Naive Big Bang Space Questions?

reply to post by The Reader


I was being facetious. Plasma theory is nothing but baseless conjecture, and your overly-simplistic "nothing can come from nothing" debunking of the big bang theory is fatuous conjecture.

reply to post by davesidious


Then by all means, please do explain how the universe came to be?
IMHO I think that scientists are obviously very dogmatic, they don't seem to be open minded on the subject. They believe that they have almost solved the mystery of the universe and it has only taken a little over 100 years to do it in the history of mankind. I think that they have to invent things like Dark Energy and Dark Matter just to keep the theory floating. And of course you can't see these things, you can't prove them by emperical means!!

Well, well people are free to believe whatever they want to believe in my oppinion.

Due to the anthropic principle the acceleration of space expansion is the inverse of the acceleration of time as space contraction on Earth -- so we have the ecological crisis as the spatial limit of human technological expansion (space contraction) at an accelerating time rate on Earth. While the origin of the Universe may not have had light the creation of spacetime is eternal -- as per the plasma model -- but is not dependent on light, yet creates light or plasma energy.

Originally posted by The Reader
If somebody wants emperical evidence that goes against the bing bang theory I suggest, that person check out Halton Arp's work.

You mean the guy who admits the entire scientific community thinks he's imagining things? I did check out Halton Arp's work and I can see why his peers didn't accept it. I agree with his peers that Arp is interpreting things in the photos that are photographic artifacts and not genuine physical structures.

I looked at Arp's site and illustrations.

Let's start with his rebuttal here:

www.haltonarp.com...

He shows the NASA image that claimed there is no bridge.

Then he showed a manipulated photo showing a bridge, so he claims.
I tried what he said and downloaded the highest resolution image available here:
hubblesite.org...

Here are the 3 photos:

Nasa photo from Arp's site:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31d521316086.jpg[/atsimg]

Arp's manipulation of that photo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c48354738511.jpg[/atsimg]

My manipulation of the highest resolution photo I could find (from hubblesite.org... )
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd89ae367174.jpg[/atsimg]

If you want to call that a bridge like Dr Arp insists it is, then feel free. It looks to me like an optical artifact as a result of photographing 2 bright objects so close together. And I'm not the only one who thinks so, as Dr Arp points out:

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.

One might argue that prominent professionals might have something to lose by admitting it's real and that's why they don't, but I'm not a prominent professional and in my independent opinion, the prominent professionals are right on this one, there's no bridge here.

We have to look at specific cases and claims of bridges to evaluate them. Unlike the other bridge referenced here: www.astr.ua.edu... which may just be a coincidence, this one isn't even a coincidence, there is no bridge but of course everyone needs to form their own opinion.

I also looked at Dr Arp's illustrations where I also see no bridges:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb8498dcbc54.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70a5185c52cc.jpg[/atsimg]

The sky is a big place with 100 billion galaxies and lots of objects that are different distances away can appear close to each other from our perspective, but that doesn't mean that they are close to each other. This should be obvious and especially with no bridge, the argument is not very credible without further proof.

And when you say "WE" don't know much about the universe, I think you mean "you" don't, because so far every person I've seen argue in favor of the electric universe theory doesn't have enough understanding of basic known scientific facts to pose a coherent argument, and often they just spew stuff they found on some website somewhere that they don't have the foggiest understanding about.

I admit we still have a lot to learn about the universe, and some theories are probably wrong, that's the way science works. But the electric powered sun isn't the answer. I don't know what the correct theory of everything is, but I do know that it doesn't involve an electric powered sun.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by The Reader


"I don't know" is a perfectly suitable response. I'm no expert. I do know, however, that the big bang theory has far more supporting evidence, and requires far fewer leaps of faith than the plasma cosmology theory.

Scientists will spin on a dime if you can provide enough evidence. That's now Nobel prizes are won. Usually, when scientists don't go along with something, it's because they don't have a reason to.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Maybe your right, maybe your not, I really don't know. I just like the theory of the unexpanding universe more, just like Fred Hoyle did. I know there are controverses regarding the evidences for it.

When I come to think about, I saw a documentary that was very informative a couple of years ago. That specifically sinks into this matter.

The documentary was called: The Cosmology Quest
The official website is: www.universe-film.com...

Maybe you've seen it?, It's pretty long though.
It can be found on many sites for downloading. I think even youtube has it.

I would be very interessted on hear your view on it.

I can understand if you don't feel like you want to check out the docu or have the time to do so. But I would be very glad if you did. so I could hear your insight on it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I found a clip where they talk about NGC 4319, look from 4:24 and onwards.

www.youtube.com...

I would like someone's viewpoint on this.

reply to post by The Reader

I'll try to take a look when I have time.

