![Big Bang [image credit: wikipedia]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/bb_expansion.jpg)
Big Bang [image credit: wikipedia]
More ‘settled science’ on the ropes.
Quote: ‘These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.’
But Wikipedia says : ‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding.‘
Conclusion: ‘Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.’
Where does that leave the current version of the Big Bang theory?
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Attorney at Law Jan Vajda Namestovo, Slovakia.
It has been my opinion for many years that the “Big Bang” was based on constants that weren’t and assumptions that were not backed by fact. However the “non-dimming” of light is due to the nature of light and it’s conversion to “information” that we can detect, a artifact of detection. The speed of light is set by the localized density of the medium that it travels through, Aether. This also causes a slight loss of energy. “red shift” to occur. The behavior of Aether follows the laws of fluid dynamics as if it were an ocean of charge with objects of charge, in motion, embedded in it.
I see a steady state Universe with creation and decay going on all the time. There must have been a “bang” of creation from chaos as the “blue print” was devised. The first hydrogen atom created. The first molecule and star. A wave of creation of organization in the sea of charge chaos. Humans have “known” this all along. Read the Book of Genesis with an open mind as a investigator and not a theologian.
The things that we have to “learn” far exceed those that we “know”. Not all the things that we “know” are correct. The universe whispers in your ear, but you have to shut up and listen with an open mind and no preconceptions. The facts just are, Theories are not facts, just someone’s want to be. pg
At the end of Season Five, with Sheldon on a leave of absence and Penny and Leonard engaged.
pg – I guess you are a fan of the work of Miles Mathis …
http://milesmathis.com
Okay …. joke aside.
Question: when matter is converted to energy, does the transformation cause the universe to shrink or expand? What happens to the time component if time is considered as a (type of) dimensional object?
I’ve been trying to figure out whether matter “unfolds” in the conversion process (which I think it does), and thereby creates new space, thereby driving the expansion of the universe (which means the universe has to be expanding), and that a “density” differential exists between the point of matter conversion and other positions due to m/E space volume increases drives the expansion. Expansion would be locally different but smooth out over distance. Since the majority of mass-energy conversion occurs in the Early Time, the expansion of the universe should be decelerating. If the idea of momentum is applicable to space-time (and why wouldn’t it?) then post-maximum calculated expansion should occur, resulting in a rebound which also passes its stable point, leading to a universe that oscillates around a point of equilibrium until some equivalent component of friction or drag grinds everything to a halt.
Time? Time would be the movement associated with space expansion, time being “increased” as the space component (space-time) is increased. Time might be a wave moving through space; expansion stops, “time” stops. Contraction causes a reverse wave of time but not a backwards movement, i.e. processes going backwards, the baby back into the womb, just the continuation of “life” but in a contracting universe.
I dunno. I started out trying to figure out what happens to the space that disappears when matter converts to energy (energy not having an XYZ definition), and then wondered what the space-energy equivalent of 1 second was (if mass has an energy equivalent, why doesn’t time have a space equivalent?).
The math should be in the “size” of nuclear material that disappears when converted to energy and in the size of the universe and the residual amount of matter (visible and dark): if only a portion of matter has been left over, the universe space-time reflects the larger portion that was converted. Dark energy is then the energy of “unfolding” matter.
Amateurs thinking, beware. (Should be a bumper sticker or T-shirt on Big Bang Theory.)*
[*reply – see below]
Looks like black hole theory is in a bit of trouble too.
‘New Data from NASA Conflicts with Black Hole ‘Doughnut’ Theory’
http://scitechdaily.com/new-data-nasa-conflicts-black-hole-doughnut-theory/
The article is an alternative to a usual assumption that observed redshifts of distant objects are caused by a Doppler effect of an expanding universe. Instead, it assumes a static Euclidean universe with a built-in redshift linearly increasing with distance and of an unknown origin. You can prefer one description or the other; both agree with observations.
Doug Proctor said: ‘Should be a bumper sticker or T-shirt on Big Bang Theory.’
There is.
http://www.zazzle.com/in_the_beginning_bumper_stickers-128865776820888869
The electric universe / plasma universe guys have long been opposed the idea that the universe is expanding.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/expansion.htm
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm
They give numbers and explanations to back up their views.
