The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]

B. Dean:



B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If there was no big bang, then what is the driving force that is causing
the universe to expand?





You ask the perfect question of the minute.

The question you are making is, however, based upon the same assumption
that the BB theorists make. That is, that the supposed cause of the BB and
the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same.

Both those theoretical viewpoints have, as their common basis, the same
true and empirically verifiable argument: that the Apparent Red Shift of
the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements
have been observed on spectrographs.

Hubble observed that light from what appeared to be more distant sources
also appeared to be more Red Shifted in their frequencies as displayed on
the spectrographs. He was dealing with frequencies, and he applied the
concept of the Doppler Effect to explain the RS effect.

In science the principle of application has always been considered to be a
lesser form of explanation and verification. Because something fits or is
similar does not mean that the causes have been explained or proved, or
that the demonstration in logic or actuality is necessarily logically true
and factual.

Hubble also applied the principle of Euclid's that given a straight line,
that in geometry one could extend the straight line in either direction.
Hubble, observing that most celestial objects were to some extent Red
Shifted in their frequencies of emitted light, also hypothesized that all
things could be moving away from one another. He concluded that the
aforementioned straight lines if continued in the direction of the presumed
origin of travel could cut one another at a common point. He further
hypothesized that all things could have traveled from a common point of
origin.

Creationists lept on that idea, and by the same application of thee
association of Doppler's, Euclid's, and Hubble's ideas the beginning of the
universe could be claimed to have been discovered by science. After all,
they said, is not a point that which has no part, or substance, or reality?
There is a tad of the fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum in their
argument. Of the argument that leads to an impossibility in order to prove
the opposite. To expansion. Hence another fallacy, post hoc ergo propter
hoc, or using the conclusion in the argument to support the conclusion.
They said that science supported the Bible. More fallacies of logic, the
appeal to authority and the appeal to humor to support a claim. That
combination of associations is the main support for the BB - creationist
theory.

Hubble's hypothesis was brilliant and intriguing. inductively, was thinking
correctly and drawing a proper conclusion from the facts available. What he
didn't suspect was that there was another brilliant and incredibly
plausible and more verifiable explanation for the Apparent Red Shift of
light frequencies.

There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.

Lord Rayleigh discovered that hydrogen atoms change the frequencies of
light photons that strike the atoms and that continue on. He said that the
collisions were inelastic, and that he measured the lowered frequencies of
the transmitted photons. He really had discovered the Red Shift, only in a
more fundamental way. Rayleigh's explanation did not rely upon the
application on other theories, e.g., Doppler and Euclid, and, rather, he
found direct repeatable empirical results from laboratory experiments.

Recently, the Cassini space vehicle returned powerful evidence that
hydrogen gas, indeed, does lower the energy level of photons traveling in
space.

Hydrogen gas, and the electrons in the plurality of that gas, as I
understand the matter from a scientist acquaintance, can indeed, lower the
energy level of the photons. A quotient of energy remains, and the identity
of that quotient may be explained further to the scientific public in due
time. I gather that scientist have prior identified these relationships,
and that they are well known.

The upshot of all this, leading to the idea that the hydrogen-photon RS
theory is true, is that the RS has been explained by verifiable scientific
experiments under at least three types of experimental conditions, and that
the factual basis is far more scientific and demonstrable than the previous
explanation. Numerous supporting evidence, being accurate identifications
of facts found when trying to examine the universe from the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble point of view, also supports the hydrogen-photon
theory of the Red Shift.

Science must now compare the two theories. Many pieces to a complex puzzle
appear to fit together by merit of the RS being logically rather than
associatively explained by the theory of the reduction of photon energy levels.

This is a simplified overview, and real scientists have been weighing in
support of the hydrogen-photon theory of the Apparent Red Shift of the
frequencies of light.

That does not deny the possibility of local expansions, of Hubble's
hypothesis under specific conditions, or of the Doppler Effect concerning
frequencies, as some recent scientists have carefully observed.

The hydrogen-photon RS theory would also mean that the universe is not
expanding as the expansionists have stated. It would also mean that there
is no cause for thinking that there was a geometric origin point or
creation point for the universe. The universe would be found to be
generally not expanding due to the aforementioned theories, and that the
universe would likely be more dense than than presupposed.

Metaphysically and epistemologically speaking, the creationists logical
horror that nothing was the cause of something would at last be dispelled.

Science may once again be based solidly upon the facts of existence, and
that the universe is a continuing plurality of existents that all have
properties that are knowable to scientists. The cause of the continuation
of the universe of everything is the existence and interacting properties
of everything that exists.

Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence. Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.


Ralph Hertle

Ralph Hertle wrote:
The question you are making is, however, based upon the same assumption
that the BB theorists make. That is, that the supposed cause of the BB and
the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same.

