I'm a new member. I found this site while googling around looking for those minds who like me have had a "problem" with the Big Bang Theory since I first heard of it back in the sixties.
Yeah, that's right, I'm an old fart. But back then I wasn't so old. Just a young guy who was a science buff for as long as I can remember.
When I first heard of the "Big Bang" it sounded cool. What could better suit my young brain awash as it was with bursting hormones? I imagined it far exceeded the mightiest electric guitar chord coming from a thousand Peter Townsends or Jimmy Hendrixes! Or the simultanious crash of drums and cymbals by a million Ginger Bakers! Or all the full throated harmonies ever to be reached by a billion Robert Plants!!!
Yeah! Like way way beyond the biggest explosion Steppenwolf ever imagined in "Born to Be Wild"! You know... I mean a really really really REALLY "BIG BOOM"!
Alas. The sixties ended. Woodstock was in the past. And after decades of recovery one day I sat and thought about questions.
Questions like "Life," and "the Universe". Then separately of course there was the pressing need for "the ANSWER to everything" to be considered. Fortunately I discovered that the ANSWER to everything was "42," thanks to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." And even though that was a great relief it still left the "questions" like "Life": What is it? and "The Universe". Where did it come from?
It's not that I really had anything against big explosions. Well maybe I did come to think of it. But could it be it was just that since my hormones were no longer raging a huge explosion seemed, I don't know, less..."sexy"? Was I that driven by my body chemistry?
Or was it that since I had heard the theory some things had been bothering me about it. Like;
If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).
And you presume it exploded into that NOTHINGNESS.
You would have to also presume;
1.) It would be a uniform point.
2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.
3.) Whether energy or matter it would ever expand from some infinite or near infinite density along straight lines. Ever thinning.
Therefore. To my mind without something, like a stone in a stream, there would be no slowing down. No irregularites, no way for compression, or clumping to occur. Nothing to compress the primordial matter (Hydrogen) into stars and galaxies.
I have since read quite a bit about cosmology. But these basic questions, (among many more), that I've had knocking around in my head for decades have never been adequately answered. Not as soundly as the ANSWER to everything being "42".
So I'd like to open this thread to examining these questions and others. I will admit I have come across an alternate explanation that involves a theory of continuous creation of matter and energy. But I'd like to first hear from whomever wishes to offer their thoughts.
TROU (you can call me trou).
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Change title.
Edited by Admin, : Change title from "Tired Light" to "Genic Energy"
Please correct me if I'm wrong but prior to and subsequent to the latest "Inflation" add-on to the BB, have not most mainstream cosmologists and astrophyiscists upheld the Big Bang theory of creation upon the pillars of an "Expanding Universe" Model due in part to the Cosmological Redshift?
If so it presumes a single infinitely small and infinite or near infinitely dense point of origin for SpaceTime and all matter and energy does it not?
I realize that words like "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense" seem absurdities. Both to me and most people. They also seem absurdities when such values arise in Mathematical equations. It must mean that somewhere an assumption, the math, or both are wrong.
I ask to be excused for first being a layman and second for using such terms, but I have heard these terms used, (infinities) to describe singularities. Still let us for the sake of argument avoid using words like "infinite".
But even without such terms we can use many others that suggest the absurd. And I would say that absurdities abound when scientists make fantatsic assumptions for fantastic objects like "Singularities" or "Black Holes" that can "bend" space for example.
When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.
Like Quasars and Galaxy Formation for instance. In fact I have read lately that one scientist is even using a Black Hole now to postulate that the entire Universe came from a "Black Hole".
This is not even to mention the Doppler Interpretation for the observed Cosmological Redshift. If a "Tired Light Model" fits the data better as even Hubble contended then the Big Bang falls apart.
