It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Big Bang Never Happened

page: 12
67
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:20 PM
I have been thinking about a few simple equations that deal with accelerations and mass.

Newtons equation
F=ma (100=10 x 10) so if we increase the Force we can have either a greater mass or acceleration.
a=F/m (10=100/10) so to increase the acceleration we need to increase the force or decrease the mass.

redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.
z=V/m (0.1=10/100) so to increase the 'z' value (redshift) we need to either increase the Velocity or decrease the mass. I think this is a solid explanation for high 'z' values that does not need extreme distances or an expanding Universe.

This seems to support Dr. Arp's claims that QSOs are actually next to these observed galaxies. If this is the case then QSOs are far more interesting and this is a bridge to a greater understanding of our Universe and perhaps then we can finally update some of those old videos.

If cosmology wishes to be their own religion that only they can understand then I say let them go for it. We need to take it upon ourselves to see things for what they are which is science.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
I found this link to old theories:

einstein-vs-tesla-good-article-explaining-573.html

ED2: Removed link, search for page if you wish.

Mostly the compression theory for gravity.
That might make red shift a Doppler effect.
ED: I looked at a few pages and soon got a red shield
anti virus logo.

[edit on 10/6/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 10/6/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.

Newton's equation looks right but what is your source for that redshift equation?

Here are a couple of redshift formulas I know about and they look nothing like that:

Hubble's Law

Redshift_velocity

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.

Newton's equation looks right but what is your source for that redshift equation

This equation is a product of our discussion here to be honest. I was thinking about objects like QSOs, their observed 'z' value and relativity. It was after thinking about the equivalence principle that I realized velocity could be a product of mass as well as its motion. Since we are not actually measuring an increase in distance then we can only speculate that the distance is increasing.

In the equation v=HD, from your Wiki link, (D)istance is the only factor given for the increase in (v)elocity and this is based on speculation, right? The question here is what else could the high 'z' values be from. I think it could be a product of mass or gravitational acceleration, actually the lack of gravitational acceleration in this case. Yet this idea is counter intuitive so I elaborated in my previous post.

Another factor of velocity has to do with rotation as an acceleration. My assumption is that all galaxies eventually rotate due to a yet to be discovered force. They can only rotate so fast before they start to expel mass in the form of QSOs. These Quasars contain some of this angular velocity and balance the parent galaxies rotation (conservation of angular motion) much like how our Moon balances out the Earth's rotation and slows it down.

We know that E=mc^2 has an upper limit that theoretically cannot be breached, can't go faster than 'c', but most people don't realize that this also has a lower limit as well. By squaring a number you get an exponentially increasing result, by inversely squaring this same number you get an exponentially decreasing result (upper and lower limits).

I think the problem is that we make the assumption that 'time', as measured here on Earth, is Universally the same and this is not the case. Time is relative and therefore subject to accelerations like rotations and gravity, it appears to move slower and faster accordingly. Think of time existing in a bubble around spinning masses, if 'something' (subjective word) has no mass and is not accelerating (linear or rotational) then we conclude that it does not exist (has no time).

So if we are in a massive galaxy that is spinning (accelerations due to gravity and rotation) then we view time from our perspective. The effects of our perceived time have limits to distance, at some point things will not be rotating with our galaxy. Objects that fall outside of these spinning galaxies will perceive a 'different time'. If this object is a low mass and has a low or even no rotational velocity then its time will be much faster then ours (we will appear to be moving slower).

If QSOs are the product of the over rotation from a galaxy then I would expect them to fall in line with the equatorial plane of its parent galaxy. Since rotation is an acceleration as well as a velocity and there is a yet to be discovered force causing rotation then its angular velocity will increase over time and the 'z' values will become lower rather quickly. The force that causes rotation will add to the inertial mass of this newly formed object by causing it to rotate and thus accelerating it. This in turn will cause these QSOs to eject mass out from their equators due to these high rotations in the form of energy which would create spiral arms. These ejections would follow a curve (Coriolis effect) and eventually balance this new galaxy out.

