Starship Asterisk*

G'day from the land ofozzzzzz

It funny how BB people say that the BBT has been proven and observations affirm the theory and yet no evidence that can stand alone.

This is an interesting paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4249
Fractal Bubble Cosmology: A concordant cosmological model?

Authors: Juliana Kwan, Matthew J. Francis, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 24 Feb 2009)

Abstract: The Fractal Bubble model has been proposed as a viable cosmology that does not require dark energy to account for cosmic acceleration, but rather attributes its observational signature to the formation of structure. In this paper it is demonstrated that, in contrast to previous findings, this model is not a good fit to cosmological supernovae data; there is significant tension in the best fit parameters obtained from different samples, whereas LCDM is able to fit all datasets consistently. Furthermore, the concordance between galaxy clustering scales and data from the cosmic microwave background is not achieved with the most recent supernova compilations. The validity of the FB formalism as a sound cosmological model is further challenged as it is shown that previous studies of this model achieve concordance by requiring a value for the present day Hubble constant that is derived from supernovae data containing an arbitrary distance normalisation.

harry wrote:It funny how BB people say that the BBT has been proven and observations affirm the theory and yet no evidence that can stand alone.

I don't know of any scientist who has remotely suggested that the BBT has been proven.

As previously noted, the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang has a whole section detailing key observational evidence. That evidence is good enough for most scientists, even if it's not for you (and you refuse to even say what you find objectionable about it, so how can anybody even discuss the issue with you?)

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris bring on any point you wish.

Its open for discussion.

harry wrote:Chris bring on any point you wish.
Its open for discussion.

I've got nothing I need to discuss. I agree with most astronomers that current cosmological theory is doing a pretty good job of explaining the Universe. You're the one who seems to have a problem with it, but you never actually say what that problem is.

G'day Chris

Once again you walk away from a discussion point.

Your here to discuss whatever.

So! tell me what points do you have in mind?

harry wrote:Once again you walk away from a discussion point.

Obviously, there is no discussion point.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Your right, how can there be if you do not wish to have one.

Chris Peterson wrote:As previously noted, the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang has a whole section detailing key observational evidence.

I found the wiki article on Lambda-Cold Dark Matter quite informative, also.

G'day bystander

Wiki is informative and yet fulls short of information and requires upgrade.

When something is well written we usually full into the trap in thinking that its OK.

It is good science to question every single step.

Wiki explains the BB model but mentions little of reality.

We can observe the universe as it is, we can look at the workings of stars and evolution of galaxies as per astrophysics.

The minute we try to fit it into a model that cannot explain observations is the minute we get conflickting issues.

harry wrote:Wiki is informative and yet fulls short of information and requires upgrade.

I posted the Wikipedia link after I vetted it. The article is of good quality, meaning that it states its points clearly and provides good references. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with it, but it presents a good, accessible description of the Big Bang and the key observational evidence supporting it.

Harry, you asked what evidence supports the BBT, and you have been given some good examples. The ball is in your court. Either address those examples- tell us specifically what is wrong with them, or drop the subject. Ramblings about "reality" don't belong in this forum.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chris forget, you have missed the point.

So far you have refused to supply evidence. Just a supply of a wiki link.

Get to the point.

EG CMB

What is the evidence to prove the BBT?

harry wrote:Chris forget, you have missed the point.

So far you have refused to supply evidence. Just a supply of a wiki link.

Get to the point.

EG CMB

What is the evidence to prove the BBT?

No, Harry, you missed the point. You can't prove a theory, only prove it wrong.

Where's your evidence to prove BBT is wrong, and please address specific points, not some long list of articles you probably haven't read.

You can have evidence that supports a theory. Read the wiki article, there is plenty of evidence and many links.

G'day bystander

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

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

 Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

 Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... e-for.html

 Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 3 Jul 2007)

Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

and

Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... rs-god.htm

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

All the previous papers that I have posted I have read. I'm just sharing the information.

and also

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

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


and the list goes on

One of the largest problems the Big Bang is to explain how over 100 billion galaxies in 13.2 Gyrs deep field images can be made up in just 500 million years if according to the BBT the age of the universe is about 13.7Gyrs.


Its not up to me to prove the BBT is correct or wrong.

What ever theory is going, sceintific evidence needs to be provided.

Thanks Harry .. I found this statement in your last url agrees with my view that BB should have been abandoned several times after observations contradicted BB's foundations.

"Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers."

harry wrote:The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

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

Just a heads-up for those who aren't aware of it. Basically, any reference to material at metaresearch.org can't be taken seriously. This is one of the main purveyors of pseudoscience on the Internet. However, if you have some time to kill, and some critical thinking skills, it's a fun site to spend some time browsing. Kind of like the freak show at a circus. The asteroid belt comes from an exploded planet. The "face on Mars" mound is artificial. Gravity shielding. Gravity propagating faster than light.

