There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: chr0naut

The further away an object is, the faster it should be receeding but that is NOT what we observe.

This says otherwise.
Or point me please to a page that supports your notion.

The majority of the observed universe appears to be moving away from us, and is compliant with the Hubble constant.

But, some of the universe appears to be moving counter to that (Blue Outliers).

If all the universe is expanding away from us, there is a distance where the motion of the furthest objects must be approaching the speed of light, with respect to us. We could never see beyond that 'light event horizon' because the light from those objects would never reach us. The light travelling towards us from those objects will take longer than the theoretical maximum age of the universe to get here, i.e; it will never arrive and we will never see the objects past that distance.

If the universe came from a singularity, this distance to the light event horizon is uniform for all objects, and all objects must be moving away from us compliant with the expansion of the universe.

Even if some bizarre gravitational slingshotting has flung objects back towards us, those objects must be travelling counter to objects local to them at greater than the speed of light (the speed of light plus some more). Of course violation of the c constant for objects with mass within local frames is impossible and so there must be massive space-time dilation between those objects. Even so, to move mass at than the speed of light requires infinite force. How could some bizarre gravitational slingshot ever that magnitude of force?

The truth is that universal expansion does not allow for exceptions, it neccesarily must be universal. Yet we observe exceptions.

As for a link and an alternate hypothesis, try this one on the SCP model (with specific reference to the third last paragraph).

Yes. The big bang theory has something wrong. Its a Terrible show.

a reply to: yuppa

I agree sheldons not funny. Hes neurotic and irritating

a reply to: Masterjaden

For instance red shift and blue shift have required the creation of mythical material like dark matter to explain the extra energy required for an Ever accelerating universe expansion.

Sorry, you are misunderstanding the concepts involved.

Dark Matter has nothing to do with an accelerating universe, and it is NOT mythical. The idea of Dark Matter was developed to account for the fact that galaxies are rotating much faster than their visible mass would otherwise allow. Thus there must be much more mass, 400 times more mass that was "invisible" - thus 'dark matter'. There have been many attempts to identify this mass, i.e. as neutron stars or other MACHO objects - there just aren't enough of them around to make up the 'shortfall'. Thus 'Dark' because we can't see it, and 'Matter' because it has mass.

Its actual existence has been confirmed via effects on light... that is Dark Matter gravity lenses have been observed to bend light just as Physical Matter does. See the discussion here: How Gravitational Lensing Shows Us Dark Matter!

I suspect you meant to refer to Dark Energy. Completely different to Dark Matter. Dark Energy has not been observed, only inferred from various observations, such as the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is not mythical, there is something causing the acceleration, however we don't know what it is exactly. Thus 'Dark' because we can't see it, and 'Energy' because that is what we experience as causing acceleration. However, we don't know that it is actually 'Energy' as we know it in our everyday experience - we don't know what it is. There are competing hypothesis about what it might be, some that reject the analogy to energy altogether.

Something is causing the acceleration and until we come up with a good explanation for it, 'Dark Energy' is a placeholder label. It is not a myth; it is not a theory; it is not an hypothesis: it is a convenient term to allow discussion and consider what its features would have to have to produce the effect.

It took about 150 years since 'Dark Matter' was proposed (1844) until we were able to detect its effects. It just might be that long to figure out 'Dark Energy' too.

The most wrong thing about this entire thread is the number of people claiming or telling people "that if you look at the theories, they are obviously wrong" and then demonstrating that they have absolutely no understanding of the current state of science, and have no idea what theories they are talking about or what they mean.

The thread title being "Theres something wrong with the Big Bang theory" I expected more than just links from you OP, i expected a starting discussion, not some rambling about GR, because, GR doesn't really have anything to do with BB directly. One is not a consequence of the other.

Same goes for discussions of this. It is clear that some of you don't understand the 1/r^2 rule and how it works. I think it would be best and more constructive if people got off their pedestal of 'I am a prophet' and actually glanced at more than natural news for 5 seconds.

If you looked at the theory, the Earth being in the sun's well, if you look at the well depth in comparison to infinity, you would see that it is not very deep, and such those time dilation effects would be insignificant too, you appear to have fallen in the trap of understanding less than 5% of a theory and then misrepresenting the rest of the 95% due to lack of understanding. Remember, if someone knows a little bit, and has a massive level of overconfidence, he/she can convince you they know everything, and such what you learn from them is actually, probably less than the little they know.

