Hello AStro and Mr Skeptic
If you think that the Big Bang has any legs to stand on, show me the evidence and not some hoo hah info.
A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Abstract
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2s level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large scale structures and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.
The dominant theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is contradicted by observation, and has been for some time. The theory's predictions of light element abundance, large-scale structure, the age of the universe and the cosmic background radiation(CBR) are in clear contradiction with massive observational evidence, using almost any standard criteria for scientific validity. This situation is not new. In 1992, I reviewed these contradictions[1], and concluded that theory had already been clearly falsified. Since that time, the evidence against the Big Bang has only strengthened.
There is a second framework for cosmology--plasma cosmology. This approach, which assumes no origin in time for the universe and no hot, ultradense phase of universal evolution, uses the known laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior to explain the main features of the universe. It was pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammar and others [2-4] and has been developed since then by a small group of researchers including the present author and A.L. Peratt [5-13]. In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade.
Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis
In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.
Large Scale Structure and Voids
The large scale structure of the universe is inhomogeneous at all scales that have been observed[31]. In particular, galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These void typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[32].
These vast structures pose acute problems for the Big Bang theory, for there simply is not enough time to form them in the hypothesized 14 Gy since the Big Bang, given the observed velocities of galaxies in the present-day universe. Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[33-34]. The well-known smoothness of the Hubble relation also indicates intrinsic velocities in this same range, as do the observation of relatively narrow filaments of galaxies in redshift-space, which would be widened by high intrinsic velocities.
Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[35]. An average particle will have to move d= D/8 Mpc, where D is the diameter of the void. For void diameters of 170Mpc, d=21Mpc. For a final galaxy velocity of 220km/sec, travel time would be 87Gy or 6.3H-1, the assumed time since the Big Bang, taking this to be 13.7Gy. Of course this is a crude estimate, since in the Big Bang theory, distances to be covered would be smaller early in the universe's history, reducing travel time. On the other hand, no physical process could produce instantaneous velocities, so velocities would also presumably be smaller in the past. This is especially true if acceleration is by gravitational attraction, since time would have to pass before substantial gravitational concentrations are built up from assumed homogenous initial conditions of the Big Bang
IV. The Cosmic Background Radiation
Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.
Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7].
IV Why is the Big Bang still dominant?
All the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly refuted by observation. The theory is now cluttered with a multiplying collection of ad-hoc hypotheses, such as the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter and dark energy, for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, continued discovery of more ordinary matter in the form of white dwarfs and diffuse plasma clouds has further decreased the ability of theorists to claim that there is far more matter detected by gravitational attraction than can be accounted for by ordinary matter[43].
Currently there are at least eight known contradictions between theory and observation: the abundances of 4He, 3He, and 7Li are too low; there is too much dispersion in the high-z value of D abundances; the halo white dwarfs would have produced too much helium; the voids are far too large and old; there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of cold dark mater; and there is evidence for absorption of long wavelength radiation in the IGM. Yet in no cases are these contradiction viewed as reasons for questioning the Big Bang theory.
In many cases, every effort is made to either attack or manipulate the data so as to reduce the contradiction with theory. For example, in the early '90's He abundances were measured as relatively low, implying (given BBN) a high primordial value of D abundance. But when later observations showed that D abundances in high-Z objects were low, the quoted value for He abundance mysteriously began to move upwards, ultimately by five to ten standard deviations, so as to minimize the contradiction with theory, even if this required the arbitrary elimination of data from the samples.
When data manipulation failed, even the most blunt contradictions of theory and observation are viewed by Big Bang advocates as, at most, the indications of "new physics", new parameters. For example, Pebbles, in considering the void phenomenon, admits that there is an "apparent inconsistency between theory and observation", but does not conclude that theory is in any way imperiled[44], rather only that an "adjustment of the model" may be necessary. Similarly, Cyburt et al[15] conclude that there are "clear contradictions" between BBN predictions and light element abundances, but conclude that "systematic uncertainties have been underestimated", not that the theory is wrong'
It is amazing how people hold onto a theory with such emotion.
The question is. Why??????????
The Big Bang people see evidence and just ingnore the observations.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... o.htm#cos1
http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/DidTheU ... inning.htm
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quasa ... susFar.asp
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
Note the list of people who do not think much about the Big Bang.
The above link.
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.
I can show you a flood of papers against the Big Bang. But! if you have a closed mind, it serves no purpose.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
