Time calls Time on Big Bang Theory – In 1936

Posted: April 17, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics

Time Magazine carried this piece on Dec 14, 1936
H/T  Joe Olson.

Shift on Shift

The brilliant, whimsical popularizing of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington has made ”the expanding Universe” almost a household word. But the telescopic observations of a universe which seems to be blowing up like the fragments of an explosive shell have come mainly from Mount Wilson Observatory’s brilliant Astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble. Beginning in 1928, Hubble and his coworker, Milton LaSalle Humason, showed that the light from the most distant nebulae (clouds of stars) which he could photograph in Mount Wilson’s giant telescope was shifted far toward the red end of the spectrum. Such a redshift is observed in the light of a star known to be retreating from Earth, so it was assumed that the distant nebulae were retreating in all directions. On these observations, and on the theoretical expanding universes formulated by de Sitter and Lemaitre before any observations were made, the case for the expanding universe rested.

Sir Arthur has never lost his enthusiasm for this cosmic soap bubble. But the speeds indicated by the amount of redshift, some of which now equal 25,000 miles per second, have made many astronomers doubt. Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one.

To the National Academy of Sciences Dr. Hubble communicated the results of his most recent survey of the distant nebulae. The distribution of these bodies in space forced him to conclude that a non-expanding universe theory “is more economical and less vulnerable.” If the red-shifts do not really indicate velocity, he wrote, one has a “rather simple and thoroughly consistent picture of a universe in which . . . the large-scale distribution of nebulae is uniform throughout the sample available for inspection.” On the other hand, to assume that the shifts really indicate receding velocity forces one to adopt a very curious model of the universe. “The model is closed and very small—a large fraction can be observed with existing telescopes—and is packed with matter to the very threshold of perception—. The rate of expansion has been slowing down so that the past time scale is remarkably limited. In short, the necessary adjustments and compensations suggest that the model may be a forced interpretation of the data.” In plainer language, this meant that Astronomer Hubble is now willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists and philosophers, pending a further development of theory, or the erection in 1940 of Caltech’s 200-inch super telescope, which may finally settle the question.

____________________________________

And it seems Time are still a bit renegade when it comes to the Big Bang theory. Here’s a 2009 interview they did with Cambridge educated writer Brian Clegg

Comments
  1. Hans says:

    “In plainer language, this meant that Astronomer Hubble is now willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists and philosophers, pending a further development of theory”

    Not a minute to early to question this unproven hypothesis.
    The quote show a needed insight to get energy equtions to work properly. What energy should produce the hypotheical expansion? It is a great insight that there can be many reasons for a red shift of electromagnetic radiation (irony).

  2. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Steve P says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
    It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%.

    There are people looking into what effect Dark Matter would have if present in our solar system.
    Dark Energy has no effect: the Universe is not expanding on the length-scale of galaxies or shorter.

    Heh, so now the universe only expands in the places where it wouldn’t cause inconvenience.
    Give it up Leif, Hubble, a good empirical scientist, did.

  3. orkneylad says:

    Fingers of God in an expanding universe:
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=5165

    There Was No Big Bang: The Proof:
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1194

  4. adolfogiurfa says:

    Who lighted the match to make the universe explode?. That´s the “third excluded” logical principle (“tercio excluido” in spanish). If the universe is a child then it is growing up, for sure. :-)

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    Even in the deepest, most empty parts of space there is a proton every 50 miles. There is no way light can travel billions of light years and not be effected by space. Just as in physics and other sciences, Astronomy has much to learn and much to unlearn. pg

  6. ferd berple says:

    In Astronomy, what is the size of the unknown? Is the body of knowledge yet to be discovered finite, or is there an infinite number of discoveries available to be made? If it is infinite, what percentage of the total have we discovered so far?

  7. Orkneylad, I like the comment in your second reference “Blacks holes –where Taxpayers’ money goes” but in reality it flows to political mates- mate who are in the “dark” about scientific understanding.
    I have always been suspicious of the big bank theory with the universe coming from a singularity but there was probably a big explosion (maybe an unstable black hole) that started our solar system.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Orkneylad: Good articles. I left a comment at the first link, but it got sucked into a black hole. ;)

    Regarding the second, you need to look at William Tift’s work too, which backs up Arp’s.

