Origins of the UNIVERSE

[Nereid]

We can quickly dismiss the following of harry's points - appeals to authority may be important in the affairs of Homo sapiens individuals, but they are not science.

[snip]

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

More and more astronomical evidence shows the weaknesses of the theory stating that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space.

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists

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.

Can all these 33 well known scientists be wrong.
===========================================

There are some valid, scientific, points in the above (which we can look at later), but as I read it, it is principally an appeal to authority.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5].

[snip]

Exploding the Big Bang
David Pratt

The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].

Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

To Alfvén, the problems being raised were not surprising. "I have never thought that you could obtain the extremely clumpy, heterogeneous universe we have today, strongly affected by plasma processes, from the smooth, homogeneous one of the Big Bang, dominated by gravitation."

The problem with the Big Bang, Alfvén believed, is similar to that with Chapman's theories, which the scientific community accepted mistakenly for decades: Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfvén, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."

[snip]

There's also another, non-scientific, claim here ... an appeal to history. The logic of this kind of claim is silly; I covered this type of 'objection' in an earlier post.

It goes something like this: "{insert your favourite astronomer of old hero here} did not say {insert words about an aspect of cosmology here (it's irrelevant whether they have any bearing on modern cosmology or not)}, rather he (it is inevitably a he) truly believed that {insert your summary of your pet theory here}!"

[astro_uk]

With regard to Harrys list of 30 problems with the big bang I have previously explained why the first 10 are patently rubbish on page 2 of this very thread. I have since learned much that further backs up my conclusions but omit this now for clarity. The other 20 reasons are also equally poorly thought out, downright mirepresentations (or lies), or down to a woeful lack of understanding of astronomy. That's what happens when you let an asteroid watcher (van Flandern) near cutting edge extar galactic astronomy. (joke)

Here it is repeated for anyone who is interested.

Hi All I came across the following post by Harry, the pedant in me wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't note a few problems with these assertions.

A small amount of background on myself, I am an astronomer (or try to be), I'm not a to the death defender of any particular theory (im not old enough for that), I use whichever one fits the observables the best and at present that is the BB.


A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

#The BB isnt struggling for viability, it allows us to accuratly reproduce the observed large scale structure of the universe in computer models, something that is still amazing to me.

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

# This is an interesting point as I'm not sure what your claiming here, I don't really know what data your talking about, but the fact that all distant galaxies are observed to have recessional velocities must surely be a problem for a static Universe. Or perhaps you think only the galaxies are moving but the universe is static? In that case the MW must have some sort of infection and every galaxy outside the local group must be trying to get away from us. Or maybe you think light is slowing down or something else that is already disproven by laboratory physics.


2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

#Related to the point above, if the Universe is static it is presumably also eternal, therefore as was conjectured by Olbers the night sky should be as bright at the Sun, as every single line of sight would eventually hit a star so the surface brightness of the sky would be that of an average type star i.e the sun. This is of course very different situation to that found in the CMB.
Another way to look at this is to look at the energy in starlight, this has recently been done by Dole et al 2006. They find that the energy in optical and infrared background light (starlight) is only equal to perhaps 10% of the energy of the CMB. This would require some very strange physics indeed. As you would need to convert 90% of the starlight that has been created into the CMB but in such a manner that stops happening before the present epoch (because we could observe it).


3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

#This is another interesting point, as it is actually very confused. If you have ever had experience fitting models to data you will find that it
is actually considerably easier to make your models fit the data (i.e. work) if you have more free parameters. The reason that there are so many free parameters is that nuclear physics is HARD, to do with all the different interactions going on i.e. Weak Nuclear force, Strong Nuclear Force and Electromagnetic force. I'm sure it would be nice to be able to live in world where you can describe nuclear fusion reactions and decays by only two numbers but unfortunately science doesnt work like that. In addition to this the BB predictions are pretty damn good, in fact the agreement is one of the main reasons for the acceptance of BB nucleosynthesis.

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.

# This point is actually true, if you dont allow for the effects of Dark Matter. When you do, everything works beautifully.

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.

# I don't really understand enough about this to comment except to say that the quasars that exist in the nearby universe are not the same as ones found at high redshift, due to evolution that has occurred in the intervening period. The gas they are accreting is higher in metallicities and they tend to exist in smaller galaxies.