These ideas come from the discussions here and the resulting research we have done, I really do not have a source. I am making it all up more or less, putting it together from known theories and things that I have read. In my opinion it all logically makes sense and therefore does not need any extra ordinary explanations that are beyond imagination. I am interested in your thoughts on this because this is starting to look like a theory for the creation of matter and time.

Add: I apologize for the lengthy replies. They start off with what I think will be a quick reply and end up being 5+ paragraphs long. This is the short version even.

[edit on 10/6/2009 by Devino]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.

Newton's equation looks right but what is your source for that redshift equation

This equation is a product of our discussion here to be honest.

So, you sort of made it up? I see.

I was thinking about objects like QSOs, their observed 'z' value and relativity. It was after thinking about the equivalence principle that I realized velocity could be a product of mass as well as its motion.

This shows you are a smart and thoughtful person, as scientists wondered if redshift could be occurring due to the object's mass, which they talk about in the 4 part series on quasars. I posted the first part in an earlier post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I admit it's dry and boring at times but you should watch all 4 parts, and appreciate that scientists proposed the same possibility as you about mass and gravity possibly affecting redshift, and then they explain why they believe that possibility they examined isn't supported by the evidence.

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, you sort of made it up? I see.

Well yeah..."I made it up" but that's the short version. I didn't find that equation on any web site or in a book, it's put together from stuff that I have read over the years in books and from web sites and from ATS. The main contributor has been interacting with other people that are interested in this stuff like you.

I did watch all four parts of the video you linked the first time and I even watched them again to see if I missed anything. The idea that was proposed as gravity being a possible explanation for the redshift had some problems. It seems it was assumed that high gravitational forces would stretch EM waves causing a redshift but this might have the opposite effect and actually cause a blueshift. The idea I have is something I have been working on for quite a while now so I was hoping to get your opinion on it.

The problem is in interpreting "velocity", or in the expanding Universe theory "acceleration". When they use the term "velocity" it is assumed that this means 'moving away from us' and this may be incorrect, an object can be accelerating and yet not change its distance from us (remember gravity and rotation are both considered accelerations). This in turn will be indistinguishable from actually accelerating away from us.

Remember that high gravitational forces (and accelerations) cause both time dilation and length contraction. So from our point of view, larger gravitational fields will have a blueshift and smaller gravitational fields will have a redshift that is separate from an actual change in distances. From our inertial frame of reference the length of a meter in a higher acceleration, due to rotation and/or gravity, will appear to contract thus look smaller. Smaller accelerations, due to gravity and/or rotation, should have the opposite effects and appear to stretch thus look longer (i.e. Doppler effect).

Velocity is a measure of distance over time, "Time" being a key factor here, and acceleration is a measure of the rate of increase in velocity over time, again "Time" being a key factor.
If high accelerations from either linear or rotational motion and gravity cause the effects of time dilation and length contraction then what would the opposite effects be for little or next to no acceleration?

I had to take some time to think more about my questions here and I even watched a couple of videos on relativity to see if maybe I'm missing something here. They are over 90 minutes each.

E=mc2 -Einstein and the World's Most Famous Equation

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity | Lecture 1

[edit on 10/10/2009 by Devino]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Devino
Velocity is a measure of distance over time, "Time" being a key factor here, and acceleration is a measure of the rate of increase in velocity over time, again "Time" being a key factor.
If high accelerations from either linear or rotational motion and gravity cause the effects of time dilation and length contraction then what would the opposite effects be for little or next to no acceleration?

It's good to see you're starting to get a handle on redshifts (and blueshifts).

Obviously you know the difference between velocity and acceleration. It's the relative velocity that causes the dilation, not the acceleration. Of course once you accelerate to a faster velocity, the time dilation increases, but it's a result of the higher velocity, not the acceleration. You could accelerate quickly or slowly and still achieve the same velocity/dilation.

The opposite effects of no relative velocity, are no time dilation nor length contraction, but you already knew that right? So I'm not sure why you asked.