OP you presented no argument as to why there is something wrong with the Big Bang Theory... just posted diagrams that hold little to no information

Firstly I'd like to thank you all for replying to this topic and I also hope you will take the time to read the document. My statement is the ad-hoc reason for the advance of Perihelion + light being bent around the Sun, is due to the flow of Time being quicker near a massive object. Current scientific reason states the opposite but this doesn't stand up to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
It's a tricky subject and if I thought I was wrong I would never have posted it. Right until the end I was willing to accept I was mistaken but I am not. Current thinking appears to be that if the flow of Time is slower then objects will also move slower but this is counter-intuitive to actual motion analysis.
I could have stopped at Mercury's orbit but added the Big Bang mod since I had time to kill during the lunch break. I'd like to answer all the questions but I will only repeating myself. Just about all your queries are answered in the documents - except the one about God.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So your saying there is only 2 theories?,you must live in a box,and how you arrive at your conclusion,several other possibilitys and your Big Bang is the lamest of them all,a random explosion creating near perfect planets in alignment,very short sighted IMO

The document is highly flawed and contains little to no information that can be examined, it simply states things as fact and does not do a good job at laying out anything but the simplest of maths which looks rather incorrect based upon the numbers put through them. (equations are right, but the assumptions and stipulations wildly not)

I suggest a bit more effort if you want to actually have a constructive critique of this.

example

The only difficulty here I am
sure, is the translation between mathematical calculation and real world values. The trouble is popular explanation of
the calculation doesn't stand up to logical analysis. Furthering this, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion dictate that a
slower speed at perihelion will cause an advance of precession

Logical analysis? I see no such thing in this document

Which is the trouble

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: yuppa

I agree sheldons not funny. Hes neurotic and irritating

YEs he needs to also stop posting here on ATS. Its obvious WHo he actually is.

a reply to: Masterjaden

You're so wrong, you're not even wrong:

The phrase "not even wrong" describes an argument or a theory that purports to be scientific but is based on sloppy logic or speculative premises that cannot be discussed in rigorous scientific sense. [1]

The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[2][3] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'."[4] This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."[4]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: greenreflections

From my link

Then blow up the balloon more and watch how the dots expand away from each other.

My question is, while balloon surface expands, the 'dot' will also increase in diameter as it's part of the expanding 'surface'..how is that explained?

thanks

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: greenreflections

From my link

Then blow up the balloon more and watch how the dots expand away from each other.

My question is, while balloon surface expands, the 'dot' will also increase in diameter as it's part of the expanding 'surface'..how is that explained?

thanks

The balloon idea is not the universe.
The 4D space-time universe is not the one dimensional surface of the balloon.
The balloon idea is an ANALOGY, or perhaps a METAPHOR depending on your literary tastes.

Not every detail in the analogue has to be identical, just those parts that provide clarification of the concepts.

In the balloon analogy, the dots do indeed stretch. They are representing galaxies or super-galaxies or even larger structures which don't appear to be actually stretching. The reason they don't seem to be stretching is that gravity is locally stronger (that is on the scale of the galaxy) than the expansive force of space-time.

The analogy breaks down at the level of the dot on the balloon because the analogy does not account for gravity. It is not explaining gravity or the effects of gravity; it is explaining the expansion of the universe. Forrest Gumps famous 'Life is like a box of chocolates' doesn't mean that 'life melts if you leave it out in the sun'; that isn't what Gump is trying to clarify.

Now having said that, have another look at the balloon analogy. As the balloon expands the dots expand too. But the outer edge of the dots get farther apart anyway. So even though the dots expand, they still get farther apart, and ALL the dots are moving away from every other dot.

You are welcome.

The basis of the document is to refute the claim that time flows slower within a gravitational well. Mercury's orbit cannot be explained by this. Since this has been accepted doctrine for about 100 years I suppose it will take another century to release us of it. Anyone complaining about this appearing on ATS please ask yourself 'why should I not post it?'
My claim is based on solid Maths and none to difficult either. No quadratic equations just percentile analysis. I am sorry if the Youtube generation has a little difficulty with long words - one step forward, two steps back eh? I am quite happy with the release and would only add that with the lower inertia due to time dilation, Mercury will occupy a slightly lower orbit - but there no real need to change the document...

a reply to: rnaa

have another look at the balloon analogy. As the balloon expands the dots expand too. But the outer edge of the dots get farther apart anyway. So even though the dots expand, they still get farther apart, and ALL the dots are moving away from every other dot.

