It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Evidence the Big Bang Theory Wrong - Quasars Don't Show Time Dilation

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I am a into "creationism" but still do not like the BIG BANG deal either. There is nothing and BANG and you get every thing. BANG and then 15 billion years later here we are? And that is another thing I really feel the universe is a lot older than that. They came up with that number because that is as far as we can see out into space is my understanding of it. But what if there is a lot more out there we can to see. I read a thing that said that 90% of the mass is missing for the universe. What is it is just beyond what we can see. That would make the universe a lot older maybe 100's of trillions of old.
Sorry for getting of track there but like I said I have never like the big bang idea. It always sounded like a cop-out for not really knowing the truth so that made something up. This may be just the start but I think we are going to start learning that a lot of things we have always thought are wrong. I am looking forward to hearing more about this.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I've read the OP's post and alot of the other posts in this thread but I thought I'd post my 2 cents.

From what I understand about Astronomy in general, a quasar isn't necessarily a single known object. In other words, a quasar is simply the word given to very distant sources of electromagnetic energy that we can detect. As for what creates quasars, the threshold of understanding is always moving forward with new ideas, new theories, new discoveries. My point is that this is an important distinction that alot of people might not understand. There isn't a SINGLE kind of object that is its own animal that is responsible for radio or X-ray emissions and as far as we know there are probably many different reasons for these objects emitting electromagnetic radiation in the form of these radio waves, X-rays, etc..

It is theorized that they emanate from supermassive black holes and/or black holes prior to forming an accretion disk and becoming galaxies but this is probably only one kind of source and this is all still open to scientific speculation because noone knows for sure.

The idea is very simple though.. Quasars are redshifted because everything is receding from us including these distant galaxies and the "stuff" within them. Because the universe is expanding in all directions because of the big-bang.

But this also assumes alot that may or may not be quantifiable from our perspective, regardless of whether or not a quasar is redshifted. For starters, there's no way to know for sure whether or not quasars are time dilated because all we can account for is the radiation they emit. And depending on who you talk to, radio waves and electromagnetic energy in general can travel at speeds faster than the speed of light.

Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light


Most people think Einstein said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but that's not really the case, Singleton said.

Einstein predicted that particles and information can't travel faster than the speed of light — but phenomenon like radio waves? That's a different story, said Singleton, a Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow.

Singleton has created a gadget that abuses radio waves so severely that they finally give in and travel faster than light.

The polarization synchrotron combines the waves with a rapidly spinning magnetic field, and the result could explain why pulsars — which are super-dense spinning stars that are a subclass of neutron stars — emit such powerful signals, a phenomenon that has baffled many scientists, Singleton said.

"Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars that emit radio waves in pulses, but what we don't know is why these pulses are so bright or why they travel such long distances," Singleton said. "What we think is these are transmitting the same way our machine does."


Could this same kind of polarization be occuring naturally? If so, it would add quite a bit of uncertainty to the entire scientific process. As far as quasars go, We can only account for what we directly observe. We can still measure, calculate, theorize, etc.. But we're still not looking at the whole can of worms. There is also alot of unknowns to think about.. Galactic collisions, black-hole collisions, dark matter, dark energy, and all forms of unknown stars and galactic precursors we haven't even theorized about yet.

In addition, there isn't any way to know for sure how close the big bang theory really is. Just because a theory or concept is widely accepted does not mean it is correct. And within this theoretical concept of the birth of our universe scientists admit there are alot of mysterious and otherwise just completely unexplainable things going on. Things like the creation of the universe's first elementary particles. Where did they come from? The Big Bang has become widely accepted when we just don't understand what really happened. It only acts to explain what we currently observe (applying the backward in time approach to what we currently observe). The beginning of the universe could just have easily been a supermassive white hole popping into existence out of nowhere than an unexplainable explosion that has no rhyme or reason for existing, itself.

The existing theory of the big bang can be challenged but in doing so we might be able to figure out what really happened as our scientific understanding of the universe progresses. It might mean the big bang theory needs to be amended, but IMO the theory is incomplete from the very get-go.