  9. Hans says:

    orkneylad says: April 18, 2012 at 12:26 am

    “Fingers of God in an expanding universe”

    Many thanks for the links. I heard about Arp 20 years ago and it seems to be time I start to read some of his work about “peculiar” galaxies.
    Also a long time ago I saw a book in a store named “The first 60 seconds after Big Bang” (or something similar). I then thought it must be the peak of human conceit and megolomania to write such a book about something nobody knows anything about and which cannot be verified. Hence, such statements should be outside the realm of science and left to religion.

    Trying to find the title of the book above I found this amazing statement about Big Bang:
    “This stunning discovery is beautifully explained by general relativity—Einstein’s theory of gravity—augmented by two new concepts, dark matter and dark energy” at
    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000854

    Appeal to authority when facts are missing and funding is a problem?

  10. orkneylad says:

    Talbloke – Many thanks, caught it at the EH and approved. :-)

    Appreciate the heads-up on Tift, looking into his work today!

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hans: I think the book you are referring to may be “The first three minutes” by Steven Weinberg. I bought it around 30 years ago. It never made much sense to me.

    It’s a while since I looked into this stuff, but I seem to remember (pre-crash memory can be dodgy) that some observations indicated that the ‘event horizon’ The furthest point we would be able to see in the universe as the light travelling from there would have to be the primordial light of the big bang itself, had a numerical relationship with the estimated mass. I can’t remember the details of the conclusion I came to, but it seemed that the upshot was that the expansion of the universe under that scenario would exactly match the power of the bang, such that it would stop expanding, but would never start contracting again, since the mass would be too widely spread for gravity to overcome the slower and slower expansion. So we would end up with a steady state universe.

    This raised a philosophical thought in my mind.

    It seemed that if the numbers worked out that elegantly, then the whole thing is a balanced model that can be interpreted in different ways in terms of the underlying assumptions of the concepts buried within it. So for example, if we assumed redshift didn’t represent distance primarily, but age, then we would still be able to get all the numbers to work out, we would simply have to adjust another underlying assumption to make it work. That assumption would have to be the constancy of the speed of light.

    The anisotropy in the speed of light was experimentally determined in the 20′s and thirties by Dayton Miller. His results were later subjected to a hatchet job by his erstwhile assistant Robert Shankland, much to Einstein’s delight.

  12. steveta_uk says:

    What happened to Leif’s comment?

    [Reply] I copied it from The closed thread at WUWT

  13. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: April 18, 2012 at 9:22 am

    “The anisotropy in the speed of light was experimentally determined in the 20′s and thirties by Dayton Miller.”

    Rog,

    Any time a scientist produces a hypothesis far away in time or space where verification cannot be obtained (during his life time) I get very suspicous. The Big Bang hypothesis is just religion. It does not qualify as a sincere scientific topic. Should we just forget about what happened before the Big Bang?

    I am not sure what you mean by “anisotropy in the speed of light”.
    Fact is: Light can travel with different speeds which it does in every window glass and outside of it.
    The question is: What physical processes affects the speed of light in the glass or in space and still keeping its energy per photon intact?

    Facts is: The observed frequency of light can change. Some of it is relating to the speed of the object emitting the light quanta. There might be several other processes affcting the FREQUENCY of a photon, which is proportional tothe energy content of the same. If there exists “friction” in space or somwhere in space the result would be a gradual degradation of the photon energy.

    Facts is: Stars are seen as points in space for a reason. This is the most amazing part of it all. A single photon keeps moving on in a straight line for billion of years before it hits my eye. The error is mostly caused by our atmosphere which makes the star to “twinkle” but that is a minor effect.

    It seems like every photon has an inbuilt gyro that keeps its path straight. It is also the basis for the polarization effect IMO. Each photon seems to change between an “electric” and “magnetic” state at the rate of its frequency. It would be no wonder if such an action would result in a gradual energy loss. My experience with radar signals is that they can follow the earth´s radius for 100 miles around the horizon and then come back again in special situations. This was never taught during my theoretical teaching about radar signals. They were supposed to move in straight lines.