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

# This is one point I can really comment on, I work on Globular Cluster systems and this point is flat out wrong. It was the case several years ago that this appeared to be true, but that was due to the models used in the field to estimated the age of GCs from their spectra. Modern models take into account subleties that were ignored previously. In the past 3 years I have not seen a single GC that has high signal-to-noise spectra have an age that is more than 12-13Gyr, despite the models frequently allowing ages up to 18Gyr.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

# This is also wrong. People have counted the mass in the local regions and find that the local streaming motions are entirely consistent with the observed galaxy distributions (assuming that DM is associated in the same ways as it is in the MW). The other point is that no one has ever claimed the Universe is uniform, on average it is, but in local areas (i.e regions less than about 0.5Gpc) there is structure that is obvious to see. As you noted in point 4 there are large structures visible in the universe, so it clearly is not everywhere uniform. Gravity built these large structures, and continues to build them, in fact most of the Milky Ways motion is due to the attraction of the very large Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

#Not technically true, at the present time 70% of the energy/matter in the Universe is dark energy, 25% is dark matter and the rest is baryonic matter. I'll admit that a lot of astronomers are uncomfortable with Dark energy, but it does fit so many observable so well. Dark matter however is not controversial, its effect is seen in a dozen different ways, from spiral rotation curves, to X-ray profiles of galaxies to gravitational arcs.

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.

# Not sure the point being made is. I think this betrays a lack of understanding of selection effects. Its not possible to simply observe everything, in fact it is almost impossible to get redshifts for objects in the range of z=7-10, this is simply because the spectra have been so redshifted that any emission/absorbtion lines in their spectra are shifted into the far infra red, where technology means its not possible to get spectra that would allow a redshift to be determined.

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.

# This is another re-tread of the fine tuning argument which a lot of people have problems with, the fact is though its simply not a problem. This can be understood by a simple thought experiment: What would have happened if it hadnt been that way? Answer we wouldnt be here to be having a discussion on whether its odd the Universe has conditions that allow us to exist.

[harry]

Hello All

Its not a matter of being right or wrong, its a matter of discussion.

I have reasons and purpose for being uncoventional.

1) To generate discussion.
2) To inform of the alternatives.
3) To test the foundations of varies models. Big Bang, Steady state, String, M-theory, Plasma Cosmology and so on.
4) To learn.

If people wish for me not to post, so be it.

Imagine if we discussed just the standard models. We know these back to front.


Hello Martin

As for the M-theory. Well please explain or you want someone else to feed us info.

======================================

Micheal stay cool, never , never ever take your eye away from your dream. Churchill used similar words during the WW2.
I have read some of your papers, I really think you are onto something.

=======================================

Nereid you points of discussions are correct, cannot argue with someone who is right and its fantastic that you are discussing some of the issues. Good on you mate.
As you know,I'm from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,But! I try.

[harry]

Hello All

Histroy repeats itself in more ways than one.

[Martin]

Well, here we are

If this forum stays clean I see no lowering of status for this move. Just freedom from the Imperialistic whips--

Please no probing –I just ate dinner!

Let me refresh upon my M-Theory rebuttals and strategic avoidances and I will return tomorrow a new man.

[harry]

Hello Michael

I fully agree with you.

I hope to email you in the future.

As for this site, I cannot be controlled and directed to what to think.

There is something wrong with the cosmologists of today.

[harry]

Hello All

Ok,enough of being Bitchy.

For people who are interested in the Big Bang
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Given the assumption that the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (The Cosmological Principle) it can be shown that the corresponding distortion of space-time (due to the gravitational effects of this matter) can only have one of three forms, as shown schematically in the picture at left. It can be "positively" curved like the surface of a ball and finite in extent; it can be "negatively" curved like a saddle and infinite in extent; or it can be "flat" and infinite in extent - our "ordinary" conception of space. A key limitation of the picture shown here is that we can only portray the curvature of a 2-dimensional plane of an actual 3-dimensional space! Note that in a closed universe you could start a journey off in one direction and, if allowed enough time, ultimately return to your starting point; in an infinite universe, you would never return.

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

Read the link and let me know what you think.

[harry]

Hello All


Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01139.html

This composite image depicts the "bullet cluster" formed by galactic collision, with hot gas in a bullet shape shown in red and areas of dense matter in blue. Most of the matter in blue area is "dark," according to the astronomers' analysis.

My question is. What is the dark matter? and How can they tell?

[Nereid]

[snip]

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988

Read the paper for further info.

This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the energy lost should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results, which are consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.

[snip]

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

More and more astronomical evidence shows the weaknesses of the theory stating that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space.

[snip]

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

Exploding the Big Bang
David Pratt

The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].

Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

[snip]

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf
A Bang into nowhere. Written well.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf080/sf080a04.htm

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

Measurements of periodic red-shift bunching appeared in the literature at least as far back as 1977 in the work of W.G. Tifft. The implications of this phenomenon are apparently too terrible to contemplate, for astrophysicists have not taken up the challenge. They may be forced to take the phenomenon more seriously, because two new reports of redshift bunching have surfaced.