I'm not married to the big bang theory, but here's what I've seen happen with every non-big bang theory I've seen:

Somebody says: "The big bang doesn't explain everything, and it's got holes in it like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, etc, therefore it can't be right"

OK I think cosmologists agree we don't know everything otherwise we wouldn't make up the name dark energy as a placeholder for what we don't understand yet. Heck we don't even fully understand gravity yet. But let's say of all the data out there, the big bang explains 85% of it, and people point out the 15% gaps where we don't understand all this dark matter and dark energy.

Since they've poked holes in the big bang theory, they propose an alternate theory that doesn't even explain 5% of the observational data. So you've gone from a theory with holes in it, the big bang, and replaced it with a theory that's one gigantic hole, and explains far less. That's not progress.

Or to put it logical terms, let's say the big bang theory is A. and alternate theories are B, C and D. The argument is:

A is not true
Therefore:
B is true
(or C is true)
(or D is true)

That's a logical fallacy, showing holes in the big bang doesn't prove any other theory. And so far every other alternate theory I've seen doesn't explain the data as well as the big bang. If I see another theory that DOES explain the existing data better than the big bang, I'll favor that theory. People accuse scientists of being somewhat dogmatic which may be true to an extent but if an alternate theory really explains the data batter, they'll eventually accept it too.

Mate, it's very simple, it's turtles all the way down'!

In anycase, its a theory, nothing more. Maybe there are countless 'big bangs' happening every second. Who says one universe, who says its limited?



[edit on 27-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]

I believe that the Universe is more or less static. The Universe is uncreated, so to say it is infinite and has always existed and will always exist for eternity.

Rather than everything originated from a single point not bigger than a grain of sand by some unknown force. This grain of sand "exploded" creating all matter in the universe and forming every singel galaxy we see in the Universe by random events, even creating time, space and gravity in the process. Sounds sort of magical, doesn't it?




[edit on 27-2-2010 by The Reader]

Originally posted by The Reader
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I found a clip where they talk about NGC 4319, look from 4:24 and onwards.

www.youtube.com...

I would like someone's viewpoint on this.

I just gave you my analysis on that, I answered your question before you even asked it!!! How's that for efficiency? Did you even read my post? In fact you can see I downloaded and analyzed a higher resolution photo of NGC4319 than the one on Halton Arp's site! Scroll up a few posts.

Here is a photo that summarizes the controversy with a dramatization:

Halton Arp: Just look at this photo, you can see the ball of light is at the same distance as the guy who's holding it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4233c433a22.jpg[/atsimg]

Scientific community: Just because it LOOKS like the ball of light is at the same distance as the guy, doesn't mean that it IS! (The ball of light, is of course our sun).

Now which do you believe, Halton Arp or the scientific community?

I don't think he's holding it, just because it looks like he is. But Halton Arp does, in an analogous way in his conclusions about the galaxy photos.

That photo really illustrates the nature of this whole debate.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by The Reader
I believe that the Universe is more or less static. The Universe is uncreated, so to say it is infinite and has always existed and will always exist for eternity.

Rather than everything originated from a single point not bigger than a grain of sand by some unknown force. This grain of sand "exploded" creating all matter in the universe and forming every singel galaxy we see in the Universe by random events, even creating time, space and gravity in the process. Sounds sort of magical, doesn't it?

[edit on 27-2-2010 by The Reader]

Ok, this is all comming from notes from my astronomy class, the section on cosmology.

the current theories involve the 4 observations:
Note: this info is assuming you ignore local differences such as voids and superclusters, but on a large scale viewd from the outside

Homogeineity: Matter is uniformly spread across the universe. For example, if you stand in a wheat field, in every direction you look, you will see wheat.

Isotropy: The Universe is the same in every direction, this does not apply to small scale oberservation, such as looking from inside the universe.

Universality: The Laws of Physics apply to the entire universe.

Cosmological Principle: Puts together the other 3 observations, states that since the universe is the same in all directions, there can be no center or edges, or no "special" points in the universe.

That was important because those observations state that there are no special places in the universe, there should be nothing special about our universe. this means that there must be infinite universes. Some scientists believe that the event known as the big bang occured when two parallel universes collided. durring this time, the pre-big bang universe experienced a huge release of energy encompassing our entire universe, therefore there was no one point the size of a grain of sand which contained all the matter in the universe prior to its explosion forming the universe. With this and the Membrane Theory, there could be another big bang tomorrow, next week, next year, or even never

Originally posted by Paladin327
That was important because those observations state that there are no special places in the universe, there should be nothing special about our universe. this means that there must be infinite universes. Some scientists believe that the event known as the big bang occured when two parallel universes collided. durring this time, the pre-big bang universe experienced a huge release of energy encompassing our entire universe, therefore there was no one point the size of a grain of sand which contained all the matter in the universe prior to its explosion forming the universe. With this and the Membrane Theory, there could be another big bang tomorrow, next week, next year, or even never

Thanks, this is what my OP was looking for!