Is the cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang?

#21
It has been known since 1966. The reason you have not heard of it is because it was suppressed.
It wasn't suppressed. It is all over the Internet in the same places I looked into the famous Stephen's Quintet anamolous redshift. There are even papers on Arxiv about these guys and Stephen's Quintet was openly discussed in my astrophysics class. Anyhow, Stephen's Quintet was resolved, so I never really bothered to look again since that was a big one too. NGC 7603 looks more interesting from what I can tell.

But, I don't think it is apparent they are embedded in the filament without knowing a heck of a lot more detail on the image.
 
#22
It's all over the internet now. It was suppressed. You also are not familiar with it's history. They even presented an under exsposed image and tried to say there was no bridge! But you could still see it!

TheAstrophysical Journal and Nature refused to publish this observation, and it was finally published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, a peer-reviewed but less ‘prestigious’ journal. Furthermore, requests to make follow-up observations with the Chandra X-ray satellite and the southern Very Large Telescope were turned down. The story of NGC 7603 is a poignant example of how crucial scientific evidence is ignored and suppressed.12
http://davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm#c3
 
#23
It's all over the internet now. It was suppressed. You also are not familiar with it's history. They even presented an under exsposed image and tried to say there was no bridge! But you could still see it!



http://davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm#c3
You don't seem to understand. I was invovled with the physics department at my school AT THE TIME the image was taken. I don't remember any suppression. Keep in mind I am talking about Stephen's Quintet, which at first looks worse than NGC 7603
 
#24
NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 - Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?

In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was invariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.

Flash forward to October 2002. The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels, there it is! Actually the NASA "proof" picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. Many non professionals immediately produced very good pictures of the bridge from the same NASA picture. Here is shown a comparison of the press release picture and a deep print of the same picture by Jack Sulentic of the University of Alabama.

Science, 11 Oct. 2002, p. 345, ran a small article on the statements from both sides, but most science magazines just accepted the NASA release as refutation of the connection. 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.






Taken from Halton Arp's website.
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals

 
#25
It gets even worse for the Big Bang believe it or not.

A collection of galaxies that is a whopping four billion light years long is the biggest cosmic structure ever seen. The group is roughly one-twentieth the diameter of the observable universe – big enough to challenge a principle dating back to Einstein, that, on large scales, the universe looks the same in every direction.
One 20th the size of the observable universe! Of course this is based on the assumption that has been refuted over and over. If the quasars are where they appear to be by observation, as in Arp's model it all falls within acceptable limits of distance and brightness.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ges-einsteins-smooth-cosmos.html#.UzFJWWeKAv1

It adds to the collection of structures too big for the big bang as I mentioned earlier.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ctures-too-big-for-theories.html#.UzFKlmeKAv0

From the Thunderbolts project.

Twenty-one quasars with similar redshifts cluster in a three-degree diameter area of the sky.

The quasar density is nearly six times the density of the nearby areas. At their Hubble distance, which assumes that their distance is proportional to their redshift, they would occupy a region of space over 800 million light-years in diameter. In comparison, the Virgo Cluster of galaxies, the largest nearby cluster, is estimated to be only 9 million light-years across.

Near the apparent center of the cluster lies the relatively nearby active galaxy AM2230-284. According to the Hubble relationship, the cluster is about 13 billion light-years beyond it. Its presence near the center of the cluster is merely a coincidence.

In a recent paper, astronomer Halton Arp and two colleagues analyzed the dispersion of redshifts in the cluster in relation to that of the AM galaxy. They removed the active galaxy’s redshift from that of the quasars, transforming the quasars’ redshifts to the rest frame of the galaxy. In consequence, the quasars’ redshifts fall closely on the most common value of the Karlsson periodicity—1.96.
Something that the analysis of the sky surveys did not do. So it is no wonder They did not find the relationship. Once again, bad assumptions give bad results.

Ethan stated...