First, B. Guthrie and W, Napier, at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory, have checked Tifft's "bunching" claim using accurately known red shifts of some nearby galaxies. They found a periodicity of 37.5 kilometers/second -- no matter in which direction the galaxies lay.

(Gribbin, John; "'Bunched' Red Shifts Question Cosmology," New Scientist, p. 10, December 21/28, 1991.) The work of Guthrie and Napier is elaborated upon in the next item.

Sec ond, B. Koo and R. Krone, at the University of Chicago, using optical red-shift measurements, discovered that, in one direction at least, "the clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly spaced layers."

[snip]

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift vs. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?

[snip]

There's quite a lot to cover here, but perhaps the easiest to address are the 'quantized redshifts' and 'intrinsic redshift' claims, by folk such as Arp and Tifft.

And perhaps the easiest way to handle these is simply to ask: "what, quantitatively, is the quantised/intrinsic redshift relationship being claimed?" Whatever the answer to this question is, based on data prior to the publication of 2dF or SDSS (DR5), then ask "to what extent does either 2dF or SDSS (DR5) confirm or rule out this/these relationships?"

If anyone reading this post wishes to claim that 2dF and/or SDSS (DR5) support the quantised/intrinsic redshift claims prior to these surveys, then please say so.

(If you are impatient, the Reader's Digest version is: none of the pre-2dF/SDSS claims can be validated/confirmed using these hugely richer, deeper, more consistent surveys).

Turning to the class of ideas of which Marmet's is but one: these all fail due to an inability to account for the rich set of observations, of many different kinds, which confirm the Hubble (redshift-distance) relationship, independently of redshift measurements.

For example, there are several ways to estimate distance, independently of redshift: Cepheids, TRGB, TFR, SBR, fundamental-plane, SN 1a, SNII, and gravitational lensing. These methods yield consistent results (within the error bars). So a very big challenge for anyone claiming 'redshift is due to factors other than cosmological expansion' is why the consistency across so many methods.

More seriously, there is the 'un-explaining' or 're-explaining' that has to be done, if you are considering one of these 'non-cosmological' reasons for the observed redshifts.

If the only observational data we had was a few, meagre sets of lines in the spectra of point sources, such a 're-explanation' might not be so hard. However, the observational data is far richer than a few lines in the spectra of point sources - there are images (a 3D matrix of band/RA/Dec intensities), and spectra (integrated SED). Applying standard astrophysics to these rich datasets, one can get fully consistent interpretations in terms of stars, gas, and dust emission and absorption, where these interact in gravitationally bound systems (you also need to add accretion disks and jets, for AGN and QSOs).

Crudely, we could ask any of the 'alternative redshift mechanism' proponents: "what is it that gives rise to what we see {insert object name here}?" and "how far away is this object?" As far as I know (AFAIK), no such interpretations have been forthcoming.

So, harry, since you 'put this on the table', how about you tell us all what all these things are, that 'look like' distant galaxies (and quasars), in the dozens of big surveys of the last decade? Be prepared to back up your explanation with at least order-of-magnitude numbers.

[Nereid]

[snip]

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations.

[snip]

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf
A Bang into nowhere. Written well.

[snip]

These two are very easy to address: they are (apparently) based on a misunderstanding of the current consensus models of cosmology (aka "Big Bang").

It has been known for many decades that General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are mutually incompatible, even at a quite deep level. This is despite the fact that these two are the most successful theories in physics, ever!

Physicists would just love to find a way to test the two, in a regime where their incompatibility is very obvious; sadlly, there seems to be no way to do this, inside any conceivable Earthly lab, or by observing anything 'local' in the universe.

So if there is nothing we can see, locally, where the mutual incompatibility is obvious, what to do? Well, if you 'run the tape backwards' on the universe, you find there is a regime where this incompatibility is obvious ... the Planck regime, or the time before the first Planck second (approx 10^-43 seconds).

So, in terms of the science of cosmology, what does this incompatibility mean?

In simple terms, there is nothing that the science of cosmology can say about what happened 'before' the first Planck second. Or, if you prefer, the Big Bang theory merely describes what happens to the universe after this time.

So, if, as the webpages harry cites do, claim that modern scientific theories of cosmology go into this first Planck second, then they are mistaken, and there is nothing further to discuss.

Of course, you will see lots of mentions of the beginning of the universe, the birth from a singularity, etc, etc, etc. Sadly, these popularisations are wrong. (There is one class of exceptions: where someone is exploring the cosmological implications of a theory which incorporates both GR and QM, such as one of the zillions of M-Theory, or LQG).