    There might be more to “red shifts” than speed of emitting object, energy degradation, gravity influence and “age” of emitting object. Big Bang does not qualify in my scientific world and never will until its proven what happened before Big Bang. I have no hope that the latter will occur so I consider Big Bang to belong to fairy tales.

  14. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    Say we have NOT been wasting billions on the CERN Collider that is doing experiments on molecules that do not rotate the same way as planets and suns?

    If a single bang was creation, then every piece of particle will be of the same age.

    [Reply] Joe, matter and energy are inter-convertible.

  15. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    “Joe, matter and energy are inter-convertible.”
    TB, that statement isn’t quite accurate. What scientists missed is that energy as in a planet can be in many different velocities which has many different parameters from friction to energy differences. Stored energy is also in many forms which also was not considered. Intensity of energy also changes with distances.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Hans, one of the theories proposed is that of the late Paul Mermet. He says that our radiotelescopes don’t detect H2 molecules, but only singleton H atoms. Since Hydrogen much prefers to be combined i the H2 molecule, he though the amount of free Hydrogen in space is a lot more than cosmologists estimate. He said that photons would be delayed by absorption and re-emittance by H2 but would always be re-emitted in the same direction. So his theory is not so much a ‘tired light theory’ as a delayed light theory. Mermet had an impressive list of credentials after his name.
    Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
    B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University
    O. C. (Order of Canada)
    F. R. S. C.
    Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.
    Professor, Physics, Laval University, Québec, Canada: 1962-83,
    Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,
    Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.
    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/

    The anisotropy I referred to was found by Dayton Mller using interferometry. Actually Michaelson and Morley found it too, but got a much weaker signal as they conducted their experiment in a concrete basement. Miller got stronger results when he moved his rig up to the top of Mount Wilson and set it up under canvas.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/

    The results were independently confirmed in 2003 by Yuri Galaev:
    http://www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip

  17. mkelly says:

    I always wondered about Guth’s expansion of space idea. What did it expand into?
    I always wondered about the high temperatures assumed for the singularity since as far as we can tell you need matter to have temperature and there was no matter yet.
    And why did it not turn into a black hole as soon as gravity kicked in.

  18. adolfogiurfa says:

    Chances are that this particular universe was born through the interaction of two opposite forces: one positively charged and the other negatively charged, in a transcendental reproductive orgasmic encounter called an act of love.

  19. ferd berple says:

    dark matter and dark energy are a consequence of assuming gravity propagates at the speed of light. This prevents matter in this universe from interacting gravitationally with matter in our parent universe. However, if van Flanders is correct, that gravity propagates at faster than light speed, then the need for dark energy and dark matter no longer exists.

  20. RKS says:

    Much of the standard model appears to be hypothesis and fudge to provide an explanation for observations.

    First Big Bang to explain Red Shift, then Inflation to explain asymmetries in the expanding cloud, then Dark Matter, then Dark Energy and more recently Dark Force to account for some groups of celestial bodies moving in different directions to others.

    An awful lot of research has gone into trying to explain these fudge factors, and now Fred Hoyle says that Red Shift, the basis for the standard model, may be a misinterpretation of the observations.

    We have seen similar beliefs in fudge factors in other branches of science discussed on tallbloke, but that of course is for a different thread.

  21. Hans says:

    RKS says: April 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    “Much of the standard model appears to be hypothesis and fudge to provide an explanation for observations.”

    IMO your all your statements and the one above are realistic and close to truth. Most scientists emphasise to find an “explanation” to a phenomenon without a substantive foundation for their claims. Too often it is said in articles that a correlation “explains” that A is causing B (even to a certain percentage) without considering that C is (or might be) causing A and B. It would be nice to get scientists to just describe phenomena in nature when they don´t know how it functions.

  22. Hans says:

    ferd berple says: April 18, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    “dark matter and dark energy are a consequence of assuming gravity propagates at the speed of light. This prevents matter in this universe from interacting gravitationally with matter in our parent universe. However, if van Flanders is correct, that gravity propagates at faster than light speed, then the need for dark energy and dark matter no longer exists.”