However, what the SSDS data did, as I already mentioned above, was show that there is no actual correlation/association between the galaxies
"Unfortunately (for convention), the all-sky surveys misunderstood the proposal (hence the suspicion that conventional astronomers didn’t read the papers), so they failed to find the wrong result: They didn’t identify the quasar clusters associated with active galaxies, and they didn’t transform the z’s to the active galaxies’ rest frames before testing for the Karlsson periodicity. They only proved—unsurprisingly—that not following the method of the proposal will not find the proposed result."

Arp has not been refuted, in fact this finding is the sort that is predicted in his model and plasma cosmology.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100817clusters.htm

More...

 
Last edited:
#26
This is devastating to Big Bang theory, either the quasars are at their supposed red shift distance refuting a long held assumption or the more likely scenario that the red shift assumption is wrong, also refuting expansion and the Big Bang.
 
#27
Wish I could add something fruitful to this discussion, but cosmology is not my wheelhouse, and much of what was worth saying has already been said; really good information from the participants. I think this is a necessary discussion to have, as its really unbelievable how venomous people can be about protecting an idea as relatively inconsequential as whether we emerged from a Big Bang or the Universe is static and/or in a steady-state. In either view I feel that there is some primordial pre-space or proto-space that everything emerges out of anyway, whether that is a cosmic inflationary event or the constant creation of nucleons emerging out of the vacuum and self-organizing into galactic structures. My bias is definitely in favor of the latter however.

The information about the past predictions of the CMB is really valuable, thanks for posting reference to the source material LR, it is an extremely unexamined part of history. I actually wrote an article on this very subject if any of ya'll are interested. I'll also post this interview I did a while back now with my collaborator Matt Pulver where we talked quite a bit about continuous creation cosmology in the context of Subquantum Kinetics:

http://www.blue-science.org/articles/2013/10/04/big-bang-or-big-bust/

 
#28
Hi LoneShaman

I gotta admit, if this discussion is going to sound like a conspiracy theory discussion, I'm going to lose interest fast. More importantly, it is reminding me of our skeptic/proponent psi discussions. You have a rich phenomenon like NDEs and folks are ready to dismiss the whole thing because of an anomalous flash of brain activity after death, despite all the other evidence in support of NDEs. Or, reincarnation being dismissed due to the population problem, despite Stevenson's work. Many theories/phenomenon have anomalies across their set of observations. More often than not this usually means we don't fully understand the theory/phenomenon (like psi, Big Bang, Climate Science, etc) rather than all the science behind the idea being dead wrong.

Anyhow, I mentioned several effects and lines of evidence that support the Big Bang, but it looks like we're not going to talk about any of that, most of which is difficult to dismiss (anomalies, or not). I also mentioned how tightly wrapped up the predictions and experimental verifications of General Relativity are with Big Bang Theory, and how dropping the Big Bang could be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but doesn't look like we're going to discuss that either.

I mean, if we're going to ignore all that, how are we any better than the skeptics who want to dismiss psi based on anomalies? BBT evidence (which has statistical significance on par with some psi phenomenon, when it is statistical in nature) is even backed up with some physical theory and physical insight, unlike psi, so maybe it's even worse to dismiss it. Not only that, we would be knowingly (and unknowingly!) dismissing (verified!) science we don't understand just like we claim the skeptics do with psi.

So, I'm probably just going to wrap it up by saying this, which hopefully will get the point across I've attempted to make before a little better. I think this is the more reasonable stance to take on the issue when looking for a resolution.

In my experience, the anomalies you are talking about (and others!) have been known about and have been openly discussed, in general. However, they don't always get the attention they deserve and they surely have had vociferous opponents. Science doesn't escape the human experience of there being an a-hole in every crowd. (These anomalies aren't the biggest problems with the Big Bang, in my opinion, and we've barely even touched upon these others!) Anyhow, here's a simple analogy that represents what I think is what you can expect to happen in resolution to some of the problems.

