It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Interesting alternative to Big Bang

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:51 AM
While reading BadAstronomy board, you often come across posts by Jerry Jensen, a scientist at ATK Propulsion.

His theory basicly says cosmological redshift is not due to expansion, but due to the CREIL effect (Arxiv: Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma). The supernovae used for validating distance measures are wrong (Arxiv: Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus). CMBR is caused by CREIL and scattering of light by matter. He proposes a steady-state universe. Arxiv: Evidence for instrinsic redshifts in spiral galaxies can be added this list.

Jerry Jensen (BadAstronomy thread 14433):

There is a plausible, workable, and most importantly testable cosmology outside the failing constraints of the modified Einstein-deSitter Big Bang theory. This cosmology is conceivable without the jerky dark energy or the undetectable dark matter proposed to align the current prevailing cosmology with observations. It also eliminates the Copernican rings of quasars, active galaxies, and passive evolution that paint the current epic as unique. It explains MOND behavior and Tully-Fisher phenomenon. The supportive framework for this theory, with far fewer exceptions than the current revision of the Big Bang, falls within known locally observable physical laws.

MOND is an alternative explanation to dark matter for the speed of rotation in spiral galaxies that does not follow the distribution of visible matter. More information.

The Tully-Fisher relationships link rotation speed in spiral galaxies to distance. More information.

However, not all evidence for the big bang is explained by this theory (list of evidence). Olber's paradox is still a problem. He also requires a violation of therrmodynamics for the steady-state model to work.

Still, it is interesting to see that evidence for the big bang can also be interpreted in a different way. He also listed some problems with the big bang. All in all, I recommend you read the first post of this thread.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by amantine]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:13 AM
Very interesting stuff.

I read the original thread and that guy really should try to publish. I think when you have an effect that could cause redshift that ALSO does away with things like dark matter it warents serious attention. Often times scientist create phamton reality to fit a theory to reality and then this exact things happens, someone comes along and shows the phantom need not exist.

This would drasticly change our view of the universe but thats a good thing if it is more true to reality. Even without statistical evidence, yet, there is weight in his theory. A steady state universe would explain a lot of things even if it destroys our current understanding.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:23 AM
This was such an interesting read. Many parts of the theory seem very plausible. There are a few that makes me go hmmm. But, the same goes for the Big Bang...... I think that if more research could follow this a bit further, it may help be able to piece together a different theory with a little of both.

new topics

log in