The Big Bang

[Empeda2]

Astroton, what you are saying is exactly what people are debating at the moment - certainly the currently popular inflation theory would suggest that our universe is just a 'bubble' within an even bigger universe, cut off from us forever due to the expansion being faster than c...

MTheory and String theory go even further, and say that even that whole massive universe is just a small part of a much creater energy membrane.

Its a weird and wonderful place...

[harry]

Empeda

In My opinion:

You need to define the uninverse as "WHAT" or as part of or is it all.

If its all than the parts need to be named.

As for the expansion of the Universe, give me evidence to show the expansion. Too many people are sitting on the fance reading what ever and stating what ever.

For the past 20 years there has been a minority of cosmoligist giving evidence againts the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang.
Within the year or so crisis will hit and models will change.


Read the following link: evidence against expansion.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

[Empeda2]

The main evidence of the expansion is the redshift and hubble laws - the other cosomologies suggest that a redshift can be the result of gravitational interactions, and so called 'tired light', but my problem with many of these is that they were postulated before the big SN 1a survey of 1997/98.

I have yet to find an alternative cosmology that mentions this survey.

[harry]

Empeda


You need evidence to move a train.

Sometimes a wedge stops it in its tracks. Regardless of the energy you apply.


Sometimes you need to remove the wedge.


Since you have studied all this. I will need to think with 8 spark plugs instead of 4.


Smile

[Empeda2]

I have yet to find an alternative cosmology that mentions this survey.

Better get that engine revving Harry as I'm sure they exist!...

[harry]

Darn I think I lost my marbles also.

Have to go to never land and see captain hook
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In TIME , I would assume soon, some of the main issues will be resolved.


Have a Nice Day

[harry]

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

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

[harry]

Hello all

With reference to link
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances
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. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed 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.

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
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. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. 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 has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

see also links

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p15.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p17.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p10.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p23.htm


Eric Lerner is not alone along these thoughts. Its only a matter of time that scientists will lean to alternative models to explain the observations.

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

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

and the works by
Halton Arp
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Like most theories we also have one that will give a different opinion and thats life. Who is correct? Time will tell in the next three years when the new telescope will be outfitted to study blackholes and the so called dark matter.

Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Errors in Lerner's Criticism of the Big Bang
Errors in Lerner's Alternative to the Big Bang
Miscellaneous Errors
Top | Criticism | Alternative | Miscellaneous | Bottom

Eric Lerner starts his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" (hereafter BBNH) with the "errors" that he thinks invalidate the Big Bang. These are

The existence of superclusters of galaxies and structures like the "Great Wall" which would take too long to form from the "perfectly homogeneous" Big Bang.
The need for dark matter and observations showing no dark matter.
The FIRAS CMB spectrum is a "too perfect" blackbody.
Are these criticisms correct? No, and they were known to be incorrect in 1991 when Lerner wrote his book.

Read the above link and form your own ideas.