The absence of Time Dilation could simply mean or imply "X" when this scientist is thinking it means "Y". But it sounds like he's already on shaky ground. It would be interesting to see what really happens. Is he really ready to challenge the entire scientific establishment with ONE general concept?

IMO, If yours results can be easily reproduced, it doesn't mean your Hypotheses' are correct and everyone else is wrong. It just means there's an explanation that we may or may not fully understand scientifically. The Big Bang, for example.

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
i'm not sure calling this evidence of the big bang theory being false is legit. basically the article says "there is something out there, and we have no idea what it is, and its behaving differently from anything we've seen before, but now we're gonna throw away the big bang theory"

actually, if i remember reading correctly it says "this could possibly conflict with the bbt".

i firmly believe in the big bang, but if evidence turns up to prove it wrong, i will follow where ever truth leads.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
A very interesting read, It good to have open debates about well known theories and t put new light on it. The more you question a theory and relate it to modern science and how the universe works, then he more knowledge we will gain from it.

Dont let the disproving of the big bang theory put us in a predicament where we fall back into the drawing board and say ok then, if not the big bang what else can we pin the start of creation from.

There has been so much anomalies in modern science and how the universe works that questions theories, Einsteinian theories, Newtonian physics. So many anomalies occur between different theories that people will even say they disprove a system we have been using so long.

Its good we are gathering more knowledge of this matter, i did want to note of how religion fanatics will feel they made w in etc, i dont know why the big bang theory and religion wont fit anway? wouldnt religion simply say if there is a big bang, then god lit the fuse?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Very interesting!!

Thanks for posting this, S&F and a bump for your thread



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Halton Arp was right all along! No surprises here.

God forbid "Wacky" ideas like the universe isn't expanding or that quasars are local! Ha, as oppossed to the standard cosmological flights of Wackyness. I got a chuckle out of that one.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

The Big Bang theory is based on the current interpretation of Red-shift. It's looking more and more likely a lot of astronomers and physicists are wrong. They are busily building more epicycles as I type.ess me a little.


Actually this is not true.

General Relativity and very strong evidence supporting the BB have been validated time and time again from astrophysical observations.

The results of the exceedingly successful WMAP probe give extensive evidence for the big bang.
en.wikipedia.org...

There could be other complex issues in the quasars. This paper will stir up some interest---there are always observational data and physics problems to be solved.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Im glad to see people not taking idolized figures in physics and math as figuring out absolute truth. Questioning the absolute is essential in furthering our understanding of the cosmos. However the theory of relativity has proven to be quite useful and precise in explaining objects on the grandest of scales not only in our galaxy but the universe. The predictions made were far prior to verification by the hubble telescope. The simple fact the quasar show no time dilation doesnt mean relativity is wrong or the big bang is wrong just as relativity didnt prove newtonian physics wrong, it only gave us a new platform to discuss the motion of objects and time. It refined newtonian physics but didnt throw it out the window. The big bang theory only states that our observable universe appeared to have converged in the past, but extrapalation lead to the idea that we came from a singularity. The only idea prior to that was a static universe which we now know is not true ie our expanding universe. Infinite time doesnt necessarily mean time and space go on forever, it could also be the absence of both in our distant future. Quasars have been our benchmark for measuring time and distance since the discovery of there relatively periodic occurence to the point we can look to the next bench mark and wait for the quasar to form. Dont jump to any conclusions, but continue to question absolute "truths".



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by rizla

The Big Bang theory is based on the current interpretation of Red-shift. It's looking more and more likely a lot of astronomers and physicists are wrong. They are busily building more epicycles as I type.ess me a little.


Actually this is not true.

General Relativity and very strong evidence supporting the BB have been validated time and time again from astrophysical observations.

The results of the exceedingly successful WMAP probe give extensive evidence for the big bang.
en.wikipedia.org...