Newton's lay says F=ma. No free parameters here, you just have to determine the mass from observation/experiment and you know the Force/Acceleration relationship. But, let's say you discover electricity and realize that F=ma=qE which you confirm over and over again. But, then these other guys come along who have been experimenting differently and they find these anomalous areas where the equation breaks down. Folks start screaming to throw out the F=ma relationship, despite all the evidence backing up F=ma in other areas like celestial mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc. People suppress evidence against the F=ma=qE theory in an effort to protect their careers. It turns into a big mess. (This may very well be the situation we're in right now)

But, then some smart guy comes along and realizes the solution lies in realizing we've been missing part of the picture. The electric field is just one way the Electromagnetic Field can manifest itself. The anomaly was magnetism rearing its ugly head! The equation is updated by adding an extra term, F=ma=qE + ( qV cross B), and ... phew, problem solved. We now have the Lorentz force law and the full picture.

This is akin to General Relativity. One simple equation is behind the entire theory from Black Holes, to gravity waves, to the GPS on your smart phone. The equation is:

G_mu_nu = 8*pi*T_mu_nu,

Once again, no free parameters. T is the stress-energy tensor and replaces the mass term in the Newtonian equation, which shows up in the T_00 index of the tensor, but also includes terms representing energy, pressure, etc. So, instead of just measuring mass we now have to account for mass-energy content.

Similar to F=ma, this equation has had too much success at too high level of accuracies to just throw it out. Here's the problem. Although it doesn't provide a lot of details on the Big Bang on its own, it does indeed predict the Universe heads into a Big-Bang-like condition earlier in its history GIVEN a specific range of mass-energy content for the Universe, which of course comes from observation. Ignore this and you might as well think your smart phone GPS works on magic - it's the same equation!

So, as I see it there are two paths we'll end up taking:

(1) Observation is wrong when it comes to the Universe mass-energy content and/or wrong in various other manners. We already know this is true to some extent, but perhaps the anomalies (like anomalous red shifts, extra clumpiness) are hinting at even more of a problem. However, the observed mass-energy content falls pretty far within the area on the plots I mentioned above that requires a Big-Bang-like condition earlier in the history of the Universe, so it's going to be hard to pull it out of that region. There is also too much evidence in support of observations to drop the whole set now just because of the anomalies - at this point, anyhow.

But, keep in mind, nothing in (1) says General Relativity is wrong, specifically G=8*pi*T. It says our observations are wrong and therefore our determination of T, the stress-energy tensor. It also doesn't imply the Big Bang definitely didn't happen, just that we're coming at it from the wrong angle, if it did happen.

(2) We need to modify gravity in a way analogous to how we modified the F=qE equation above. This is in essence what most of the alternatives/modifications to GR I mentioned earlier are trying to do. It looks and sounds more complicated, but that's what it is - an acknowledgment we're potentially missing part of the picture at the larger cosmological scales with our vanilla-flavored GR,

But, keep in mind, (2) still realizes how fantastically successful G=8*pi*T has been at other scales so it doesn't make sense to throw the entire thing out, thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor does (2) say the Big Bang definitely didn't happen. Unfortunately, there are still no alternative theories that work as well as GR across the board. (i.e. we're sill looking for that extra term in F=qe+[qV cross B] )

To me, this is the more reasonable stance to take. (i) It recognizes where the science has been correct/successful and avoids hasty moves of accidentally throwing the baby out with the bath water. (ii) It also doesn't summarily dismiss evidence that supports aspects of the Big Bang Theory, similar to the psi analogy above. (iii) It also recognizes that both sides of the debate are shortsighted on the issue to some extent (like our F=ma=qE buddies above)

If the discussion goes along these lines and doesn't ignore confirmed theory and/or evidence that does support aspects of cosmology, I'll find that interesting and will probably participate more.

Don't get me wrong, I'm almost always with you guys on alternative medicine and psi, etc. Even on the climate change debate there is much David and Michael have said that I am in strong agreement with, even though I lean a little more to the other side of the debate. I mean, in some of these areas, there has been next to zero scientific research in the mainstream. But, this particular discussion is verging on wanting to dismiss a ton of science/evidence that has had decades of intense scrutiny, so I just gotta part ways a bit here on this particular discussion if goes down that route.
 