You may want to look at the new theory that claims that no dark energy is needed to explain the observations made over the last decade:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wanted to explore such a theory myself but I didn't have time, so it's nce to see someone else has done it. Now we need to see if the evidence supports this new theory or not. If the theory proves to be valid, it would solve a major problem in cosmology, the dark energy problem.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The opposite effects of no relative velocity, are no time dilation nor length contraction, but you already knew that right?

I disagree (I should put it that I think I understand your point and disagree). Remember to add in the observer's inertial frame of reference (that would be us). Our 'Time' has been effected due to the accelerations form gravity and rotational velocity, we have an 'observer's time'. Our time is not a Universal Time and I don't think too many people look at it this way. Our time is unique due to the effects from our environment (the Milky Way) and so on for other galaxies. Relativity shows that 'time' can appear to move slower and faster from our frame of reference.

I think that when we look at galaxies of similar size and mass that rotate at near the same rate as the Milky Way we would see a similar time dilation and length contraction to ours. So similar that we can not tell the difference easily if at all, the redshifts will look "normal" (whatever "normal" is). When we look at Quasars, though, all bets are off.

If there is a force that causes rotation and this rotation is balanced out by ejecting mass then there would be an average size and rate of rotation. Galaxies would naturally balance this force out by ejecting mass thus creating clusters, acting like counter weights. The same would apply to stars, by the way, which is in total disagreement with the current model of solar formation. Planets are ejected out from stars and some moons are ejected out from their parent planet. This works well for explaining conservation of angular motion and tidal locked moons.

From our current place in the Universe we have a relative perspective of all that we see. The opposite of time dilation would be time expansion and the same for length. When you think of relativity do not think of it as linear where we are on a fixed edge with only one direction. Apparent time relative to us can appear not only to slow down but can also appear to speed up.

Again this is not something that I read about or saw on any video, I think this is an understanding that I got from reading the papers written by Einstein himself (then downloaded on to a website of coarse).

I wanted to reply before I got into reading the discussion you linked.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Devino]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:11 AM

We see quantized red shift, which means the quasars and galaxies around us formed in concentric shells with the earth being the center of the universe (obviously impossible).

Why is it *obviously* impossible? Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point.

As for the scientific community trying to hang onto the big bang theory, that is not a failing. That is science at its best.

The Big Bang theory was devised to try to explain the red shift, which seemed to show that the Universe is expanding. The galaxies appear to be receding from us, as determined by the amount of the red shift. More distant galaxies showed a higher red shift, indicating they were moving away faster than nearby galaxies. Reverse the direction, and you get everything coming to a very small region (some say a point, though I doubt that notion has any physical reality). Whatever.

The Big Bang theory explained more of the data known at the time, than any other theory. It still is a highly reasonable explanation for the observed red shifts. True, there are now many questions that the Big Bang theory doesn't answer, but it's still in the running. It hasn't been knocked out of the ring yet.

Scientists were correct in not immediately accepting new theories. They already had one that worked quite well. They modified it as new data required explanation, but were not compelled to abandon it completely.

It may well turn out that new information will some day require the Big Bang theory to be abandoned. In fact, the information currently known may require it. At that point, a better, more complete theory will need to replace it. This new theory will need to be tested against data. It will need to make predictions that are different from what the Big Bang requires, and those predictions will need to be more accurate than what the Big Bang says. If that happens, then there is a good reason to accept the new theory as more complete.

However, astronomical work is extremely difficult. Most of the time it is impossible to set up a definite experiment. We have to take what Nature gives us, and try to explain that. So, while there are other contenders to the Big Bang, we don't have a quick way to determine which, if any, are more complete. In the meantime, it's appropriate for scientists to retain the old theory.

It should be noted that Fred Hoyle has disliked the Big Bang since its beginning. Fred had a competing theory called the "Steady State" theory. He claimed that matter is continually formed throughout space. This new matter causes the Universe to expand. There never was a Big Bang, just an endless expanding Universe as new matter pushes the old away from it. Still, Fred's Universe was expanding. Just no Big Bang.

