp

The Hubble Tuning Fork

In the early 1900s, Edwin Hubble looked at galaxies like the ones you saw in the last few pages. Hubble classified the galaxies using a

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2007 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Pluto,
          I have not yet checked all your websites but I can give you a part answer already. I will deal first with the irritating points then with your really interesting comment about galactic evolution.

Like you I oppose the Big Bang 100% - and I totally agree that it is propped up by perverse ideological, religious and political motives. In this case though it is vital that we critique our own arguments fully. For example Arp - or Lerner for that matter - can only be respected inasfar as he makes sense; it is beholden on us to hunt out the difficulties and potential - not just the actual - paradoxes lurking in any thinker’s writing. This of course also applies to Olbers and to you and me.

Hence one cannot dismiss Olbers’ compelling and factually-based logic as a mere “old fantasy idea.” In order to uphold an infinite universe - i.e. infinite in space and time and matter content, one has to come up with a conception of the universe to explain away Olbers’ Paradox. Arp has not put forward a model to achieve this; Lerner rather ducks the point but is more aware of the paradoxes than Arp.

The basic riposte to Olbers’ position is galactic recession itself. The night sky is not bright because the redshifting of galaxies lengthens the wavelengths of photons into the microwave range, leaving the night sky dark. That galaxies are receding from each other is in no way proof that all galaxies and everything else began as Big Bang - this latter is an erroneous extrapolation unjustified by the evidence. But this evidence is galactic recession itself and the increasing redshift of increasingly distant galaxies is backed by plenty of research. The brightness of fixed candle stars e.g. classical Cepheids, the angular size of galaxies themselves, the brightness of supernovae within galaxies - all indicate that galaxies are mutually receding from each other, although the mechanism is not understood. Lerner’s comments about the ideas of Winston Bostick are the best I have come across.

Of course, a few galaxies may be approaching us for a while e.g. Andromeda,but we can no more extrapolate a collision with that galaxy as we can extrapolate to a Big Bang!

Much more interesting is your comment about Hubble and the supposed evolution of galaxies from elliptical to spiral. As you correctly note, mainstream astrophysics now claims the opposite i.e. spiral to elliptical. However, both these views I consider mistaken.

Spectroscopic characteristics of spirals and ellipticals are quite different. Spiral galaxies comprise mainly type 1 stars which have high metallicity i.e. lots of elements heavier than helium or boron. In contrast elliptical galaxies comprise primarily type 2 stars which are of low metallicity. The vortex mechanism that leads to galaxy formation is stronger in spiral galaxies - this is why they are spirals, though this also applies to irregular galaxies and open clusters. The stronger vortex mechanism in the early spiral galaxy leads to the formation of very large type 2 stars, which, as they evolve, become type 1 stars because they quickly form heavier elements. Such very large type 2 stars do not occur in ellipticals so the stellar populations there remain at the type 2 stage, never converting to high metallicity stars.

Hence the spectroscopic difference between type 1 and type 2 stars - and their differential galactic distribution between spirals and ellipticals - essentially makes it impossible for one type of galaxy to evolve into the other. I exclude dwarf ellipticals of course as these are often a by-product of spiral galaxy formation - as are globular clusters, which also comprise type 2 stars. I rather suspect that the claim of “back and forth” evolution of spiral and elliptical galactic forms is rather generated by holding onto the belief in a static Arp-like universe.

Please consider these new thoughts. I will post back when I get through all the websites you kindlily provided. I look forward to your next communication in the meantime.

Yours faithfully

Mark

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Mark

I posted a response. Than it went blank.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,be back later.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2007 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello Mark

May I ask you to do more reading on the evolution of galaxies. I will do the same.


I came across this link

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Time_acceleration_hypothesis

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2007 03:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Pluto,

Welcome Back!

Yes, I am having a further read of books on galactic structure - and feel I should retract part of the last posting for a partial alteration.

The question is that of a possible change from elliptical to spiral galaxies. I now realize that is not impossible for ellipticals to ‘change’ into spirals if these ellipticals somehow become involved in larger plasma vortex which breaks up the elliptical galaxy or group of ellipticals - with the addition of further hydrogen plasma. If hydrogen plasma in large vortices was swirling around and breaking up an elliptical galaxy it could lead to the formation of large type 2 stars which would then convert to type 1 stars and seed the next generation of the ‘former elliptical’ population. However the important fuel for this process is the plasma itself since an elliptical galaxy in existence for a very long time e.g. 30,000,000,000 years i.e. about twice what is allowed for the Big Bang, would be using up its hydrogen by then so would need a further boost to its fuel sources, hydrogen-to-carbon/oxygen/calcium/iron conversion probably not being extensive enough in the last type 2 generation in the ellipticals to effect any change in the galaxy. That is, by itself, an old elliptical would just convert into pure He!

You see that I assign an active role to the plasma - the plasma coming in from outside the galaxy rather than being some mysterious internal product. Nor do I invoke the spontaneous ‘Popping into existence’ (i.e. Karl Popper theory-like) of hydrogen atoms that was first proposed by Fred Hoyle. This means that the total mass of the elliptical galaxy on its breakup will increase because of the addition of the plasma (comprising primarily a hydrogen plasma), the result being the generation of a spiral galaxy with old type 2 relic stars in small galaxies around it - I suppose, but I cannot show you an astronomical demonstration of such a conversion.

What I am really trying to get to you consider is not so much the conversion-breakup of an elliptical to a spiral - which must be very unusual - but the source of the plasma in the first place. This latter is the basic problem of Lerner’s plasma cosmological model. An attempt at a solution for this was actually undertaken by Alfven, who, though unsuccessful, mentions an early and progressive cosmological conception updated in Sweden in the late 19th/early 20th century - until it was suppressed by the Einstein fraternity. I refer to the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology - it avoids Olbers’ Paradox!

The website you give in your posting is highly relevant here. When I looked at it it seemed unfamiliar at first but that was only the terminology. What the writer of the “Time Acceleration Hypothesis” really intends to say is that there is no Big Bang in the sense of an ‘Expanding Universe’ but rather it is the obverse of the Big Bang position. That is, the universe is finite and static is size - as Einstein wished to believe - but in order to harmonize with the features interpreted as proving the Big Bang, one claims instead that all the objects in the universe are shrinking - galaxies, stars, planets, people and atoms are all shriking in size. According to this theory, we are not aware of our shrinking relative to space itself so we mistakenly infer that space is expanding!

Conversely I consider we must reject that theory because it too is based on the finite universe principles established by Einstein - i.e. special and general relativity. I realize of course that the Big Bang was already put forward by that classic Gothic horror writer Edgar Allan Poe, an American as Lerner points out! What is generally not perceived is that Einstein gave such views scientific respectability - so if we don’t achieve focus fusion, there really is gothic horror facing humanity on our planet! I ask you now to consider a non-Einsteinian infinite universe - and again the question as to where the plasma that could break up a ‘tired old He-filled elliptical galaxy’ could come from.

Yours faithfully

Mark

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1