Last edited:
#29
It is not a conspiracy theory but simply human nature. The reaction to Halton Arp's work is a prime case for scientific dogma and cannot be denied.

Not just a few anomalies, these are falsifications. No matter how correct the theories appear to be, it does not make it so, a single solid empirical observation can bring it down, at least it should. That has happened time and time again for big bang theory for several decades. It truly seems as if it is beyond falsification. Much like neo Darwinism. In fact that is a similar situation, where dogma has embedded itself so firmly that contrary evidence no longer seems to matter because so much is at stake.

There is a religious like zeal when it comes to such things, including GR. Which I know very little about, but the devotion and emotional connection is there. Remember Newton did just fine, and it still does. But it is not the whole story and only works on certain levels. The same with Einsteins theories that are incompatable with quantum mechanics. Tom Van Flandern who actually worked on GPS systems says that while it confirms GR, GR is not needed for it to work. He also claimed that the experimental evidence does not distinguish it from Lorentzian relativity. Under this view we could also say Lorentzian relativity is confirmed. I honestly don't know, but the point ìs clear, a theories appearances can be deceptive.

Plasma cosmology makes so much more sense to me, it also does not answer everything, but no one in that camp is claiming it does. There is a common thread that can connect the cosmos even with biology, myth and history. The universe itself takes on a characteristic that is more in line with life. There are no isolated islands, everything is connected. What I do appreciate about the thunderbolts group is that they do not dismiss psi or NDE research. They are good friends with Rupert and Radin, Gary Schwartz is speaking at EU2014. They recognize dogma at work in science and there is a level of free inquiry that mainstream science most certainly lacks. Like psi and NDE research it is also attacked for not conforming.

On a personal note, I hope you do not think less of me for making these challenges to orthodoxy. You have my respect and I do enjoy your thoughts and perspectives unlike some I have crossed swords with. We agree on many things but of course it is not common to find agreement in all things. There is more that I disagree with which I may comment on, but please don't take it personally.
 
Last edited:
#30
It is not a conspiracy theory but simply human nature.

Not just a few anomalies, these are falsifications. No matter how correct the theories appear to be, it does not make it so, a single solid empirical observation can bring it down, at least it should.
But, they're not falsifications at this point. I mean people said Stephen's Quintet falsified the Big Bang and then they found a more pragmatic solution. NGC 7603 is sure to be more complicated, but that doesn't mean it has to falsify the Big Bang (see below)

The other thing you have to keep in mind is the evidence I laid out above are "solid empirical observation"s in favor of the Big Bang Theory. So, it is less likely the whole house of cards is going to fall, but rather revision (perhaps even major revision) is needed. Similar to how you just implied by comparing Newton to Gravity to QM.

Also, I'm home sick today so I was able to do a little reading on NGC 7603. It sounds like there are a number of routes that could take. It could just mean we don't understand quasars, but this still doesn't mean the end of Big Bang. Could be there are more to galaxy types than we currently understand. Or, what I still don't have a grasp on, is that something about intrinsic redshifts could just be fooling us and it doesn't mean anything. Bottom line, NGC 7603 isn't an open-and-closed case ... yet.

I thought this thread on physicsforums was a fairly balanced conversation with both sides of the debate getting fair representation. They mention quite a few of the ideas I ran across, including the ones I mentioned above.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57373

Check out turbo-z, I think he will be in line with some of your arguments. These two below sorta sum up part of the opposing views, but I need to digest them more before I buy into them.

An argument for intrinsic redshift is particular interesting to the extent that it applies only to one class of objects (quasars) or perhaps a few others (such as tighly clustered galaxies), because it does not call into question the more general Cepheid and Ia supernova measurements which have independent corroboration. It simply suggests that one small class of objects, which were outlier data to start with, are at different distances than existing models would predict. Unlike Cepheids and Ia supernovas we don't have, e.g., good calibrating data on what a quasar should look like up close.