I don't know why the Steady State theory eventually lost support.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by chiron613
It may well turn out that new information will some day require the Big Bang theory to be abandoned. In fact, the information currently known may require it. At that point, a better, more complete theory will need to replace it. This new theory will need to be tested against data. It will need to make predictions that are different from what the Big Bang requires, and those predictions will need to be more accurate than what the Big Bang says. If that happens, then there is a good reason to accept the new theory as more complete.

Excellent post, starred. This is the stark reality that people ready to throw out the big bang theory need to accept. There is no theory to replace it that explains the observable data better, and until there is such a theory, the big bang theory is the best one we've got.

I don't know why the Steady State theory eventually lost support.

Take a look at this graph:

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A plot of galaxies red shift compared to their luminosity:

There is definitely a relationship there right? The observations are good so how do we explain the data?

There have been attempts to explain the data in a steady state universe, such as the "tired light" idea, but that and explanations other than the Doppler effect fell apart under scrutiny.

So some people that don't accept the redshift is related to Doppler recessional velocity like Dr Halton Arp just say the cause of that linear relationship is "unknown". This brings us back to your original point, which is, we have a model that explains this (roughly) linear redshift plot, and scientists aren't going to replace a model that explains the observations with another model that says "unknown", they need a better model, not an "unknown" model.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:32 PM

Why is it *obviously* impossible? Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point.

Because the earth is not the center of the universe.

Accepting this as fact is equivalent to accepting religious belief as science.

Excellent post, starred. This is the stark reality that people ready to throw out the big bang theory need to accept. There is no theory to replace it that explains the observable data better, and until there is such a theory, the big bang theory is the best one we've got.

This is not science either.

There is nothing wrong with stating we don't know what we don't know.

As Netwon famously said about gravity, "I propose no hypothesis."

His theory could well explain its effects, but not its cause.

The graph you are looking at is for galaxy clusters, not quasars, which obviously refute the redshift = distance malarkey.

If it doesn't work for quasars, then there's probably going to be some problems applying equivalent theory to galaxy clusters. Correlation does not equal causation.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Um, this:

Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point

Is correct. In a infinite or even a sufficiently large area like space were the "edges" aren't defined the center would seem to be where you are at.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The graph you are looking at is for galaxy clusters, not quasars, which obviously refute the redshift = distance malarkey.

If it doesn't work for quasars, then there's probably going to be some problems applying equivalent theory to galaxy clusters. Correlation does not equal causation.

I didn't understand the quasar data when I started reading your thread but I understand it a little better now. I can't find any good reason that disproves the accepted explanation that the redshift data on quasars just shows that with few exceptions, they are very, very old as shown in this graph (see the one on the right):

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
See this thread: www.scienceforums.net...

Note: "This plot dramatizes the relative brevity of the quasar era when the universe was 2-3 billion years old".

If the quasar era really did peak when the universe was 2-3 billion years old, quasar redshifts appear to be consistent with the Doppler redshift effect.

To look at it another way, take a narrow slice of the horizontal axis on the galaxy cluster plot, and you don't have a straight line anymore, you have a rounded shape of data points, because there's not enough time difference to show the linear relationship. That's why the quasar plot looks like it does and the galaxy clusters would look the roughly the same way if you only took a billion years worth of data.

Do we know with 100% certainty this age model for quasars is accurate? No we're not 100% certain about much in cosmology. But the ancient quasar model is consistent with data and observations that in no way disproves the Doppler redshift we see in galaxy clusters.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:45 PM
You're obfuscating a simple fact.

Quasar magnitude does not correlate with their observed redshift as it does for galaxy clusters.

Very simple stuff, no need to invoke all sorts of arcane physics to attempt an explanation.

The reason Hubble first postulated that redshift basically gives us a gauge of distance is that when he plotted the redshifts of galaxies on a graph along side their observed magnitude they showed an extremely tight correlation.

This lead him to conclude that redshift was a measure of distance, as something that's father away should be dimmer.

