Origins of the UNIVERSE

[harry]

Hello All

I will respond to this in due time.

I understand your concerns.

[harry]

Hello All

A Brief Summary of Three Famous Dissident Scientists on Problems of the Big Bang Theory:
Eric Lerner, Bill Mitchell and Halton Arp

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

The link brings up some important issues against the BBT.

[astro_uk]

Those "important" issues seem to be almost identical to the "important" issues in your list of problems with the Big Bang that have already been discredited on at least 3 occasions now.

I'm still waiting for one observation that cannot be explained within the BB framework.

[Nereid]

I'll go one further than astro_uk: harry, in at least one of the debunkings of those "Problems of the Big Bang Theory", you were asked to clarify a number of points. As far as I know, you have not done so yet. Would you please do so?

If you'd like a refresher on what those questions were, I'd be happy to provide it.

And one more thing: in that "Brief Summary", what material has not already been covered, in the "at least 3 occasions" astro_uk refers to? What, among the earlier debunkings, has not - in your view - been adequately addressed?

I'm keen that we stop going over the same ground, again and again and again and ... - if there's something still open, let's close it; if there's something new, let's discuss it.

[Nereid]

I have a personal "case study" of virtual execution that never made much sense to me, so perhaps you could point me in the right direction. What point was there in virtually crucifying me for not being able to compute the amount of light from coronal loops that might traverse various unknown densities of mass separated plasma layers at a variety of different wavelengths? What was that all about?

Here is a study of the reasons why BAUT members were banned, re their posting in BAUT's ATM section, from the time the BAUT rules began to be enforced (Oct 2005) to Sep 2006.

Note that, in that period, no one was permanently banned solely for refusing to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM idea they presented.

Then why exactly was I banned again? I certainly wasn't "uncivil" in any way.

I suggest that you take that up with either of the site's owners - via email.

[Nereid]

(my bold)

Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917)
Charles Bruce (1902-1979)
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)

I think I've got the right folk, and the right dates - please correct this if I've not.

Which of Birkeland, Bruce, or Alfvén's published papers deal with:
a) Olbers' paradox?
b) the cosmic microwave background?
c) the abundance of (light) nuclides?
d) the large-scale structure of the universe?
e) the Hubble (distance-redshift) relationship?

In each and all cases, I am interested in 'plasma cosmology' papers which provide either a quantitative account of observations, or a quantitative prediction.

I think you must have missed that "learn to walk before we try to run" comment. Perhaps you could explain why Kristian Birkeland's images of the surface of the sphere includes electrical discharge loops that are very similar to coronal loops on the sun, and why these solar "discharges" as Bruce documented them are coming from the solar surface. If we wish to discuss electrical activity, and it's affect on astronomy, that is certainly the place to start, especially since the coronal loops stick out like a sore thumb in the solar atmosphere. They are the million degree exception in an otherwise thousand degree rule.

I saw it ... I interpreted it as a non-answer. Either this 'plasma cosmology' is a scientific study of cosmology or it isn't.

If it can't, today, account for any of the items on my list, then we can't really call it 'cosmology', can we?

If its present domain of applicability is the behaviour of the photosphere, corona, etc of the Sun, then we would judge its success by comparing it to successful theories in solar physics, wouldn't we?

In another 50 or 100 years, if the work of BB&A has been developed sufficiently to account for obsersations such as the CMB, Olbers' paradox, and the large-scale structure of the universe, it would then become cosmology in the scientific sense.

[Nereid]

[snip]

We could of course discuss the lack of lensing and shadowing seen in CMBR data. We could discuss the lack of evidence for monopoles, or inflaton fields, or dark energy in any lab on earth. These were "theorized" particles that have never been "observed" in any controlled laboratory conditions, yet they form the very foundation of BB theory. Why is that? How do you know Guth's inflation theory, complete with inflaton fields actually "solved" a monopole problem?

We already have ... in this very thread. And there were a number of questions asked of your presentations that remain unanswered - would you like them asked again?

If there is anything new to any of these points ("the lack of lensing and shadowing seen in CMBR data", "lack of evidence for monopoles, or inflaton fields, or dark energy in any lab on earth"), please present them. If there is anything you don't understand about the explanations already given, in this thread, on them, please ask.

But please, do not keep presenting the same stuff we've already been over, and over, and over, and over, and ...

[Nereid]

Those "important" issues seem to be almost identical to the "important" issues in your list of problems with the Big Bang that have already been discredited on at least 3 occasions now.

I'm still waiting for one observation that cannot be explained within the BB framework.