This doesn't have to have a huge amount of impact on Hubble's constant, because Hubble's constant data flow from a variety of redshifted objects.

This does significantly change how we look at the early evolution of the universe, because quasars are the dominant very high redshift objects. It is entirely possible that mainstream astronomy could be dead wrong about quasars, yet generally right about many things. Indeed the very name "quasi-stellar objects" implies the uncertainty regarding what quasars are, because if they really are as distant as they seem they have to be so damn bright for us to seem them as brightly as we do, while if they a closer, they can have much more reasonable brightness levels accompanied by intrinsic redshift.

Rightly or wrongly, I think one of the reasons that Arp has not been taken seriously on intrinsic redshift, where his data is relatively strong, is because he has had too much baggage of other theories with weak support that cause ad hominem distrust of his arguments. He is a strong proponent of quasi-steady state cosmology, which is hardly a necessary consequence of intrinsic redshift of certain classes of objects, and has at times also backed quite weird theories like the notion that mass is not constant over time. Also, his statistical arguments about quantized stellar and galactic scale phenomena have not held up well.
Surely nobody is questioning the observation of gravitational red shift? What is at issue is what proportion of a quasar’s red shift is gravitational and what is cosmological. If most of it is local gravitational red shift then you would expect the spectral lines to be smeared out with absorption lines of similar red shifts, coming from different regions of the accretion disc at different depths in the potential well.

What you actually see is typically a main spectrum at a large red shift with little smearing together with a Lyman Alpha forests at much less red shifts. This is consistent with a cosmological red shift with nearer absorption from intervening IGM clouds.

On a personal note, I hope you do not think less of me for making these challenges to orthodoxy. You have my respect and I do enjoy your thoughts and perspectives unlike some I have crossed swords with. We agree on many things but of course it is not common to find agreement in all things. There is more that I disagree with which I may comment on, but please don't take it personally.
Not at all LoneShaman! I also respect your thoughts and always enjoy your posts. Keep in mind too, I shouldn't say I'm not interested at all in any of this. I just have limited time and I am a horrible typist, so I end up sort of auto-prioritizing some discussions right off my list so I have time to participate in the ones I really do enjoy! So, definitely not personal. If it wasn't for the burden of Internet Communications some stuff would be a lot more fun to discuss in person.
 
#31
I'd just like to toss this in, while trying to plough through the above:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?95976-CMB-aligned-with-ecliptic-poles-at-9-sigma

It suggests that the CMB is aligned with the ecliptic - which must surely mean some of its properties are spurious.

Ethan, regarding your answer as to what you would expect in the absence of a BB, you only seem to be talking about weak effects said to be detected in the CMB - the basic CMB would surely be expected anyway, wouldn't it?

David
 
Last edited:
#32
Well the redshift = distance assumption is directly tied to the big bang and expansion. I simply disagree, It has been falsified, there are only two options, those objects are at the supposed redshift distance, leading to absurdities such as a 450 million light year bridge, impossible brightness and enormous clusters of quasars of 800 million light years taking up 1/20th of the observable universe or in fact they are where they appear to be in the local vicinity.

Even before the discovery of QSO's Hubble himself eventually was not convinced that his original concept was correct. If he had known of quasars at that time he most likely would never had assumed the redshift distance correlation. Now this does not mean there is no correlation at all but simply there are other factors and other reasons for redshift as well. There are a couple of theories like Arp's and Plasma cosmology as well as Ari Byrinjolfsson plasma redshift.

Ari claims it explains the CMB as well.

In fact we have experimental proof of another mechanism. Red shift as a sole measure of distance is refuted experimentally. The universe is over 99.9% plasma! It is not far reaching to say this is an influence especially when there is empirical support. Plasma induces red shift.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

As for Stephan's quintet, the solution I think you refer to was that individual stars could be seen in the so called closer galaxy proving it was in fact infront and not actually interacting with the other galaxies as it appears. But it is pretty clear the same level of detail can be seen in the interacting matter of the supposed background galaxies. No I don't think it was resolved at all. If that is what counts to dismiss intrinsic redshift, then I think there is somewhat of a double standard here. It is yet another example of discordant redshifts to add to the list.
 
