So , we don't know how universe began?

[-RA-]

You have a hidden agenda. You're not here to discuss BB theory at all. You're here to flog this plasma cosmology theory.

You know, if you had just been straight from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

I wouldn't exactly say his agenda is hidden he has quite frankly stated what his opinions are about the Big Bang; he does not fully believe it due to plasma cosmology seeming a viable alternative.

thats why i suggested in a previous post; "[i feel this thread has deviated somewhat from the OP, maybe this recent part could be split into another thread?]". Sound like a good idea? that would avoid confusion, and maybe someone could actually give a scientific reason as to why plasma cosmology is not correct. That would be nice.

 

[Chronos]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

 

[-RA-]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

I am not a fan of that book, as soon as i saw the title it just seemed too confrontational and not the correct style to go about persuading people of your opinion (probably boosted his sales though!). By giving it that title any cosmologist that reads it will have already formed an opinion whether the book is right or wrong before actually studying the material he is showing. It was a bold move, but probably not a wise one.
As long as the big bang theory remains just that, a theory, I have no major problem with it, as theories can be wrong. If a more viable theory turns up it will be replaced in the future, that is the nature of theories. However I find it hard to see how it is just a 'theory' anymore, as nearly all of modern cosmology is based on it, and so it must follow that most of modern cosmology is also a theory, which in turn is subject to competition from other rival theories. But i don't see any competition even being considered by cosmologists, anything that questions BBT is viewed as simply wrong from the outset, no matter what they say, which seems to be a mainly ad hominem reaction.

Victor J. Stenger, Univ. of Hawaii Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, said it well when he said, "The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't seriously expect to prove it in a popular book."

the debate is not fully closed on this, i could direct you to Lerners rebuttal to Ned Wright's paper that you quoted http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html if i can see a rebuttal to that page, i'll be impressed, his arguments in there are quite compelling.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wouldn't exactly say his agenda is hidden he has quite frankly stated what his opinions are about the Big Bang; he does not fully believe it due to plasma cosmology seeming a viable alternative.

My post came a bit late. His agenda was hidden when he first started posting. He was bashing the BB theory and I kept asking if he had an alternative. His bashing didn't amke sense until he revealed his alternate a little later.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah. There's the other shoe dropping.

You have a hidden agenda. You're not here to discuss BB theory at all. You're here to flog this plasma cosmology theory.

I have no hidden agenda, I'm simply pointing out that there may have never been a "BB" at all. Where I come from, the term "flog" would imply I'm here to "beat" or put down plasma cosmology, and I'm certainly not likely to do that since I prefer plasma cosmology theory to any other theory. I'm not here selling the idea however, I'm just biased in my views like everyone else and that has become obvious during the conversation.

You know, if you had just been straight from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

When was I ever less than "straight" with you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My post came a bit late. His agenda was hidden when he first started posting. He was bashing the BB theory and I kept asking if he had an alternative. His bashing didn't amke sense until he revealed his alternate a little later.

First of all, I didn't "bash the BB theory". In fact I've tried to make it very clear that plasma cosmology theory does not preclude there from being a "bang" type event. My "skepticism" is related to the metaphysical aspects of the Lambda-CDM model, specifically the notion of inflation and dark energy and dark matter. The whole purpose of inflation was to explain a "monopole problem" as percieve by Alan Guth, and to explain the homogeneous nature of the matter layout of the visible physical universe. Since we have never seen evidence that monopoles actually exist in nature, there is no evidence that Guth's inflation theory "solved" anything. Now that we know that universe is *not* homogeneous, that side of his argument for inflation also goes out the window. That is why I have no faith and no confidence in Guth's mythical inflation field.

That is but one of 3 different metaphysical aspects of Lambda-CDM theory that have been "tacked on" to BB theory since I was in college. While I do entertain the possibility of BB theory, I'm not convinced that we can rule out other models, and I certainly don't think that a "bang" had anything at all to do with inflation or dark things, because I have never seen any empirical evidence that inflation exists, that dark matter exists, or that dark energy exists. I have seen some evidence to suggest "missing mass" (mass we can't identify), and I've seen some evidence to suggest that the universe *might* be expanding, but I have never seen any empirical evidence for anything "dark" or for anything related to "inflation" in any controlled scientific test. I therefore have no confidence in these things.

I simply pointed out to you that your belief that a BB occurred, and that you know pretty much *when* it occurred, is in fact an act of "faith" on your part. Not everyone that entertains BB theory also entertains inflation theory and dark energy theory, and dark matter theory. They are separate ideas entirely. I know this from experience, because when I was in college, Guth had not released his paper on inflation theory, and "dark energy" wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye. The term "dark matter" was used, but it typically was used to describe matter that we could not identify, it was not used to suggest the existence of some sort of exotic form of matter. I think that is why having a little bit of knowledge of the history of this profession comes in handy. One *can* have some faith in BB theory, and still have no faith in metaphysical entities. That's the way it *used* to work in fact. Only in the past 25 or so years has the BB theory been associated with metaphysical entities.