This seems like a relatively unfair question, particularly considering the ad hoc nature of the "explanations" offered by the BB framework. [snip]

This characterisation is rather different than what harry was saying (it seems to me). Calling something 'ad hoc' goes more to the nature of science, and whether modern cosmology is thus scientific, than is a flaw in what astro_uk wrote.

Now I think you are already on record (in this thread?), Michael, as saying your concept of science is not the same as that which the vast majority of astronomers work under. So, perhaps we could review your alternative views on the nature of science? Or perhaps not - this Cafe is not really the place for a debate about the nature of modern science ...

[Nereid]

Try this one astro_uk:

When did galaxies first form, and how did they get so large, so fast? What timeline is required before relatively "mature" galaxies formed?

And why is this a problem for today's cosmological models?

That it's an area of fast and furious research, and many a proposal for prime telescope time includes estimates of how that time, if granted, will help answer these sorts of questions, is not in any doubt.

But why is doing research into things that are poorly understood a weakness of theory?

Again, I think there is a bit of a disconnect, between what you, Michael Mozina, seem to think modern astronomy is 'about', and what those who actually do it think.

Or have I simply misunderstood what problem you think galaxy formation, after radiation streamed free, poses for modern cosmological models? If so, would you please elaborate?

[lewishb]

doesnt the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entrophy)rule out an eternal universe ???......

[Nereid]

We already have ... in this very thread.

Yes, and nobody tackled the lensing paper at all.

And there were a number of questions asked of your presentations that remain unanswered - would you like them asked again?

Sure.

If there is anything new to any of these points ("the lack of lensing and shadowing seen in CMBR data", "lack of evidence for monopoles, or inflaton fields, or dark energy in any lab on earth"), please present them. If there is anything you don't understand about the explanations already given, in this thread, on them, please ask.

But please, do not keep presenting the same stuff we've already been over, and over, and over, and over, and ...

The fact that nobody addressed the lensing paper at all, precludes you from suggesting these problems have been "dealt with".

I would like to ask you to read this thread, over the last four pages at least.

Here is my reply to your own comment on this paper (it's stardate Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:39 am):

OK, time to put this nonsense to be rest.

While the Lieu et al. paper is certainly interesting, to claim "[t]here is nothing in the WMAP data to support BB theory as it relates to the CMBR data" is either foolish, naive, or downright disingenuous.

As to the SZE, this LaRoque et al. paper not only reports on consistent detection of the SZE, but also derives H0 (the Hubble constant), independent of all other distance measurements, and consistent with the value found in the Hubble Key Project!

[Nereid]

doesnt the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entrophy)rule out an eternal universe ???......

Perhaps, but there's no guarrantee that this is, indeed, a 'law'.

A much stronger constraint on any 'eternal universe' is Olbers' paradox (why is the night sky dark?), together with the (obvious) vast amount of 'unburned fuel' (hydrogen, in the ISM and IGM; that in stars is trivial in comparison).

[Nereid]

Stardate Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:53 pm:

But how is that [monopoles] relevant to modern concordance cosmology?

More generally:
MM: "Have you got any evidence to demonstrate that monopoles can or do exist by any chance?"
N: "I know of no such (good) observations. But how is that relevant to modern concordance cosmology?"

Stardate Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:04 pm:

You've mentioned "monopole" several times now ... what is it? And how is it relevant to modern cosmology?

And this post is relevant to:
N: "And there were a number of questions asked of your presentations that remain unanswered - would you like them asked again?"
MM: "Sure"

(to be continued)

[harry]

Hello All

If it seems that I'm not focusing on the discussion that is true.

I will respond in time.

I'm just making quick visits, to stay in tune.

Thanks to Michael for backing the discussion.

My brains right are on a family project that needs 100% and than some more.

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

It is so easy just to agree with the BB, but the issues are too great.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

No matter how well liked a theory may be, if observation contradicts it, then it must be rejected. For science to be useful, it must provide an increasingly true and deep description of nature, not a prescription of what nature must be.

Simply put, if Tully's objects exist, the universe cannot have begun twenty billion years ago.

In 1990 the existence of these huge objects was confirmed by several teams of astronomers. The most dramatic work was that of Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who are mapping galaxies within about six hundred million light-years of earth. In November of 1989 they announced their latest results, revealing what they called the "Great Wall", a huge sheet a galaxies stretching in every direction off the region mapped. The sheet, more than two hundred million light-years across and seven hundred million light-years long, but only about twenty million light-years thick, coincides with a part of one of the supercluster complexes mapped by Tully. The difference is that the new results involve over five thousand individual galaxies, and thus are almost impossible to question as statistical flukes.