Last edited:
#33
Well the redshift = distance assumption is directly tied to the big bang and expansion. I simply disagree, It has been falsified ...
Things aren't that simple here and more needs to be done to be a falsification. Perhaps you missed this part?

An argument for intrinsic redshift is particular interesting to the extent that it applies only to one class of objects (quasars) or perhaps a few others (such as tighly clustered galaxies), because it does not call into question the more general Cepheid and Ia supernova measurements which have independent corroboration. It simply suggests that one small class of objects, which were outlier data to start with, are at different distances than existing models would predict. Unlike Cepheids and Ia supernovas we don't have, e.g., good calibrating data on what a quasar should look like up close.

This doesn't have to have a huge amount of impact on Hubble's constant [related to expansion rate], because Hubble's constant data flow from a variety of redshifted objects.
Anyhow, here's my take on what needs to be done if we're really going to do this in a scientifically honest way.

(1) Distance determination and age determination is a thorny business in astrophysics. Historically accurate measurements typically come from several trials/measurements, typically over much time. Indeed, very rough estimates that weren't very convincing have been improved upon over decades and converged upon values that agree with BBT. So, if an anomaly is going to upturn all of cosmology, it needs to be followed up to be sure the values are accurate enough. From what I have read, there are things that can be done to give more confidence to the distances involved with anomaly NGC 7603, etc. and the mainstream is just as much at fault that this hasn't been done. We need to also keep in mind that for ones where this has been done, like Stephen's Quintet, things checked out with BBT. (Instead of calling the results flimsy here, we need to show why the Surface Brightness Fluctuation distance determination method used here is not sufficient, using math not appearances)

(2) Regardless, (1) would still not qualify as a falsification for the reasons stated above in the quote - applies only to a small class of objects and determination of the Hubble Constant not dependent upon (1) alone. In addition, we would need to show how and why the physics behind Cepheid Variables and Type IA supernova is incorrect. Even more, the redshifts measurements in this much larger class of objects is in agreement with these "incorrect" physics. So, we would need to somehow explain this, since the two corroborate each other and offer greater support to the BBT combined than do the quasar measurements.

(3) We would need to explain why all the effects I mentioned above, like the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, Unique CMB signatures, Gravitational Lensing (and the ones I missed), which are also backed up my powerful studies, are also somehow wrong. These provide powerful evidence for Big Bang, which would need to be countered. You don't just drop multiple solid empirical observations that support something, because you find one solid empirical observation that doesn't. The discrepancy needs to be accounted for.

(1), (2) and (3) combined would provide a convincing argument for BBT falsification, where we would would then run into the next related set of problems.

(4) If we're going to somehow replace BBT with some alternative theory, this theory needs to explain all verified post-Newtonian phenomenon better than General Relativity overall across the board, including Perihelion Shift of Mercury, Deflection of light by the sun, gravitational redshift, declining orbit periods, frame dragging, gravitational lensing, radar echo delay, etc. This is analogous to coming up with a better alternative to F=ma, like I mentioned above.

(5) More crucially, it would have to come up with it's own estimate of the Universe's mass-energy content and explain why despite reproducing all the physics in (4) the Universe would not not have arisen out of a Big-Bang-like condition. If it falls within the region on the plot I mentioned above, I would think this is going to be really tough to do.

(6) I won't even mention the problems with QFT predictions!

That's to start, but this list would get a lot longer. Also, more specific problems would arise depending upon the form of the alternative theory too. Some of these problems would be shared by current theories, but any alternative theory would need to offer better explanations to be compelling.