 

[Garth]

The fact that the universe is bathed in a sea of isotropic microwave radiation and comprises of roughly 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium and 2% everything else is good evidence that the universe went through a very compact, hot and dense phase that we call the Big Bang from which it has expanded. Whether extrapolating further back leads to a singularity of infinite density, pressure and temperature, or not, is a matter of conjecture that will not be resolved until a quantum gravity theory is established.

There is a lot of empirical evidence to support the mainstream model. That does not mean questions are not asked about it, but anyone who dismisses it as 'just a theory' is misunderstanding what a scientific theory actually is, that is, a tried and tested body of ideas supported by observational evidence, and also shows themselves to be ignorant of all the observations made in the last thirty years or so.

It is only when you fully understand something that you can criticize it!

Questions are asked about the mainstream model in these Forums, mainly on the Cosmology forum such as in the Critique of Mainstream Cosmology thread.

Garth

 

[Michael Mozina]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Let's see if we can't point out a few *assumptions* (problems) with that rebuttal.

Lerner gives the example of filaments or sheets 150 million light years apart in Figure 1.1, and then asserts that material would have to travel 270 million light years to make the structure. Obviously 75 million light years would do the trick.

Having never even read Learners book, I'm a bit at a disadvantage. I'll therefore give this author some latitude on this point. 75 million light years would do the trick, but only if these mass objects moved in exactly the opposite direction from one another. If these mass bodies were not going in exactly the opposite direction, they may have needed to travel more than 75 million light years to end up 150 million light years apart. In other words, while Learner could be accused of being too pessimistic, this author could be accused of being too optimistic.

With material traveling at 1000 km/sec, that would take 22.5 billion years, which is about twice as long as the probable age of the Universe.

Here's where my background comes in. In my day (in college), we used standard physics to compute ages. Nobody talked about "space expanding" or "dark energy". I'm sure that Learner felt exactly as I do on that issue.

But when the Universe was younger, everything was closer together, so a small motion made early in the history of the Universe counts for much more than a motion made later.

Well, not exactly. Without some faith in metaphysical concepts like "expanding space", the distances between objects are not made larger by virtue of time. Spacetime can expand as the objects themselves expand, but "space" (as in nothing) cannot "expand". That's a metaphysical concept associated with "dark energy" that was likely put forth *after* Learner's book was written. Since nobody can show that "space" expands, you can't simply *assume* that space expands and then claim that Learner is wrong.

Thus it was easier for the material to clump together early in the history of the Universe.

This is sort of a silly statement from my perspective, because by definition, the mass was clumped together.

Lerner's math here is like ignoring interest when planning for retirement. If you save $1000 per year for 50 years, you don't retire with $50,000. If the interest rate was 7 percent throughout the 50 years, you will have a $460,000 nest egg.

No, Learners argument is devoid of metaphysical constructs like "dark energy" and "expanding space", because "space" was empty, and empty things don't "expand" just because. Only in metaphysical theories does "nothing" expand.

Furthermore, velocities relative to the Hubble flow naturally decrease with time,

His argument is dated. That's what they *assumed*. Now they *assume* that the universe is actually accelerating.

so the 1000 km/sec velocity was larger in the past. Lerner's discussion of this point uses loaded words and incorrect logic

I'd say he shot his own argument in the foot because today astronomers claim that we are moving faster than in the past.

Is there dark matter?

There is certainly lots of evidence for dark matter.

This is a false statement IMO. There is evidence of "missing mass", not "dark matter". In other words, the *estimates* of the mass in galaxies does not match what we seem to actually observe. We have evidence therefore of missing mass, just as we might have evidence of an unidentified flying object. The fact we cannot identify that mass does not mean it's a new type of mass anymore than the fact we cannot identify that flying object is automatic evidence that it comes from a different planet.

We have evidence of "missing mass", or "unidentified flying mass". We have no evidence that any of the unidentified mass is "dark matter", just as we have no evidence that the "UFO" is from another planet. All we know is that our estimates for galaxy masses is too small. That's what we know. We have evidence that the standard mass estimates are incorrect, nothing more. That could simply mean that the estimates of normal mass in galaxies is simply wrong, and is a gross underestimation of the normal matter that is actually present. In no way is that evidence for any sort of exotic form of mass or any "dark matter".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The fact that the universe is bathed in a sea of isotropic microwave radiation

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.

I got involved in this thread by pointing out that the background radiation is *not* isotropic, and according to Lambda-CDM theory, a hole of this size was never "predicted" to exist.

and comprises of roughly 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium and 2% everything else

These percentages that you mention are based upon the belief that plasmas do not mass separate in suns, and that the elements stay relatively "mixed". That is in spite of the fact that plasmas tend to separate in the presence of strong gravitational and magnetic fields. If you remove that single assumption, those elemental abundance numbers become highly suspect. Here's what I mean:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html

is good evidence that the universe went through a very compact, hot and dense phase that we call the Big Bang from which it has expanded.