And that completes all the items in harry's post, with two exceptions:

- the remaining '30 reasons', mentioned earlier

- the Lieu paper (also mentioned by Michael Mozina).

Or did I miss any?

[harry]

Hello All


People say that the universe is expanding. Well and good.

What is expanding?

Is it the actual distance?
Is it some form of time/space thing?

I observe the objects out their and their movements. They seem to me not expanding.

Can someone "prove" to me that the universe is expanding and not some magical maths thing. I want to point to a galaxy and say that is expanding without question and agreed.

[astro_uk]

Sure you can Harry, you'll just have to wait a few hundred million years till you can see its motion.

Plus its not that galaxies are expanding, space is expanding, anything that is bound (either gravitationally or through some other force) remains the same size, so people, planets, stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters do not change in size. All that happens is that the space between unbound things, such as clusters of galaxies increases.

[harry]

Hello Astro.

Yea mate.

Space is a word.

How can space expand?

How can the universe expand within itself?

If the objects remain in the same positions and distances are quite constant. Than whats all the Hoo Ha with the Red shift.

Today has been a very long day.

[Nereid]

[snip]

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

[snip]

OK, so to start the ball rolling how about we address this list*. Most, if not all, the 'problems' have been powerfully debunked, in internet discussion fora which care about science.

[snip]

Open questions (or ones that require a closer examination):
3, 8, 9, 10, 'matter-antimatter asymmetry', 'quasar metallicities', 'damped LyA systems', 'luminosity evolution', and 'globular cluster formation'.

[snip]

I've had a closer look at the three (bold) items, and I confess that I don't understand what the point TVF is trying to make is.

So, since harry put these on the table, would you please, harry, explain?

Of course, any other registered member, reading this post, may also attempt an explanation.

For 'globular clusters', there is a different question. Here is the text of this point, in full (my bold):

The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (globular clusters) were able to form remains unsolved in the Big Bang. It is no mystery in infinite universe models.

harry: please show, in detail, using math, numbers, equations and stuff that "t is no mystery in infinite universe models".

(the remaining five items will be dealt with later).

[harry]

Hello Nereid

Right now mate, my brain is just for simple discussions.

We have had a death in the family.

But! I will respond in due time.

This is great, to discuss the issues.

Until than I invite who ever wants to contribute.

[BMAONE23]

Condolences Harry, Family over all else.

[harry]

Hello All

Thank you

Be back soon

[Doum]

[

Hi Harry, about your link,

For people who are interested in the Big Bang
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html


It's from the same link u provide and if u read all the link you will see that it show that BB is still the only explanation for now. That paragraph is in the "age" page. It's an interesting link on many subject concerning the universe and matter. Thank you for sharing it.

(The expansion age measured by WMAP is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test. If the expansion age measured by WMAP had been smaller than the oldest globular clusters, then there would have been something fundamentally wrong about either the Big Bang theory or the theory of stellar evolution. Either way, astronomers would have needed to rethink many of their cherished ideas. But our current estimate of age fits well with what we know from other kinds of measurements: the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old!)

Of course many thing can happen and change our understanding of the universe. Till then let's continue the exploration.
Cya all!

[astro_uk]

There is nothing in the WMAP data to support BB theory as it relates to the CMBR data.

That comment is patently nonsense. A lot of people smarter than me or you have looked at this an concluded that the CMB is exactly what is expected of the BB.

For one thing how can scattering of light from very widely spaced galaxies ever come close to approximating the CMB which covers the whole sky and which looks exactly like what you would expect from a black body of around 2.7K?

You show me a mechanism that can create such an isotropic distribution, without all of the areas being in causal contact and around the same temperature.

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Doum, mate you read it out of context.

OK, I agree that for many that the BBT is the standard model.

So what, I say to all, look at all the facts and how the BBT came about.

In addition read this link.

OH! and all the links that I do show does not mean I agree with them.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology ... -space.htm

Sometimes for the sake of it I will add the BBT expalnation. As for its truth, well you have to conclude that.

Hello Astro,,,,,,,,,,,I like your reponse.

Hello Michael

said

I don't really have a lot of answers to offer here, I only know what the WMAP data *does* show and what it doesn't show. It doesn't show lensing or shadowing properties that are consistent with the notion that the CMBR being due to the remnants of a Big Bang. Again, if you disagree, then please demonstrate the error in the method of the data of the two papers I have cited, or explain how these results are consistent with BB theory.

You beat me to the point.

Smile.