Since I first heard the Big Bang Theory explained I have heard more and more "fantastic" explanations for the nature of the Universe as our observations become more sophisticated. That it is flying apart at faster and faster velocities the further away we look. That all sorts of strange ad hoc concepts must be introduced to make the data fit the theory. Many predictions and experiments on the microscopic level (Quantum Mechanics) seem to bear out in experimentation. But even there the force carrier gluon theories are becoming a bit ridiculous. And in addition there is even an invisible yet impenetrable "wall" called the "Copenhagen Convention" to paper over the incongruities between QM and GR.
IE; The "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" seem less and less "Elegant" to me. What I'm really saying is that it's time to pull out Occam's razor.
Hmmm. I think we should probably not get into the realm where we argue there is no such "Thing" as "Nothing". Because if so then we could fall prey to the argument that there also coudn't be such a "thing" as "something". Let's not fall into that philosophical abyss. Let's start with what makes sense. Since we live in "something". Common sense would dictate that this "something" came from "somewhere" or some OTHER "thing" EVEN if we haven't or cannot detect "it".
Let's start there ok? I have heard it proposed that the physical universe with all its matter and energy comes from an Etheric "sea" made up of various substrates. While this sounds Meta-Physical I would say it is less "fantastic" then that all this came from "Nothing".
Well I have been told I have an awful lot of "nerve". Especially when Hubble himself pulled down the ediface that's been built around his data. And was ignored. And I suppose Einstein's had a lot of nerve too when he himself thought it farcical the fantasic and absurd lengths some took his theories to.
So as to "bets" of any kind, go find a man like "Mitt" who makes big ones. That oughta to keep you happy.
I am aware that T=0 is a problem for cosmologists who subscribe to the Big Bang. But rather than ask me a layman what I've missed; How did so-called scientists "miss" that Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model? I'd call that a BIG swing and a miss!
Sorry about the "CaveDigger" moniker. I just put my glasses on. You know "old fart" and such that I am. I actually meant no offense.
I would say that there is a causal relationship between this Universe of Matter and Energy and an "Etheric Sea" which is physically non-detectable by physical intrumentation. But may be inferred through observation. IE; The "Tired Light Model" suggests that energy is not "conserved' over vast periods of time and Inter-Galactic distances. That photons do indeed slowly and minutely lose energy and therefore Redshift.
And while this revises the First Law of Thermodynamics, this proposed revision is suggested by "The Maser Pioneer Blueshifting Effect" observed by JPL.
I think I already stated I am a layman. Just someone who is interested in science and has a scientific turn of mind. I guess I always believed that science was a search for truth based on the scientific method. I recent years however I have been disturbed by what I see as an ideological "group think" as invulnerable to new information as any fundamentalist wackjob.
In response to what I've seen as disturbing eveidence of this I've recently read a number of books and articles by scientists who themselves are protesting everything from the mainstream tenets of modern Big Bang cosmology which ignores evidence to the contrary of their cherished "beliefs;" to the referee process where so-called peers reject any new ideas, (or data), that don't fit the worshiped paradigm.
Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space. Nikola Tesla thought so too so you may place me in the same catagory of "what"? I think he would be hard to class as some imbecile which it seems you are driving at regarding me. Tesla published in the New York Times an article in which he said (paraphrase) "I do not believe that gravity (something) can act upon nothing (space). He felt that space had no identifiable properties including "shape". That essentially it is Euclidean. Further, "space" being curved has never been proven in the laboratory. Gravatational lensing can just as easily be explained by gravity refracting light.
Even further, I believe several well known scietists also published around the time of the starlight refraction event predicted by Einstien that jumping to the conclusion that space itself was bent by gravity was a bridge too far when the light itself being bent could just as easily be the explanation. Do you want me to cite those publications?
Sounds more like it's your mind that's exhausted buddy. Hubble and Tolman merely admitted that they knew of no other "mechanism" by which to explain the redshift than the Doppler Interpretation. Indeed a new physics is required. Like I said in the OP. I believe I've found it.
But while you're preening about how up to date you are; why don't you wow us with your brilliant explanation of the "Pioneer Maser Effect, (Blueshifting)," observed by JPL in the 80's regarding the Pioneer and other spacecraft.