This does not hold true for quasars.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You're obfuscating a simple fact.

Quasar magnitude does not correlate with their observed redshift as it does for galaxy clusters.

I'm not sure if you missed the point, but I agree that the correlation doesn't appear with quasars but there could be a good reason for this. Take a narrow slice of the data for galaxy clusters and you won't see the correlation either. The reason we see the linear relationship with galaxy clusters is because we are looking at a wide range of data of various lookback times.

If you take a thin slice of the galaxy data, you won't see a linear correlation either. So that's the explanation that we don't see the correlation with quasars, it's because quasars weren't around long enough to give a broad enough data set to see the linear relationship. Looking at the quasar data is like looking at a thin slice out of the galaxy data.

Here's the original galaxy redshift diagram:

Here's the same diagram showing a narrow slice of the data:

So if that was all the data we could see, we won't see the linear relationship right? In fact the data points we can see after blocking out the wider data set looks very similar to the quasar chart you posted. What scientists say is this is exactly the effect we are seeing with quasars, we are only looking at a narrow 1 billion year window of time out of the 14 billion year age of the universe.

The quasars are actually older so the data would be further to the right but the concept is the same.

Now the assumptions about quasars could be wrong, but if they are right that quasars only were around for a short time, then the data is perfectly consistent with the galaxy redshift data as this diagram shows, even though it shows no correlation, you can't expect it to when the galaxy data shows no correlation over a short window either.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any good reason that disproves the accepted explanation that the redshift data on quasars just shows that with few exceptions, they are very, very old...

What do you mean by "a few exceptions"? Wiki informs us that there are 200,000 known Quasars, I'm sure redshift data does not even come close to that number.

How can Quasars be 10+billion years old when their redshift value is putting them at 40 to 50 billion LYs away?
The magical adjustable integer of expanding space makes the equation work.

How much and how fast has space expanded?
Space has expanded as much as is needed to explain this data.

I hope the problem here is obvious because it is a big one, to say that this is a small hole in the BBT is an astronomical understatement.
But wait, there are more problems or so called small holes in the BBT. They involve physics and the inverse square law.

How big can any single object get?
How much energy can any single object emit?
How fast can this energy travel through space?

It all depends on the magical number from cosmology.
In relativistic terms there is a critical point that cannot be passed by any one of those three questions. If some of these quasars were actually 45 to 50 billion light years away, no matter how fast nothingness can expand, the inverse square law would make them thousands or maybe even millions of times the size of whole galaxies. Remember that QSOs are defined as single points of light but because they are so large must be galaxies. This is so far beyond the scope of relativity that it's not even funny even for galactic nuclei.

This violates the known laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy not to mention relativity (more of the so called "holes" in the BBT).

Let us not forget that there is an alternative to the big bang but the main problem is the paradigm of science and cosmology. They refute any thoughts on this simply because it contradicts the big bang theory. Evidence for this is easy to find but the implications are very difficult to accept.

Has it come down to this that people like us here on ATS have to come up with a unified field theory?

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any good reason that disproves the accepted explanation that the redshift data on quasars just shows that with few exceptions, they are very, very old...

What do you mean by "a few exceptions"? Wiki informs us that there are 200,000 known Quasars, I'm sure redshift data does not even come close to that number.

I thought you were smart enough to understand that, it's a statistical inference like saying "7-foot tall people are the exception".

We can look at statistical data on heights of people and without measuring the heights of all 6 billion people on earth we can make inferences about those outside of our sample. The larger and more varied out sample the better inferences we can make about the whole population. The same thing applies to quasars (and other statistics), so there may be younger quasars just like there are 7 foot tall people but statistically, both could be considered a "few exceptions" or if you prefer, a statistically small proportion of the population of data.

How can Quasars be 10+billion years old when their redshift value is putting them at 40 to 50 billion LYs away?
The magical adjustable integer of expanding space makes the equation work.

How much and how fast has space expanded?
Space has expanded as much as is needed to explain this data.