    I have always considered the concepts of dark energy and dark matter as an indication that scientists don´t understand the forces creating and evolving the universe. They are just a sign of lack of understanding the energy situation in cosmos. There might not be any need for “gravity” to propagate at all. Gravity might just be the consequence of the energy situation at a specific place at a specific time in the absence of electrical charges. IMO the Newtonian formula is a partial solution to what “gravity” includes.

  23. Hans says:

    mkelly says: April 18, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    “I always wondered about Guth’s expansion of space idea. What did it expand into?
    I always wondered about the high temperatures assumed for the singularity since as far as we can tell you need matter to have temperature and there was no matter yet.
    And why did it not turn into a black hole.”

    I don´t know anything about Guth but doesn´t vacuum suck matter? Is there vaccum at the end of our universe? I share your opinion that temperature is related to matter. Consider black holes in macrocosmos as an unproven hypothesis. In microcosmos any atom might be considered as a “black hole”

    Questions that cannot be answered and verified should be considered as outside the realm of science IMO. They have a place in religion, new or old ones.

  24. RKS says:

    RKS says:
    April 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oops, brain malfunction, should have referred to Edwin Hubble in my post.

  25. Hans says:

    Rog,
    Many thanks for the links. The first one tells:
    “In the web pages below, we present explanations which are compatible with Newtonian and semi-classical physics. We apply the principle of causality and avoid models requiring a probabilistic existence of matter and non-locality. This differs from the current approach of modern physics.”
    I can agree to most of these statements even if I don´t like the word “explanations”.

    I will study the second link with keen interest since I had very hard to accept the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. One reason being that the there might be an energy reservoir following any planet which might prevent the influence from an “ether” to show up easily.

    About the third link I will believe that you are correct about an independant verification (for a while at least).

  26. adolfogiurfa says:

    Dark matter and dark energy…is in the mind of the beholders. :-)

  27. Hans, I read not long ago that electromagnetic energy waves were bent around stars eg the sun by interaction with the corona. Do not know much about the subject. This article I found about the galaxy “corona” may ineterest http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1985IAUS..106..415D&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=415&epage=415&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
    You seem to have in your mind that photons are real which seems to be based on one experiment that showed wave and particle duality. However, others have shown that wave interactions can result in pulses which give the impression of particles. Nothing I have read has given a sensible explanation of a photon. The explanations vary with in the supposed context. I asked Miles Mathis who uses the term but his explanation was not clear and seemed to me to be related to energy waves. Lubos Motl said “what does it matter” the terms particles and waves are interchangeable. To me it is important because the supposed climate scientist and believers of AGW use photons emitted in random directions and in straight lines (from a gases in the atmosphere hitting the earth’s surface) as an excuse to say the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. I read an article which I wish I had kept that recently it was found that the 2nd law of thermo applied on an atomic scale. There were waves from some atoms which were deflected by or flowing around other atoms at the same energy state and absorbed by other atoms of lower energy states.
    If the idea of photons could be killed the whole AGW scam would fall into a heap..

  28. ferd berple says:

    Hans says:
    April 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm
    “I always wondered about Guth’s expansion of space idea. What did it expand into?

    Everything has a finite existence, even atoms. Life exists because it is a self-replicating process. For the universe to exist, it must also be a self-replicating process. Otherwise it would eventually reach the end of its lifetime. Those universe that are not able to replicate no longer exist, as happens with life forms that are unable to replicate.

    Consider how the universe replicates. As stars gain mass they eventually collapse to form black holes. Each black hole gives birth to what we perceive to be a universe. This leads to an exponential increase in the number of universes at each generation, such that over time the number of universes approaches infinity, with all possible futures played out. This is the multi-verse revealed through quantum mechanics.

    Where is the space to contain this? Each child universe is slowed in time by the gravitational field of the black hole responsible for its birth, such that each new universe expands into the space once occupied by the parent, far into the past. The accelerating expansion of our own universe provides the space that each black hole in our universe will in our distant future form its own universe.