These guys are the Flat Earth Society of physics.

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

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

Just a heads-up for those who aren't aware of it. Basically, any reference to material at metaresearch.org can't be taken seriously. This is one of the main purveyors of pseudoscience on the Internet. However, if you have some time to kill, and some critical thinking skills, it's a fun site to spend some time browsing. Kind of like the freak show at a circus. The asteroid belt comes from an exploded planet. The "face on Mars" mound is artificial. Gravity shielding. Gravity propagating faster than light.

These guys are the Flat Earth Society of physics.

3,500 years of consensus said the earth centred the universe .. and then the hillarity of Big Bang .. finally a freak of nature give you anti-grav bubble expansion which explains everything correctly.

aristarchusinexile wrote:finally a freak of nature give you anti-grav bubble expansion which explains everything correctly.

I would never have been so uncivil to say that, but I'm not going to disagree if you want to describe yourself that way... <g>

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:finally a freak of nature give you anti-grav bubble expansion which explains everything correctly.

I would never have been so uncivil to say that, but I'm not going to disagree if you want to describe yourself that way... <g>

To be called a 'Freak of Nature' was a high honour in hippy days, Chris, and it is still an honour bestowed on those who value highly and attempt to protect the natural creation. It's ranks higher than the worldly medals of honour bestowed by nations.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

I keep I saying.

Look at the science issues.

Chris your comments are so negative that its a wonder that you are in cosmology.

This is no longer the dark ages.

Its just amazing how people want to control the flow of information just because they want to.

If it was based on science I'm all ears, but for my nose.

There are some parts of metaresearch that I do not agree with, that does not mean they are right or wrong, but they do have some interesting views based on science.

If science can be support by other scientists than its worth looking at.

In my opinion the main problem with the BB is that accordnig to Einstein's general realtivity (EGR) the universe might be not even expanding. Einstein might have known it, being a kind of an expert in EGR, but he might had been against pouring cold water on BB folks without giving them a chance to work on their idea.

The thing is that EGR requires by the principle of conservation of energy that the spacetime has intrinsically flat geometry. It means that whatever is curved spacewise is compensated timewise to Euclidean 4 dimensional spacetime. This flat spacetime provides the Hubble type redshift in any positively curved space (which BTW proves that our space is positively curved since we see such redshift). The Hubble constant has to be equal to sqrt(4*pi*G*density of space). I happen to know all this since it happens to be the subject of my PhD work.

For the density of space 6x10^{-27}kg/m^3, which is just 50% more of estimation for our universe, the Hubble constant comes out as what is observed (and also the apparent acceleration of the expansion comes out as observed). Which, if the density of space is as mentioned above proves that the universe is not even expanding, just looking like one to those who neglected studying EGR. Of course the space of our universe might have a smaller density that the above and I wish BB folks that it does .

JimJast wrote:For the density of space 6x10^{-27}kg/m^3, which is just 50% more of estimation for our universe, the Hubble constant comes out as what is observed (and also the apparent acceleration of the expansion comes out as observed). Which, if the density of space is as mentioned above proves that the universe is not even expanding, just looking like one to those who neglected studying EGR. Of course the space of our universe might have a smaller density that the above and I wish BB folks that it does.

Seems to be some inconsistency here.

bystander wrote:Seems to be some inconsistency here.

What is this inconsistency?

JimJast wrote:What is this inconsistency?

How do you explain the apparent acceleration of expansion if there is no expansion?

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Observation of the workings of starformation and galaxy evolution show us that matter falls towards gravity sinks just linke the centre of the galaxy and various positions throughout the galaxy as stella black hole and exotic stars.

We also see jet formation from these compact object that show expansion and acceleration from the centre.

This is general info. If you want images to show the observations, just ask.

harry wrote:Observation of the workings of starformation and galaxy evolution show us that matter falls towards gravity sinks just linke the centre of the galaxy and various poistions throughout the galaxy as stella black hole and exotic stars.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but as a rule, matter does not fall towards "gravity sinks". Matter orbits mass concentrations (a kind of "falling" to be sure, but not what it sounds like you are talking about). The only time that matter actually falls inwards is when the material has a low relative velocity, or the material density is so high that you have drag. Thus, clouds of gas collapse, until they speed up so much there would ordinarily be no further collapse, except by that point you have drag, and stars can form. In a galaxy, material does not fall in towards the center, whether or not there is a black hole there. Only very, very close to the central black hole does material move inwards, and that's because of drag in the dense accretion disc. Likewise for stellar black holes; very little material actually falls into them. Virtually none if they have no companion star, otherwise a small amount due to drag.