I have seen better links somewhere but can’t find them.
JM: Miles Mathis explains what his problem with ‘electric universe theory’ is here.
Click to access venus2.pdf
Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory – a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light.
Click to access 1105.0010v1.pdf
[reply – interesting stuff]
So the redshift could be in effect a function of dust in the cosmos?
If we have been honestly reported to- and that is an increasingly questionable assumption- the redshift is supposedly well measured, consistent, predictable etc.
Hi oldbrew, I gave up on the expanding universe scenario many years ago. Its ‘whispy mass’ and ‘light speed between massive bodies’ as expansion progresses to its conclusion was the ‘give away’.
For me, the ‘best/more logical’ scenario is a ‘steady state’ universe, with ‘aether detrainment by mass’ as a favourite mediator for ‘frequency shift’ towards red. The ‘Doppler effect’ isn’t the only way to generate a ‘red shift’, a change in the ‘wave front angle’ has the same effect.
See Sunrise/Sunset. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
There is considerable evidence about the “red-shift” not connected to distance such as some bright near-by Quasars . Dr Van Flandern states “It is easy to make a case that the very high redshift quasars are not at the cosmological distances implied when their redshifts are interpreted in the big Bang theory” He then goes on to list 19 anomalies including spectra, absorption lines, location, density of charged particles etc.
Of course the “consensus” including religious believers of creation are not going to approve of sceptics pointing out contrary evidence of the Big Bang. It is “criminal” to point to natural climate change but to dispute creation- Wow!
@Truthseeker says:
May 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm
“pg – I guess you are a fan of the work of Miles Mathis …”
Actually I developed my theories Long before I heard of Miles Mathis. Our view points are somewhat different. I require Aether to cause the Mass/Inertia effects exhibited by matter in acceleration and in motion. This also gives me away to demonstrate gravity effects as well as the reason for apparent existence of Dark matter/Dark energies in the movements of the galaxies. Why light behaves as both particle and wave and has a finite speed. Everything seems to fit quite well with known facts. A lot better then the the standard model we were all taught.
We are asked by Doug Proctor
“Question: when matter is converted to energy, does the transformation cause the universe to shrink or expand? What happens to the time component if time is considered as a (type of) dimensional object?”
I see matter is converted from one form to another and not directly converted to energy. Mass is converted, not matter.
When hydrogen converts to neutron or neutron to hydrogen at the speed of light a powerful EMF event happens. The space occupied by the neutron changes from a relative size of a 1foot ball to a 3,000 mile sphere! The MASS changes slightly, the amount of Matter does not change. A Neutron has a slightly greater effect on the Aether then the resultant hydrogen. This confusion of Matter/energy conversion for Mass/Energy conversion is the cause of a lot of misunderstanding.
Mass Energy conversion! “M” stands for Mass not Matter!
The conversion of Aether to a true “singularity” a Proton with an Electron shell is another discussion.
Or dig through “The Physics involved” on my blog.
The creation of a device to manage mass/inertia as well as gravity requires an understanding of the medium of space and the matter within it. The characteristics of light is the key starting point, The one that Einstein stumbled upon when he began his studies. He let the others talk him out of Aether and to accept light as particle, not a wave function. Therefore he could not solve gravity which was his desire all along. pg
I said before that the modern astrophysicists infer BIG from a few massaged data. This does not bother me. But they are in charge of journals and judge alternate theories on those models, theories and inferences. I think careers and reputations are on the stake
We humans — some are physicists — are a part of Nature. We observe all around how and why Nature recycles. The universe(s) are no exception. Our universe should recycle: it could be expending now, slow down later, and begin the big crunch. Then start all over again from the next big bang. This what Nature does best and for a good purpose.
Be careful, folks. The Andromeda galaxy is going to merge with our Milky Way. I am glad I won’t be there to watch it..
‘The Andromeda galaxy is going to merge with our Milky Way’
How did they get that to fit with an expanding Universe model?