  29. ge0050 says:

    cementafriend says:
    April 19, 2012 at 6:13 am
    I read an article which I wish I had kept that recently it was found that the 2nd law of thermo applied on an atomic scale

    If it does, then the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution would not exist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution

    If kinetic energy (temperature) only flowed from warmer molecules to colder molecules via conduction, then the warm molecules could only get colder and the cold molecules could only get warmer, until over time every molecule would have the exact same kinetic energy (temperature).

    But this is not what happens. If you start out with molecules all with the exact same kinetic energy, over time some will gain energy through collisions and some will lose energy through collisions until they approximate the MB distribution. This can only happen if colder molecules can increase the kinetic energy of warmer molecules, cooling themselves in the process.

    This is a violation of the 2nd law at the molecular level, that can be easily demonstrated by elastic collision. Two billiard balls traveling in the same relative direction, if the faster moving ball crosses at an angle in front of the slower moving ball such that they collide, the faster moving ball will be accelerated while the slower moving ball is decelerated. This shows that through conduction a colder molecule can warm a hotter molecule, while at the same time cooling itself further.

  30. Tenuc says:

    cementafriend says:
    April 19, 2012 at 6:13 am
    “…Nothing I have read has given a sensible explanation of a photon. The explanations vary with in the supposed context. I asked Miles Mathis who uses the term but his explanation was not clear and seemed to me to be related to energy waves. Lubos Motl said “what does it matter” the terms particles and waves are interchangeable…”

    Lubos is probably correct, in that mass and energy are the same thing (E=MC^2). We just percieve large slow moving ‘energy dense’ spinning energy packets as being solid, while small particles with high translational energy, like photons, are observed to be waves. I think we really need to nail the simple basic stuff like this and gravity, for example, before anything in this universe starts to make sense.

  31. adolfogiurfa says:

    @cementafriend Hans, I read not long ago that electromagnetic energy waves were bent around stars eg the sun by interaction with the corona.
    Take a glass, fill it with water, the put a knife or a pencil in it: See?, it looks like bended: It´s the humble diffraction!, that´s all….Now, why is that?, because waves interfere, act one upon the other: the wave knife and the wave water. Everything is but waves…

  32. Stephen Fox says:

    Following up on this thread, I came across a fascinating 90 minute documentary, The Big Bang Never Happened, here:

    It begins with Arp explaining his work on red shift, and the consequences for his career, and goes on to examine other issues in big bang cosmology, such as dark matter, and dark energy. People include Hoyle, Margaret Burbidge, and many others. The parallels with AGW consensus-ism are clear.
    Recommended.

  33. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Stephen Fox :It was published in NYTimes: “We live in an expanding universe”…..
    No more questions your honor……

  34. Stephen Fox says:

    @Adolpho, I read it in the paper so it must be true! It’s part of the culture now, like AGW. That is positive (social) feedback. Steady state is too boring to be hip…

  35. Hans says:

    Stephen Fox says: April 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    “Following up on this thread, I came across a fascinating 90 minute documentary, The Big Bang Never Happened”.

    This is a master piece production and should earn a better fate than being shown on youtube.
    It is more exiting than a James Bond movie.
    Actually, it should replace Al Gores infamous movie at all level of societies. Just see it!

    Many thanks.

  36. I think the observed red shift is due the delaying effects of large shells of free electrons surrounding all stars and galaxies, that act to shift the frequency lower at every passing through a standing charge field. ionized elements can absorb or emit photons, but free electrons only slow down the frequency in passing through polarized fields surrounding stars or large bodies of stars caused by electrons suspended by the self repulsive conditions in the outer realms of the heliopause for each star or the greater extended shells around globular clusters or galaxies.

    I don’t believe there was a big bang I believe in a steady state process where matter and energy are transferred from star build up, supernova, and reformation of new stars from the remains of the older ones ad infinitium.

  37. tallbloke says:

    Here’s an easy read on the BB vs Steady state theories:
    http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm

    No Mention of Arp or Hubble’s misgivings though.

  38. Hans says:

    cementafriend says: April 19, 2012 at 6:13 am

    “Hans, I read not long ago that electromagnetic energy waves were bent around stars eg the sun by interaction with the corona. You seem to have in your mind that photons are real which seems to be based on one experiment that showed wave and particle duality. However, others have shown that wave interactions can result in pulses which give the impression of particles.”