Anyhow, this would be the responsible way of doing things here. You can probably tell I would I have been reading Stephen Meyer lately, but in the spirit of his books, this is what would need to be done for the BBT to be truly falsified and to have a competing alternative theory/hypothesis that truly offers "superior explanatory power" across all observations.

I'll probably be heading back to work this afternoon (feeling better) and will be gone the next few weekends, so any more replies to this thread will probably be few and far in between.
 
#34
It is simple, the hubble law that led to the view that the universe is expanding has been broken and has been since the sixties. And still is ignored by astronomers, yes even to the point of deception to cover the inconvenient truth. There has been decades to investigate this but even today ìt is ignored. Why?

M.B Bell, of Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Canada, sums it up, Because the belief that the redshift of quasars is cosmological has become so entrenched, and the consequences now of it being wrong are so enormous, astronomers are very reluctant to consider other possibilities. However, there is increasing evidence that some galaxies may form around compact, seed objects ejected with a large intrinsic redshift component from the nuclei of mature active galaxies."

Because it proves the big bang assumptions to be false.

If the measurements are not accurate and lead to such large discrepencies that in itself also calls into question absolutely everything. But the redshift discrepencies are not a result of inaccuracies, if they are, well big problems. Sorry it seems you are downplaying what is a pivotal aspect of BBT. It is the Achilles heel. And it has been crushed. Only dogma holds it in place.

What is also simple is the fact that the CMB was predicted far more accurately without the need for the big bang, and that the big bangers have revised history to the point of saying that discovery was the single clincher for the theory. You are assuming the CMB is because of the BB and any signatures within it verify that assumption. That is just circular reasoning.

Maths is important but when it is used to get the answer you want it is meaningless. It is mathematicians that have led to an entire zoo of ridiculous concepts such as dark matter and black holes and all the other things that only exist in the minds of mathematicians.

And if we are to use other forum conversations for discussion then I can direct you to many that challenge these other aspects as well. I don't think we should do that. But since you brought it up.

Cepheids as standard candles are not so standard at all.
http://phys.org/news/2011-01-cosmology-standard-candle.html

May I suggest one topic at a time, I will post more on Cepheids next time, tomorrow maybe. But yes lets look at these other things. I do not agree they point to the Big Bang and some are also highly questionable.

You are asking for more precision, but extra precision won't make these massive discrepencies disappear. I will bet it only makes things more strained for the BB and the assumptions, that is pretty much the story of the last few decades. You are not questioning interpretations that lead to these assumptions Ethan. It is A double standard. You can't just ignore discordant red shifts and say well everything else is ok. It is not òk. As the astronomer above states above THE CONSEQUENCES ARE ENORMMOUS. But you just brush them off.

When a model requires inventing new unverifiable forces with nothing but number crunching to show for it, everything is not ok, when a fudge factor of something like 96% is required to make things work, everything is not ok, when the majority of the matter and energy is unseen and undetectable, everything is not ok. When history is revised to prop up a theory everything is not ok. When the very fundamental and essential concept of Hubbles law is broken everything is not ok.

You speak of these other aspects that confirm the big bang, I don't think they do and at the same time these other simply pseudo scientific and metaphysical concepts are in the mish mash are needed to make it work. I still don't see how the experimental evidence supporting GR leads to the conclusion there must have been a big bang when all these other silly things are required to make it work. I do not see how GR depends on the Big Bang being true.
 
Last edited:
#35
I encourage anyone interested to watch this.

Now if you are ready for a completely new perspective.


Take a few hours out and look, you may never think of the universe the same way ever again.
 
Last edited:
#36
I'm actually going to bail out on the conversation LoneShaman. You've mentioned suspicion of deception, suppression and other undesirable tactics in mainstream science multiple times and one thing I have learned on these forums is that where suspicion like that is involved, debate goes nowhere, no matter how much valid science I might try to bring up.

Also, you can say I'm downplaying, but I'm really not. If anything, I'm going easy on this argument, because I'm not really tied to the Big Bang. In fact, I don't even ultimately like the direction it's heading in anymore. Anyhow, until the points I raised above are answered, nobody is going to take these alternatives seriously.