There could be other complex issues in the quasars. This paper will stir up some interest---there are always observational data and physics problems to be solved.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by mbkennel]


Einstein himself thought there was something wrong with GR, and he spent the last years of his life trying to figure that out.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The simple answer is redshift does not equate to distance. It's been known for nearly 40 years. But as one of the supporting pillars to the big bang this troubling little fact has been ignored. Hell, even Hubble himself favoured another theory in the end, It was too late by then the bangers had jumped on it and cast in stone.

Many don't even question the assumption or realise that there is a controversy. Just as they do in the article.

Yep, the big fat gorrilla in the room for decades now.


You can try and explain this as a coincidence in perspective, you can deny that the bridge exists (as they attempted to do). Then you have to explain the hundreds of other examples and explain the mechanism for the brightness of these small objects at the far reaches of the visible universe and why these objects are not behaving in accord to the standing assumptions.

They cannot determine how far they are via redshift, this is why the measurements are unexpected. Simple.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I posted this in the other thread about this subject, "Time waits for no Quasar".

In my opinion Dr. Halton Arp explains Quasars very well. A summary from what I have read, and what I can recall, is that Quasars are a part of what appear to be their local 'parent' galaxies and their measured redshifts are not accurate in showing their distance.

Some of the redshifts are so large that it would put them billions of light years away (some estimates up to 40-50 billion) and thus make them the largest and most luminous objects in the Universe. So large and so bright that this contradicts the laws of physics and relativity, big time, not to mention that these distances are further away than the Universe is old. Light from these objects would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get here in time, makes no sense to me and I have read about the so called "lookback time".

Quasars appear to be objects of energy that have been ejected out of their parent galaxies, sometimes four can be observed around one galaxy. It would be my guess that these observed high redshift values in quasars has to do with low mass high energy objects that would have almost no time dilation. Time dilation is due to gravity and low mass (low gravity) objects would have almost no time dilation. In other words in this environment time would appear to move extremely fast as observed here on Earth in our own 'time bubble'. This could explain why these redshift values are so high.

I would predict that young quasars would have very high redshifts, almost no time dilation, slow or no rotational speed and almost no mass/gravity. This is because I believe these things are all related. As these quasars get older they would gain lower redshifts, start to rotate and gain mass with an increasing gravitational force. This rotational acceleration would increase time dilation and inertial mass or gravity and the result would be an expelling of mass due to centrifugal forces. Thus spiral arms are formed and we have ourselves proto galaxies.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Maybe Quasars are creating worm holes where the light travels directly from one point to the other without having to go through the space in between. Could be


Or maybe quasars are worm holes /shrug.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Well, a wormhole would basically represent the bridge between a black hole and white hole.. Only because a wormhole is a black hole until it has some kind of exit on the other side (wherever and whenever that might be). This is because the only thing powerful enough to create a wormhole and sustain it for any period of time is a singularity (a very powerful one).

But this makes alot of things difficult to quantify.. Allow me to explain..

If faster than light travel is possible and if traveling faster than the speed of light sends you back in time (Reverse time dilation) then it is possible that a white hole could open in front of your face right now.

It is even possible that the supermassive black hole that created this theoretical wormhole doesn't even exist yet (white hole sending matter and energy back in time). This coincides with a previous theory I've proposed here on ATS which has to do with energy being sent back in time further and further until the moment of the big bang (black holes from the future creating the big bang in the past). Only because as you rewind the universe back to the moment of the big-bang it would become smaller .. This would mean less and less room for white holes to exist in the universe as you go further and further back in time. Eventually they would be squished together into a single point. This could be why the big bang happened in the first place.

People just usually don't think hypothetically outside the confines of linear time (which does not exist in our universe). You have to think more in terms of everything happening all the time or not at all. Especially because you're talking about phenomenon that do not necessarily obey the normal laws of physics.

Of coarse, whenever you're talking about time travel, whether it be in nature or artificial, there are alot of pretty odd things goings. There are alot of really bizarre paradoxes that completely defy common sense.