    First I have the opinion that photons interact with gravity. There is a red shift from light coming from heavy dense stars if I got it right.
    Yes. I certainly consider it verified that photons exist and are idividuals. My basic education in engineering is based on Maxwell equations and a genius professor named Erik Hallén, professor in theoretical electronics at the Royal Institutes of Technology, Stockholm. His major book is simply named “Teachings in electronics” (in Swedish, 557 pages and 567 problems to solve). It is the best book I have seen covering both theoretical and applied electronics.

    He also became somewhat philosophical and pondered about the nature of our universe.
    Chapter 36,3 is named “The four universal constants”
    “We can unite the four universal constants to a system:”
    Light speed c = 2.99793E10 m/s
    Ether resistence Z = 376.731 ohm
    The mass of an electron M = 9.1066E-31 kg
    The charge of an electron e = 1.6019E-19 C

    Then he derives 12 other elementary units expressed by the help of just these four constants where the fine structure constant is one.This constant is involved any time an atom is sending out a photon since it is related to the Rydberg constant.

    The energies of photons created by the electron jumps in an atom and especially the hydrogen atom clearly proves that a specific action in an atom creates 1 photon carrying a specific energy given by the Planck relation E = h v. The smallest part of electromagnetic radiation is the photon. The paradox is that a photon has a size which can be shown by a number of experiments. It does interact with a hole in a metal plate if the whole is of around the “wavelength” of the photon. In my mind the photon might be a dual inseparable particle which both moves with the speed of light until it get stopped (its energy gets absorbed). Finally, photons coming from different directions cannot interfere with each other as waves do. These are just some reasons why I consider electromagnetic “waves” as built up by individual photons. Still, I consider the Maxwell equations as the most important model ever constructed but it doesn´t “explain” everything. It is fantastic for caclulating the impact of electromagnetc fields on us and on matter.

    Come to think of the construction of our eyes. It is interesting to study it in detail. Our eyes are constructed to 1) adapt to maximum energy of photons during day light and 2) to get some information out of infrared photon radiation when it´s getting dark.

  39. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: April 20, 2012 at 9:08 am

    from the referred link:

    “The cosmological debate acquired religious and political aspects. Pope Pious XII announced in 1952 that big-bang cosmology affirmed the notion of a transcendental creator and was in harmony with Christian dogma.”

    “For most purposes, however, the debate between the big bang and the steady state was over in 1965, with big bang the clear winner. Steady-state advocates were reduced to making ad hoc arguments of little plausibility, and they were increasingly marginalized.”

    It he pope sanctions an unproven hypothesis it´s probably biased towards faith.
    So with the evidence in the the video presented by Stephen Fox April 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    there is a new “clear” winner in the old debate?

  40. tallbloke says:

    Reference:
    E. Hubble, 1937, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”, Oxford University Press.

  41. Tenuc says:

    Richard Holle says:
    April 20, 2012 at 8:39 am
    “…I don’t believe there was a big bang I believe in a steady state process where matter and energy are transferred from star build up, supernova, and reformation of new stars from the remains of the older ones ad infinitium.”

    I’m with you on this one Richard. I never have believed in the ‘big bang’ conjecture, as it brings far too much fictional baggage with it, necessary to resolve the created paradoxes.

    Much simpler to believe that nothing comes from nothing and that the cosmos is a self perpatuating system, where birth, maturity and death proceed in diferent spatial locations ad infinitum – although I’m still sceptical of this interpretation till we have a better understanding of the basic physics. We also need more precise observational data, preferably from many different viewpoints.

    Perhaps in another few thousand years, if humanity is still around, we may be able to start to at least be asking the right questions.

  42. tallbloke says:

    Hans: clear winner? No, but I think the video posted by Stephen Fox contains a strong body blow to the BB theory.

    The field is open IMO.

  43. Tim Cullen says:

    Tenuc says: April 20, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    I’m with you on this one Richard.

    I am with you both on this one.