If the Big Bang is wrong, then many of the basic ideas of fundamental physics are wrong as well. The same methods that have led cosmology into a blind alley have also simultaneously stalled the advance of knowledge of the structure of matter and energy.

Fundamental or particle physics, the study of the underlying structure of matter and energy, focuses on the effort to unify the basic forces of nature. As far as is known, the interactions of matter can be described in terms of four forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and two nuclear forces- the strong force responsible for keeping the nucleus together (the source of nuclear energy), and the weak force responsible for radioactivity and the decay of the nucleus

The Big Bang Theory Under Fire by William C. Mitchell
(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (Big Bang) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (Big Bang Theory) as scientific fact.
Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted Big Bang as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who seriously question the Big Bang are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.
As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the Big Bang is not fact, but an unproven theory.

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem

One of the older problems of Big Bang Theory, that of its postulated large-scale smoothness of the universe, appears to be the result of what was originally a simplifying assumption (5-8) that was made to aid in the solution of Einstein's equations of general relativity on which the Big Bang is based. That apparently resulted in the establishment of smoothness as a basic tenet of Big Bang Theory; that is, the universe is isotropic (the same in all directions) and homogeneous (the same everywhere). Those ideas, combined with curved space, provide the basis for the Big Bang concepts of space expansion (rather than simple expansion of matter in space), for a "Big Bang that happened everywhere", and for a centerless universe.

However, the observed irregularities of the universe, which include vast galactic formations, (9) gigantic voids and sheets of galaxies, (10) and the "Great Wall", (11,12) that is estimated to stretch across one half billion light years of space, tend to deny that smoothness.
The smoothness of the distribution of the matter of the universe is said to be verified by the smoothness of microwave background radiation (MBR) that is received from all directions of space. That radiation is believed by adherents of Big Bang Theory to have come directly from a smooth Big Bang. However, it would seem that both the improbability of a smooth Big Bang explosion (explosions experienced in our time certainly are not smooth), and presently observed irregularities of the universe, tend to deny a Big Bang as the direct source of MBR.

A major problem, known as the age paradox, (16) plagues Big Bang Theory: The postulated age of the Big Bang universe may be incompatible with observations.
Despite the insistence of some Big Bang advocates on a lower value, recent observations of distant galaxies have confirmed the Hubble constant to be approximately 80 km/sec/Megaparsec (about 24.5 km/sec/million light years). (13,17) Hubble time, the age 12 billion years. The age of a flat or near flat Big Bang universe, as postulated by Big Bang theorists in recent years, would be two thirds of that, or about 8 billion years; somewhat more than that for an open Big Bang universe, and somewhat less than that for a closed Big Bang universe. That age is only about one half of the known age of some stars and galaxies, (18,19) presenting an obviously impossible situation.
Conversely, a flat Big Bang universe having an age of 15 billion years, would require a Hubble time of 22.5 billion years and a Hubble constant of about 42.2 km/sec/Mpc; little more than one half of the observed value.

The microwave background radiation (MBR), that is received uniformly from all directions of space, considered by many to be the most important evidence in support of Big Bang Theory, may be inconsistent with that theory.
In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various Big Bang theorists. Those predictions had varied over a range of 5 to 50 K. (26) History also shows that some Big Bang cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted" after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures

The time line of events from the first instant of the Big Bang until the present time, as presented by various cosmologists in their attempts to reconcile Big Bang Theory with quantum theory, have been inconsistent with their own versions of Big Bang Theory thus presenting serious chronology problems.
As an example of this, although there are few if any Big Bang adherents who believe in a universe that has expanded at a constant rate since the Big Bang, the chronology that is most often presented indicates a fixed-rate universe that is 10 billion years old. (3,35,36)
That chronology, indicating a Hubble time of 10 billion years, requires a Hubble constant of almost 100 km/sec/Mpc (30 km/sec/million light years), a value far in excess of that accepted by Big Bang supporters. For a Hubble constant of that value, all of the usual Big Bang cosmological cases (somewhat open, flat or closed) would require the Big Bang to have occurred at about 2/3 of Hubble time, or approximately 6 billion years ago, which is incompatible with current Big Bang thinking.