It's alright, like you said, we don't have to agree everywhere ;-)
 
#37
I'm actually going to bail out on the conversation LoneShaman. You've mentioned suspicion of deception, suppression and other undesirable tactics in mainstream science multiple times and one thing I have learned on these forums is that where suspicion like that is involved, debate goes nowhere, no matter how much valid science I might try to bring up.
Just wanted to add I'm not saying your suspicion is necessarily unwarranted. Modern Science deserves much of the backlash and challenges to its orthodoxy because of its behavior. However, from my perspective, it also puts a lot of good science in a light it doesn't deserve. Since I have no particular attachment to any of it, I just don't have the desire to put the time/energy to defend it on an Internet Forum, even if I think it has merit.

So, please don't take that personally and keep challenging the orthodoxy! (In fact, thanks to your other thread, my wife and I keep a bottle of hemp oil around now and add it into our smoothies now and then, hehe)
 
#38
No worries Ethan, if you ever want to investigate further pop over to the thunderbolts forum and ask away. The regulars there are much more knowledgable than I am. Actually I think if you gave it a fair hearing you would make a very fine contributer especially with your physics background.

Cannabis smoothies! Yum. Mothers milk.
 
#39
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?95976-CMB-aligned-with-ecliptic-poles-at-9-sigma

It suggests that the CMB is aligned with the ecliptic - which must surely mean some of its properties are spurious.
That is interesting Dave, thanks for posting. The critique of the WMAP data and it's instruments I posted in the other thread may contribute to "the unknown systematic effect". But indeed being aligned with the ecliptic does not at all support a cosmological origin,

As well, if the CMB is cosmological there should be shadowing from galaxies etc.. There is no shadowing. Although I am sure the standard model has yet another excuse for that. ;)

As for this new finding, hey guess what? magnetic fields polarize light! Nah that is to easy. Best to remove that pesky electromagnetic noise :eek: They can't see the forest for the trees. Of course it is more complex than that. Just sayin.

Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's presentation at EU2014 when it is finally put up on youtube later in the year. He is the author of the paper I linked in the other thread. He claims Earths oceans are a major source! Crazy I know but apparently he makes a strong case and is an expert in instrumentation and says the equipment was simply not capable of extracting reliable data.

The first of his two presentations is an in-depth analysis of the celebrated but somewhat controversial uniform radio fog surrounding the Earth, grandly named the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), discovered accidentally by radio engineers Penzias and Wilson in 1964. The Big Bang model rests critically upon two fundamental pillars: The correlation in celestial objects between their spectral redshift and perceived luminosity (attributed to Edwin Hubble and known as the Hubble Law) and the Cosmic Microwave Background. If either of these fundamental supports fails, the model fails; it’s as simple as that.
The two pillars are illusions. Hubble law is clearly broken and the CMB assumption is weak and riddled with inconsistancies and noise.

Dr. Robitaille’s critique of the CMBR is comprehensive, and addresses first principles. Why was the radio fog taken so hastily to be an image of the Big Bang, instead of the more plausible explanation given for the isotropic radiation surrounding the Earth in every other waveband of the light spectrum: Is it not simply smoothed-out incident light from astrophysical structures? In Prof. Robitaille’s hypothesis, he draws the surprising but well-reasoned conclusion that the microwaves detected by Penzias and Wilson come from the oceans of the Earth itself! The science underpinning the idea is impeccable, and it is certainly deserving of serious consideration.
Earths oceons as a major contributing factor does sound pretty crazy, but apparently he makes a very strong case.

The position of plasma cosmology is that interacting fillaments of charged plasma in the local vicinity of the sun is a source, the heliosphere and interstellar medium.

Like trying to measure the cosmic radiation from inside a microwave oven! Haha.
 
Last edited:
#40
“the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.”

Taken from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" or as Wal Thornhill calls it "An Open Letter to Closed Minds" signed by hundreds of scientists engineers and independant researchers.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org
 
Top