  44. tallbloke says:

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred

    “Then came the part that electrified me – after showing how the particle masses as a function of cosmic time could be related by strict mathematical transformations to the usual cosmological models – he then said, “This concept appears necessary if we are to understand the result reported by Arp for the galaxy NGC 7603 and its appendage.” So i finally knew, that is what he had concluded when he silently returned the plate of this object to my desk!

    After his talk we were standing outside the lecture room discussing the relation of the observations to what he had said when we were approached by one of the leading astronomers of the day, Martin Schwarzschild. Martin stood there looking up at us and, in his inimitable way, slowly contorting his expression in an effort to say something of evident importance. Finally he blurted out,”You are both crazy” I was startled, but flattered to be linked together with Fred. Fred just looked blank.”

  45. Tenuc says:

    Thanks for the Arp article. This bit seems to sum up that the current problems of climate science are endemic across many other disciplines…

    “During the years I visited with Fred from time to time to show him the newest observational results which were struggling to get published. He would instantly size up the results and say something like, “Well chip, they will certainly have to admit now that their assumptions are wrong.”

    After a while we both knew that it would not be accepted in the foreseeable future. He never dwelt on the lost effort, money or the dismal state of the science. He was always trying to think ahead to the next insight, the next synthesis of physics. It will always be a pleasure and inspiration however to look back and read his clear, courageous logic and also sad to think how far ahead we might be now if more people had joined in the discovery of new understandings instead of insisting on complexifying and patching up their commitment to old dogma.

    I can still hear him saying, “They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.”

  46. tallbloke says:

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sage_gravity

    An unexpected property of astronomical objects (and therefore an ignored and suppressed subject) is that their properties are quantized. This first appeared when William Tifft, showed that the redshifts of galaxies occurred in certain preferred values, e.g 72, 144, 216, etc km/sec. Later William Napier demonstrated a periodicity of 37.5 km/sec with great accuracy. The outstandingly important, empirical implication to draw from these, by now exceedingly well established observations, is that the individual velocities of galaxies must be less than about 20 km/sec otherwise the sharp quantizations would be blurred. In turn this implied very little motion in a primary reference frame.

    For the quasars, Geoffrey Burbidge noticed soon after the first redshifts began to accumulate that there was a preferred value about redshift z = 1.95. As more redshifts accumulated it became clear that that the whole range of extragalactic redshifts was significantly periodic. K.G. Karlsson showed that they fit the formula (1 + zn) = (1+z0) x 1:23n.

    This was interpreted by Arp in terms of variable mass theory by hypothesizing that as the electron masses grew with time that they increased through permitted mass states which stepped by a factor of 1.23.

    The most astonishing result was then pointed to by Jess Artem, that the same quantization ratio that appeared in quasar redshifts appeared in the orbital parameters of the planets in the solar system. This first manifested itself in the ratio of planetary semi-major axes occurring in some high power of n in 1.23n. This also appeared to be true of the ratio of planetary and lunar masses and even solar and electron masses.

    Shortly afterward O. Neto, Agnese and Festa, L. Nottale and A. and J. Rubcic independently in Brazil, Italy, France and Croatia began pointing out similarities to the Bohr atom in the orbital placement of the planets. Different variations of the Bohr-like radius = n2or n2 + 1 / 2n fit the planetary semimajor axes extremely well with rather low “quantum” numbers n. Most recently I have learned of a modification to the Titius-Bode law by Walter Murch where the planetary radii = 1+ 2n + 2n-1

    This latter law fits the observed planetary positions exceedingly well for n = -1 to 6 with an average deviation of only 2.4 percent.

    Which of these empirical laws is correct, or whether they are all different approximations to a more fundamental law is a mystery at this moment. But it is clear that the properties of the planets are not random and that they are in some way connected to quantum mechanical parameters both of which are connected to cosmological properties.

  47. tallbloke says:

    I wonder if Arp will refine the numerical value of the step parameter and find it is 1.236 = 2*phi

  48. Sunsettommy says:

    There is another fallout on INTRINSIC redshifts and that is galaxy formation.The little galaxies surrounding the one or two large galaxies also have a peculiar redshift in relation the dominant redshift yet that are all gravitationally bound to each other.