Only if we "assume" that the redshifting phenomenon is related *exclusively* to distance and velocity can we "assume" that the universe is expanding. There have been a number of tired light theories proposed over the years and I have posted links to such theories in this thread. If Arp is correct, and objects have an intrinsic redshift component, then we can't even be sure that we're expanding at all. I'll grant you that the expansion "interpretation" of the evidence is valid (to a point), but Arp has shown physical connections to objects with different redshifts, and MECO theories suggest that heavy objects *can* have an intrinsic redshift. What do we do with that information? Just toss it out?

Whether extrapolating further back leads to a singularity of infinite density, pressure and temperature, or not, is a matter of conjecture that will not be resolved until a quantum gravity theory is established.

Even is we have some evidence that our visible physical universe is expanding *right now*, we do not know that it all was concentrated to a "point" or that it was all concentrated to something the size of a couple hundred light years across, or that all matter (even the stuff we can't see anymore) has always expanded. We don't know that all mass came from a "point", even if we assume that our part of the physical universe is expanding right now.

There is a lot of empirical evidence to support the mainstream model. That does not mean questions are not asked about it,

We also cannot simply assume that one "big picture" theory is right based on a single "interpretation" of the "evidence". Even if we assume that redshift is related to distance and velocity, we still cannot be sure that the universe was ever collected to a single point. All we can know is what our little visible sliver of the physical universe is doing at the moment. We can't even see the vast majority of the physical universe, so how could we even know what that matter happens to be doing right now?

but anyone who dismisses it as 'just a theory' is misunderstanding what a scientific theory actually is, that is, a tried and tested body of ideas supported by observational evidence, and also shows themselves to be ignorant of all the observations made in the last thirty years or so.

Ignorance is a funny thing because new knowledge changes our opinions over time. I've seen it change a whole lot in my time. That hole in the universe is an example of data that simply doesn't "fit" with Lambda-CDM predictions. We were ignorant of that hole in the universe until very recently. I could rightfully also claim that faith in Lambda-CDM theory is based on ignorance of this most recent data.

It is only when you fully understand something that you can criticize it!

I agree. I've been studying astronomy and BB theory now for more than 30 years. Astronomy has always interested me, probably because I was nine when we landed people on the moon, and it was forever hooked. Over that thirty years I've seen many theories come and go, and I've seen many new ideas put on the table, some that I agree with, and some that I do not. I see plenty of folks criticize plasma cosmology theory without studying it for a single day. I've been studying BB theories before inflation theories became vogue, and before dark matter theories existed, and before many of you here were even born. Trust me when I tell you that I know a lot more about Lambda-CDM theory than most folks know about plasma cosmology theory. My criticisms of Lambda-CDM are valid scientific criticisms, and I'm not the only one who has criticized that particular theory.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

I want to clearly state that plasma cosmology theory (my theory of preference) does not preclude a "Big Bang" type of event. My aversion to Lambda-CDM theory is based on my aversion to metaphysical constructs, not to the philosophical notion of a "Big Bang". It's entirely possible that something like a "bang" took place, but I have no evidence that our physical universe was ever condensed to a point, nor do I have any empirical evidence that inflation, dark energy or dark matter exist, or that these things have any influence on nature or matter. If and when you can show me empirical evidence of inflation or dark energy or dark matter (rather than missing mass) have an effect on nature in controlled scientific conditions, then I may change my opinions about these metaphysical constructs. Until I see that kind of evidence however, I'm going to be far more skeptical of these metaphysical theories than I am skeptical of BB theory in a general sense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is a perfect example of a misunderstanding directly caused by your keeping a card up your sleeve.

I did not refer to any existing theory as a sneeze. We were talking about the BB theory. I invented a dumb theory to make a point. It seems you thought I was referring to your theory - except I didn't know about it.

You can be certain it was not my intention to refer to any existing theory.

My bad. Thanks for setting me straight on this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no hidden agenda, I'm simply pointing out that there may have never been a "BB" at all. Where I come from, the term "flog" would imply I'm here to "beat" or put down plasma cosmology,

No. "Flog" is a colloquialism for "sell".

When was I ever less than "straight" with you?

Well, your conversation started off as "the BB is just a theory; why do we all take it as fact" (I paraphrase). To which I asked "It's not fact, it's just the best. Have you got a better one?" It seemed to be a while before you got around to pointing out a better one (enough time for me to ask twice). Until there was a better one, your initial argument seemed kind of moot. Which is what I kept saying.

Anyway, this meta-discussion (discussion about the discussion) is moot. Everyone's cards are on the table now, so there's no need for me beat it to death.

We continue...