Sorry if this is a silly question, but I was taught more classical physics (at school, so not a physicist)
If Redshift is caused by some other phenomena, doppler effect or
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
‘Photons climbing out of a gravitating object become less energetic. This loss of energy is known as a “redshifting”, as photons in the visible spectrum would appear more red. Similarly, photons falling into a gravitational field become more energetic and exhibit a blueshifting. … Note that the magnitude of the redshifting (blueshifting) effect is not a function of the emitted angle or the received angle of the photon—it depends only on how far radially the photon had to climb out of (fall into) the potential well.’
or as described above, due to ‘Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts’
where do the above descriptions leave blueshifts (objects moving towards us) as stated above by p.g.sharrow Redshift is a loss of energy, does this imply that a blue shift is a gain of energy and could this be explained (could photons be accelerated slightly or gain energy via gravitational fields, so that there is a net gain) within the theory(s) above.
From P.G. Sharrow ‘The speed of light is set by the localized density of the medium that it travels through, Aether.’, then I would take it that blue shift means that there is a net increase in the speed of light between the object emitting and the observer?
or am I a bit too far out of my depth here? In any case it’s interesting to read about.
[reply – looks like a fair question Steve]
Well, molecular Hydrogen is exceptionally transparent, in fact we do not have observational evidence up to now of its average concentration in the visible universe. It can easily make up most of the “missing mass”, so no exotic dark matter would be needed at all to account for eg. rotational curves of galaxies.
It also interacts with light ever so slightly, so over cosmological distances photons lose a certain fraction of their energy, proportional to optical depth of the medium crossed. At first sight this effect is indistinguishable from redshift due to expansion.
Molecular Hydrogen do not have emission lines in the visible part of the spectrum and only very weak lines elsewhere. Therefore one would need special instruments deployed in space to map its distribution, but no such experiment was performed so far. Carbon monoxide is used instead as a tracer for molecular clouds, but molecular Hydrogen is a million times more abundant even in regions where CO is present. There is no primordial carbon monoxide whatsoever, as opposed to Hydrogen, so its mixing ratio is not guaranteed to hold constant independent of location.
Too much theory with little observation makes a foul mix.
PG Sharrow: Thanks! “Matter” vs “mass”: interesting distinction
The calculation I was working on was 1) the universe was once all matter (disputable, of course), 2) currently the visible and invisible present “matter” is a small but determinable % of a universe with a radius of some 13.8+ E09 light years, 3) mass IS preserved so that “empty” space-time has both a gravitational force AND momentum.
The conversion ratio is (volume universe X % “empty” universe) X 1/current matter-mass universe = km3/gm.
Delta density “empty” spacetime from centre of universe (point of Big Bang) to “edge” causes expansion. The “edge” was defined by a 5th dimensional parameter that did not “compress” as our experienef 4 dimensions did and provided the tension required to control the form of expansion.
The aspect of time: without change time cannot be said to exist. Timeflow needs movement to be measured, movement being how we recognize change (even electrical change in the brain has movement). Only God-style spirit exists without time, being the inspiration, the thought and the consequence all in one. Time then would be the consequence of movement rather than movement the consequence of processes in time.
There would be no time “reversal” in a shrinking universe. No sequestering of time within a universe of empty space that is increasing in (energy) density. The movement is the expression of time.
I admit to explaining my thoughts using analog from the observed world (of Neutonian physics). I’m a geologist (as much art as science). But everything we understand is based on analogy, things we grasp by experience elsewhere. So it is fair to use what you know as a basis for what you don’t. (And the reason one must experience as much he can in all things, not just his professional speciality, in order to understand better his own specialty).
I actually wanted a mathematical equivalent in energy-space volume of 1 second, but my ignorance defeated me. Anyone?