You are welcome.

When I took a second look it became even stranger...Let's look at space expansion from 3D perspective. There is a certain position for galaxies (dots, objects) and dots might be of different size, where creating 'new' space between them will push galaxies closer or create unpredictable turbulences with new space distribution uneven, since new space has freedom of direction of motion unlike on 2D baloon surface... I am not talking about Andromeda galaxy on a collision course with Milky Way...Andromeda belongs to local group and driven closer by gravity...or is it?

With that said, could it be that local galaxy groups are clamped together because unevenly expanding space locally created distribution current to begin with? At least in the beginning of forming the group...For local group to form with space expanding between galaxies (dots) is impossible.. I mean, even for two objects that will form future galaxy group to bind gravitationally with space expanding is not real. OK, two might bind by some bizzare circumstance but to attract other receding galaxies will be problematic...3D visualization helps to see additional factors in space expansion model.
Bottom line, when space volume increase around each 'dot' or physical object, there is a case where objects will be pushed toward each other.

It is fun to think of it all. My understanding and my questions might be very simplistic and naive, but I don't like how knowledgeable people are giving explanations...May be because it's seems 'too obvious' for them to even bother to really have another look..

thanks buddy,


cheers)

Sex isn't withdrawing the penis.

Conception doesn't begin with birth. The seed must be planted before it can materialize.

Of course theres something wrong with the "sensory output with no signal input" simulation model.

It is a given we are a simulation. They teach it in schools, I think

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho

It is a given we are a simulation. They teach it in schools, I think

No. It is not a given.
It's a fun idea, but far far far from being a "given".


Here's my problem with the universe being a simulation. Let's say we are a simulation...i.e., "outside" of our universe, there is some "being" who is using a supercomputer to run a highly detailed simulation that results in our entire universe. That takes a finite, not infinite, amount of computing power/memory --- and because it only takes a finite amount of computing power/memory, then it conceivably is possible to do so.

Ok, so far so good. Now let's say we -- the simulated people, someday in our simulated future -- develop a computer that can also simulate a universes just like we are being simulated. That would be a simulation in a simulation. That would mean the original supercomputer running the simulation of US suddenly needs to be powerful enough to run two simulations; it does need to only simulate us, but also simulate the simulate WE are running.

Granted, That is STILL a finite amount of computing power, so it is still possible. However, if the simulation we run is also pretty detailed, then conceivably the simulated beings we create mighght be able to fun their own detailed simulation, and that simulation might be able to run their own, and so on, and so on, to infinity. That also means that we may not be just a simulation, but somewhere deep within the "nest" of simulations (simulations of simulations of simulations of simulations...)

So now with an infinite number of nested simulations running inside that "original" simulation, that means the original supercomputer needs to be infinitely powerful and have an infinite amount of computer memory...

... and once we start talking about things needing infinite power, then we run into issues.

So it becomes a paradox:
If we make the claim that ONE universe is a simulation , then we need to assume that an infinite number of "nested" simulations are being run, which would require an infinitely sized computer, which would seem to be impossible.

And the fact that the hypothetical computer running the simulation of our universe had not yet crashed -- which it SHOULD do because of the infinite number of nested simulations it would need to be running -- leads me to believe that NO computer is running a simulation of us...i.e., we are not a simulation.

I'm not sure what to call this paradox (maybe the "One Simulation Means Infinite Simulations Paradox"), but it is a paradox.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You can't fool me, you young wippersnapper!

Its turtles all the way down.

Further to the part of the thread discussing dark energy, here is an interesting article summarizing some of the directions that dark energy study is going in:

A New Explanation For Dark Energy: The Matter In Our Universe

I emphasize, as does the author, that this is not the ONLY direction of study, just one of several.

Personally, I do not believe in this theory. I believe the universe is eternal and infinite. If space is expanding, the solar system would also be expanding. Experimental analysis show this is not the case.