I'm not crazy about the explanation either but just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong. There's a lot I don't like about quantum mechanics too but it does explain observations pretty darn well. Maybe the unified field theory will fix both those problems.

Has it come down to this that people like us here on ATS have to come up with a unified field theory?

I don't have a better theory or unified field theory, but if you do, go for it and get it published. There are even threads on how to get it peer reviewed before publishing like this one: www.physicsforums.com...

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We can look at statistical data on heights of people and without measuring the heights of all 6 billion people on earth

OK I have heard this one before, I wasn't following what you meant originally. But let's use this analogy to explain my point.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...it's a statistical inference like saying "7-foot tall people are the exception"

So we measure a small percentage of the population and infer that people are between 5 and 6 feet tall with some exceptions like the few that are 7' tall. So far this works fine, but...

What happens when we measure someone that is 10 feet tall?
How about if we were told that this person was standing on the Moon yet still measured an apparent height of 10 feet?

The inverse square law would make that person bigger than the Moon, perhaps even 10,000 miles tall.

Would we throw out our previous inference and accept that some people are actually 10,000 miles tall when the average is 5 to 6 feet?
Or do we consider that our measurements are flawed?

I can not properly communicate how I feel about the direction cosmology is going. I mean to ridicule astronomers to the point of destroying their career because of their observations and dismiss what is obvious. To dismiss the know laws of physics and electro/thermo-dynamics. To toss out the theory of relativity. Make up new words and impossible terms (lookback time) all for the sole purpose of keeping alive a dead theory...This is some really amazing stuff and I shake my head in disbelief.

I know you feel the same on at least some of the points I have made in this thread. I respect your opinion and concede that I could be wrong about some of what I presented but never-the-less there is still plenty of evidence against the BBT. Actually I am still looking for one piece of evidence that is in favor of the big bang.

I believe that the worst thing to do is despair and I don't want anyone to be left with a feeling of hopelessness so look towards the electric Universe theories. Many articles and threads I have read about this theory explain astronomical phenomena with great consistency.

Let me say that this has brought me into a field of study about ancient astronomers/astrologers and the geological forces that have shaped our planet since then.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by Devino]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by thehumbleone
It's simple logic and it makes perfect sense. What's there to argue about?

Its like a fish unable to grasp the concept of water because it is omnipresent and right in front of his eyes that he misses it.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Good points,
I'm an old electronics tech and the OP makes good sense...and does not require a 'big bang' which, to me, makes no sense..and requires that i have faith...

And yes, the best place to hide something is right in front of you!
Take Building 7 for example...

[edit on 14-1-2010 by seataka]

posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:17 AM
The standard model has trouble explaining our observations of qusars.

Ok, sure.

Should we

A. Decide something is going on with these qusars and investigate.

or

B. Call it a day.

Its not like this is the only unexplained phenomenon in the standard model. We don't know nearly enough to have a fully functional standard model, much less an EU/plasma one.

There is still lots of science to be done so we can explain the way the universe works. Thats the whole point. I guarantee you that scientest are studing qusars. And they are probably trying to figure something out that works with the standard model. A lot of work has gone into the standard model. EU/plasma have some interesting ideas but are not nearly as fleshed out as the standard and there is no reason to dump a system that seems to explains quite a bit because there are also things that don't really work. Thats just the way its gonna be for a long time, with any model. Measuring stuff in space, billions of light years away, is tough. Better to just admit that you don't know everything and keep on doing science till you come up with something that works.

This stuff is waaaaay more complicated than you guys make it out to be. Trust me, the holes in BBT are well known and documented in the scientific community. Science is a work in progress and the standard cosmological model covers many, many ideas and will not be disgarded just because something doesn't work right.

If you back your new car into a pole and smash the bumper do you try to get it fixed or do you throw it out and start saving for a new car? Sure the smashed bumper is ugly but if you can get it fixed it will be like having a new car again. Much more desirable than walking everywhere until you can save up. Because the car still works.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by garritynet]

top topics

67