Big Bang cosmologists tell us that the observed ratio of helium to hydrogen in the universe could only have been the result of Big Bang thermonucleosynthesis. However, that presumes, not only a precise knowledge of the processes of a Big Bang, but a precise knowledge of the processes of other possible cosmologies. If, for example, another cosmology should suggest that helium has accumulated as a result of other processes (37,38) (such as stellar nucleosynthesis over tens of billions of years), having given other cosmological possibilities little or no consideration, on what basis might a Big Bang theorist deny that? In addition to helium, Big Bang theorists have in the past maintained that other light elements including boron, beryllium and lithium, can only have been produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis (fusion). However, it has been found that these elements can be produced by cosmic rays acting on supernovae remnants (fission). (29) It is also possible for deuterium to have been produced by processes in the formation of galaxies, rather than in Big Bang nucleosynthesis as claimed by those theorists.
Adding to those problems, recent observations have shown that the abundance of helium is less than that indicated by standard Big Bang Theory, and that the ratios of beryllium and boron are inconsistent with that theory. (39-41)

Inconsistencies regarding the current interpretation of observed red shift present many problems to Big Bang Theory. Many of those have to do with the distant massive bodies that are called quasars.
As presently utilized, red shift data results in the perception of extremely great masses and brilliances of quasars. Variations in the level of radiation from these sources (27,42) require their size to be extremely small and their densities to be extremely great. These extreme characteristics suggest that the present interpretation of red shift data as Doppler shift doesn't tell the whole story about the speed and distance of remote massive bodies in space

Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide simple solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation Big Bang Theory. (3,4) However, convincing support for claims of solutions to the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness problems is lacking.
Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of the early Big Bang universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater than that of light, (3,4) did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and thus did not violate the theory of relativity in solving the singularity problem. But how inflation, as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in some manner displace all the mass or energy of the universe without physically moving it, defies common understanding. A violation of Einstein's prohibition of speeds in excess of that of light seems to be inherent in that process.

Most Big Bang theorists agree that, rather than the matter of space, space itself is expanding. However, if the expansion of space is decelerating, the physical law that relates the deceleration of space with gravitation has not been made clear. It would seem reasonable to expect the expansion of the matter of a Big Bang universe to be decelerating, but, if that is so, matter must have an increasing inward velocity relative to expanding space; or perhaps the expansion of both matter and space is decelerating possibly doubling the effect of gravity. A lack of clarity regarding this matter would seem to add to the difficulties of Big Bang Theory

Big Bang advocates have criticized the once competing steady state cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold because it provided no explanation for the origin of the universe. However, at the same time, some of those espouse a cycling Big Bang universe, that has repeatedly collapsed and re-exploded in the past (and that might continue to do so in the future), which exhibits the same no-origin flaw that they ascribed to steady state theory. Big Bang theorists have in the past indicated that all galactic formation had started in the same early era, that is, within the first billion years following the Big Bang. However, recent evidence has increasingly indicated much later and continuing formation of galaxies. (56,57) In the light of this evidence the previous view is no longer stressed. However, it would seem that such "waffling" might tend to discredit Big Bang Theory

Look I could right copy and paste more, just read the link.

The big Crunch with many of these issues will be resolved in the near future. Some cosmologist will be left with egg on their face. Others will hide and come out on the other side of a black hole as so to speak.

Regardless if we are going around and around in circles with these ideas. Its better than agreeing on something you cannot believe in.
Just look at history, what the hell were the scientist doing with so many different theories and Ad hoc ideas.

[/quote]

[Nereid]

Questions asked of Michael Mozina, that remain unanswered.

Stardate Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:04 pm (numbers added)

1) in the [Michael Mozina] view of the nature of cosmology, the science, just what is 'legal' in terms of theoretical constructs?

2) In the [Michael Mozina] view of the science of astronomy, must an entity be "documented in a lab" before it can be 'legal'?

3) there are theories, in physics, astronomy, cosmology, ... which are NOT creations of {someone's} mind?

4) wrt "the first law of thermodynamics", can you show that inflation violates this? With math (not just words)?

5) how critical are "monopoles" to modern inflation theory?

[Nereid]

harry, I'm going to ask you, as nicely as I can, to stop this cut and pasting of material that we have already dealt with (in several cases, more than once).

If you don't understand a rebuttal that has been given, by all means ask for clarification.

Back on Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:52 pm, in this thread, I wrote:

harry, in at least one of the debunkings of those "Problems of the Big Bang Theory", you were asked to clarify a number of points. As far as I know, you have not done so yet. Would you please do so?

If you'd like a refresher on what those questions were, I'd be happy to provide it.

And one more thing: in that "Brief Summary", what material has not already been covered, in the "at least 3 occasions" astro_uk refers to? What, among the earlier debunkings, has not - in your view - been adequately addressed?

I'm keen that we stop going over the same ground, again and again and again and ... - if there's something still open, let's close it; if there's something new, let's discuss it.

Now, for avoidance of doubt, I will ask just this one more question:

In what way is the repeated posting of the same material, that we have covered at least once before, different from spam?