    Dr. Arp discusses this in his book Quasars,Redshifts and Controversies.The link below provide an excellent example of two physically bound galaxies with widely divergent redshifts:

    http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

  49. Wayne Job says:

    Being an engineer the last thing that I would design as a universe is some thing that started with a bang and had a design life that ended in a whimper. The standard model has been shown to be a load of pixie dust. The universe is full of dust and hydrogen over the distances they measure light is bound to be shifted to the red. The other pillar as proof of the curvature of space by measuring the bending of light around the sun to show Einstienian science correct, well have they never heard of the peculiar properties of a lens and the way it bends light.

    Science seems to have been sucked in with tunnel vision, the time has come for a revolution to break out from the standard model and not be pilloried for your efforts.

    The same can be said for quantum physics as that has more holes than a crumpet.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Latest thinkinng on Le Sage type ‘push gravity’ which contains a possible explanation for the CMBR within the frame of a plausible alternative.

    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO3PDF/V14N3EDW.PDF

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
    Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007)[67]

  51. w.w.wygart says:

    I am neither smart enough nor well informed enough to pass judgement on the Big Bang Theory without risk of embarrassing myself; however, I will repeat what Uncle Terrence used to say on the subject, ” Well, I say, if Science gets one free miracle, everybody gets one free miracle.”

  52. tallbloke says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
    Jelbring’s gedanken experiment is absolute nonsense no matter how you slice it or dice it. It is simply wrong from the beginning to the end. Both Willis and I spent a rather long and patient time demonstrating that. Adiabatic lapse rates only exist in open turbulent systems being warmed at the bottom. Thermal gradients are invariably associated with the flow of heat, unless you literally block all possible channels for the transmission and sharing of energy.

    Neither you nor Willis actually addressed Jelbring’s gedanken experiment, as I pointed out previously. You view thermodynamics in terms of heat. Along with modst of the rest of the physics and engineering world I view it in terms of energy. A given volume of air in a gravitational field contains kinetic and potential energy. The lower you are in the field, the less potential energy is part of the total. If the total energy is even throughout, then there is more kinetic energy lower down and more potential energy higher up.

    What explains the Big Bang, what determined the microscopic details of the initial state, whether those details were inherited from a still earlier or still larger Universe are all open, and very difficult indeed, questions. Whether or not there exists “true randomness” in the Universe (including in the context of quantum theory) is similarly an open question, and in the end, the same question.

    The discovery by astronomers of large scale quantum structure in the universe is a big problem for big bangers. So are Halton Arps anomalous redshift galaxies. The establishment got away for long enough with the tiny probability that the quasar in the blob of gas at the end of the tendril of gas joining it to the parent galaxy was a chance alignment of two objects at different distances, and refusing to publish Arps study with the appropriate wavelength images, and banning him from using the telescope. But since the two Spanish researchers found two more quasars in the tendril in 2002 also with different redshifts, that possibility has diminished essentially to zero. There are plenty of other falsifying discoveries, once you look under the rug where they got swept.

    But even without true randomness, even ignoring the “big” question about the entropy of the Universe itself, citing Loschmidt does not in any way explain how an adiabatically isolated gas could end up in a thermodynamically stable state with a stationary thermal gradient.

    You should take a read of the Loschmidt thread on my website Robert. Some pretty high powered physicists and maths experts had an excellent discussion there.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/

    Cheers

    TB.

  53. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 28, 2012 at 8:13 am
    There are times where that word [denier] is appropriate.

    Not in scientific debate there isn’t. It’s an ugly slur with fascist connotations and you invoke Godwins law by using it. No excuses are viable. It’s just appalling behaviour, end of.

    I have defined myself as my fellow astrophysicists leading the way forward out of the age of superstition, ignorance, and pseudoscience. You have defined yourself as well-mired in that swamp and you tarnish ‘the Best Science Blog’ with your nonsense.

    Haughty pride goes before a fall. Your attacks against those whose research leads in directions you disapprove of shows nothing more than the narrowness of your perspective. It reflects more on you than the people you attack.

    There is more in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.