My favorite is from a 2007 article in Scientific American called the "Pool Cue Paradox". Let's say you have a wormhole entrance (maybe the size of a basketball just as a thought experiment). You're playing pool and decide to hit the pool cue into the wormhole entrance (which is the black hole). Normally not such a confusing act you might think but what if you put the exit of the wormhole near the entrance? If the wormhole sends the pool cue back in time, it will inevitably pop into existence before it's even hit. Which begs the question.. Would the simple act of making the decision to hit the pool cue cause another pool cue to exit the wormhole out of nowhere?

And what if the pool cue exiting the wormhole hits the one getting ready to enter and prevents it from going in altogether? Would both pool cues disappear? How could multiple pool cues exist simultaneously in the first place?

-ChriS



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


In keeping with your idea of a link between a black hole and a quazar or "white hole", let me interject one other "way out side possibility".

Could it be possible for matter caught up by a black hole to be broken down into it's smallest basic components"strings" at the center of the black hole. If these are connected by a worm hole to quazars then the resulting strings could be ejected at that point.

This would help to explain why quazars emit such stong energy signatures. It could also be used to explain how much of the matter within our universe came to be.

When several quazars are close together, the influx of the strings into an volumn of space could interact to become the basis of physical matter. This could be happening in many areas of this and other universes and/or other deminisions.

This would mean rather than there being a "big bang" there would have been a "big swoosh", and it's initial start could have been too far distant in time to be realized in our time line.

I offer this link in an effort so the continuing loss of credibility for the big bang.

thunderbolts.info...


As I am not formally schooled in this area of work or research, I hope this post can be at least taken with a grain of salt. It would not be hard for me to be intirely wrong but, I may also be close to right.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


im actually interested in two things here

1. what is the voyager anomoly

and

2. how come there are stars int he center of our solar system that astronomers believe are 13-14 billion years old and that the milkey way is 13-14 billion years old, does that mean we are one of the oldest galaxies and we were around for the supposed "big bang" abnd supposidly the oldest quasars and galaxies that are seen in the HUDF (hubble ultra deep field) are possibly 14 billion years old.

according the the HUDF we are looking back in "time" and seeing things at the very beginning of the universe.

now i for one love the HUDF and for anyone who has seen it should know why, it shows more then 10,000 galaxies a few of which are so large that they technically should not exist.

now how can there be stars in our own galaxy that are 13-14 billion years old and how can our galaxy be up to 13-14 billion years old if we are supposidly a "young" galaxy, how can we look back that far at quasars and galaxies that are just as old as us.

it seems like everything could have been created around the same time but maybe not from the "big bang", i do however feel like this shows the expansion effect of the universe quite well.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


This one is simple, and answered by entanglement.

A "worm hole" would, effectively, be two entangled regions of space. While many have tried to connect worm-holes with space and time bridges, the concept is entirely unprecedented and silly - as is the idea that this region of space could 'stretch.' It's a system entirely based around nothing observed or to have a precedent.

So - we know that entangled bodies react to each other at velocities that appear to be faster than the speed of light.

There are two possible outcomes. First - you enter one side and pop out the other without regard to time or space. The problem here deals with energy states and potentials. An object in proximity to a large gravitational body - such as a black hole - would have far less energy in its position than one placed in the galactic void. A "wormhole" linking two regions of space with vastly different gravitational properties would be troublesome.

Second - you enter the entangled space and begin to quasi-exist in both spaces until reconciled via local means. To elaborate - the only way to gain useful information from entangled states is to reconcile the entangled pairs. This requires the classical transfer of information and therefor would be restricted to the speed of light. In order for the entangled space to work out the meaningful states of the particles within it, it would have to reconcile via classical means of communication.

Both are merely thoughts on the matter intended to provoke additional thought and consideration.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
As with everything we are told is Scientific Fact, I tend to think there is both Truth and Deceit involved.

I mean there may have been a big bang...but it couldnt have been the beginning, as something would have had to cause the reaction.

Plenty of holes in it. Like evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join