Berényi Péter points out that not detected Hydrogen could make up the 96% of mass not observed but inferred by the galactic movements. We normally consider molecular Hydrogen but atomic Hydrogen is even a stranger bird and would be even harder to detect as there is almost nothing there for the space that it occupies. To me, the charged chaos of Aether becomes organized into a proton/electron shell Hydrogen atom that is the building block of everything else. We know that galaxies are embedded in a cloud of something that tends to make the stars in them behave in an un Newtonian manner. I believe that this “cloud” of something points to the root cause of mass/inertia effects. This also points to the root of gravity and it’s transmission. Or “Gravity is a myth, the Earth sucks” pg
Steve asks a great question about this red/blue shift of light. Light particle or wave shifts it’s apparent frequency/color due to changes in the relative speed of observer and emitter of light. A characteristic of wave in a medium. Morley demonstrated that light travels faster in more dense mediums and deep space acted as if it were an atmosphere compressed to 10,000 bar! Particles travel slower in more dense mediums. Light has to be a wave function, not a particle. But Light exhibits the feature of quanti of energy as well as spin in 2 dimensions as it travels, functions of particle. If our light wave/particle traveled through a medium that were more or less dense it’s speed would change but as our point of perception in the medium would not “see” any change in speed then the observed frequency would change just as sound changes frequency due to changes in relative speeds. Changes in flow speed or direction of the medium would effect the wave’s propagation speed and direction.
To me Photon, Electron, Neutrino etc. are all descriptions of that elemental thing, Aether. Just different EMF signatures due to charge in motion in 3 dimensions. Travel, axial spin and wobble or precession about a second axis. Stop all of their motion and they just disappear. In the event of collision between them they exchange energies as well as their EMF signature descriptions.
These things are not really there, just packets of energy/information being telegraphed through space in the Aether or charge in chaos. The only true subatomic particle is the Proton. All of it’s needed spin for existence is internal and it’s half life is longer then the universe has existed. Maybe twice as long!
I require the existence of Aether to make things work. “There ain’t nothing in space, it is jam packed full of something.” pg
@p.g.sharrow
That’s not the case. In fact we have a pretty good idea about the galactic distribution of neutral hydrogen atoms using their 21 cm microwave emission line, readily detected by radio astronomy. There is no such line for molecular hydrogen though.
In theory infrared rotational transitions of molecular hydrogen should be detectable, but they are extremely weak with impossibly long lifetimes and absorbed by the atmosphere anyway.
We simply do not have any idea how much cold molecular hydrogen is out there.
Under such circumstances one would think much effort goes into settle this question experimentally, but guys apparently prefer to build weird theories instead.
For some tantalizing evidence see
The Astrophysical Journal Letters Volume 522 Number 1, 1999 September 1
doi: 10.1086/312208
First extragalactic direct detection of large-scale molecular hydrogen in the disk of NGC 891
Edwin A. Valentijn and Paul P. van der Werf
Quite some stretch of technology was needed to get to this particular result and even then, the molecular clouds detected are considerably warmer than space itself.
Hello.
It seems to be coming to Einstein’s, David Crawford’s and mine theory of hyperspherical universe, where the red-shift and CMBR are due to the space curvature. ( https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/p-a-semi-topology-of-the-curved-space-time-universe/ ) There is no large-scale expansion (although a small vibration is possible), and the beginning (probably by far more distant past) can be deduced, completelly different from what the Biggest Blunder – Big Bang said…
About red-shift being due to a gravity well – there has to be a very noticeable gravity well to observe that, it’s not enough to climb up from an ordinary galaxy, but the accretion disk beam, climbing from above the massive black-hole surface, can get a noticeable red-shift to explain lyman-alpha forest in quasar spectra…
About another scientific non-sense – the dark matter – that can be explained by an ordinary molecular clouds, as can be seen in V838Mon outburst light echo. The rotation curves of galaxies are due to the fact, that the gravity attraction of nearby sparse matter may be more influential, than the attraction due to a far galaxy core, even by an order of magnitude, so that the galaxy tends to rotate more as a solid disk, than as planets do arround the central star… This effect has been largely underestimated in previous galaxy rotation calculations… (A density of 10^6 protons per cubic metre in interstellar medium is enough, even 10^5 protons would have a similar effect…)
And about the Andromeda galaxy, which is approaching us: it does not mean, that it will merge any soon, since it may be approaching, passing nearby on a parabolic trajectory, and occasionally after few billions of years making a reciprocally orbiting twin galaxy… The galaxies are quite sparse, so that they can pass through each other, not colliding most of stars, but getting some distortion, as can be observed on some cases: arp272,m51,ngc2207,ngc4438,ngc4676,ngc5426, etc…