By and large, BB theorists do not, in fact, make that assumption. They
assume that the BB started the expansion. Most cosmologists do not
concern themselves with what caused the BB. Since time as we know it
was created at the BB, it is not clear what causality would really mean
in this context. There are some theories that place BB in a broader,
multiversal context, but they are not (yet) mainstream cosmology.

Both those theoretical viewpoints have, as their common basis, the same
true and empirically verifiable argument: that the Apparent Red Shift of
the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements
have been observed on spectrographs.

Hubble observed that light from what appeared to be more distant sources
also appeared to be more Red Shifted in their frequencies as displayed on
the spectrographs. He was dealing with frequencies, and he applied the
concept of the Doppler Effect to explain the RS effect.

He was not the first to do so. V. M. Slipher had done so before that,
and Fizeau anticipated the effect before him. All this by way of saying
that Hubble had strong grounds for using the Doppler effect as his
explanation for the observed red shift.

Nor was this effect *only* observed for receding galaxies. It was also
observed in the preceding and following limbs of the Sun. The preceding
limb rotates away from us, the following one toward us. This leads to
a Doppler shift in the light radiated by the Sun; we can tell by the
minute shifts in the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. The amount
of the red and blue shifts in the preceding and following limbs,
respectively, are exactly what are predicted for the Doppler shift. It
is not at all a fanciful or solely theoretical effect.

Even today, the majority of extrasolar planets are discovered by an
application of the Doppler shift. These shifts are tiny, thousandths
of a percent, perhaps, but there just the same, and the stellar wobbles
they represent are the effect of their orbiting planets. The variation
of the Doppler shift with respect to time is exactly what you would
expect of a revolving planet (or planets). Could you explain the same
variations by resorting to the hydrogen absorption you mention below?
I suspect it would be quite a contrivance.

In science the principle of application has always been considered to be a
lesser form of explanation and verification. Because something fits or is
similar does not mean that the causes have been explained or proved, or
that the demonstration in logic or actuality is necessarily logically true
and factual.

Of course not, since these things can never be proved logically and
absolutely true. To prove them would require axioms of science--axioms
that we would have to assume true. That is not a weakness of science;
it means that ideas about the world can be revised without having to
rewrite our basic assumptions each and every time.

Hubble also applied the principle of Euclid's that given a straight line,
that in geometry one could extend the straight line in either direction.
Hubble, observing that most celestial objects were to some extent Red
Shifted in their frequencies of emitted light, also hypothesized that all
things could be moving away from one another. He concluded that the
aforementioned straight lines if continued in the direction of the presumed
origin of travel could cut one another at a common point. He further
hypothesized that all things could have traveled from a common point of
origin.

Hubble thought the universe was expanding. He did not espouse the BB
theory with any kind of vigor. I seem to recall he found it unconvincing.
It was others that used his observations to support the BB theory.

There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.

It has nothing at all to do with Euclid, since every indication shows
that space is non-Euclidean, and yet the BB theory survives.

Lord Rayleigh discovered that hydrogen atoms change the frequencies of
light photons that strike the atoms and that continue on. He said that the
collisions were inelastic, and that he measured the lowered frequencies of
the transmitted photons. He really had discovered the Red Shift, only in a
more fundamental way. Rayleigh's explanation did not rely upon the
application on other theories, e.g., Doppler and Euclid, and, rather, he
found direct repeatable empirical results from laboratory experiments.

Recently, the Cassini space vehicle returned powerful evidence that
hydrogen gas, indeed, does lower the energy level of photons traveling in
space.

Hydrogen gas, and the electrons in the plurality of that gas, as I
understand the matter from a scientist acquaintance, can indeed, lower the
energy level of the photons. A quotient of energy remains, and the identity
of that quotient may be explained further to the scientific public in due
time. I gather that scientist have prior identified these relationships,
and that they are well known.

The upshot of all this, leading to the idea that the hydrogen-photon RS
theory is true, is that the RS has been explained by verifiable scientific
experiments under at least three types of experimental conditions, and that
the factual basis is far more scientific and demonstrable than the previous
explanation. Numerous supporting evidence, being accurate identifications
of facts found when trying to examine the universe from the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble point of view, also supports the hydrogen-photon
theory of the Red Shift.

Science must now compare the two theories. Many pieces to a complex puzzle
appear to fit together by merit of the RS being logically rather than
associatively explained by the theory of the reduction of photon energy
levels.

It is true that under certain circumstances, light may be absorbed by
hydrogen atoms--in particular, by the electrons orbiting the nucleus.
That does not mean that it has anything at all to do with the observed
red shift of galaxies (other than that it enables us to measure that
shift).

What mostly happens is that the light does not lower in frequency. It
either passes through unaffected, or if it is at one of the right
frequencies, it is absorbed *in toto*, leading to the absorption lines
in a spectrum that indicate the presence of hydrogen gas. The sum total
of the light energy is reduced by a small percentage, that is true, but
each photon either retains all of its original energy, or it is absorbed
entirely (perhaps to be re-emitted later as the electron returns to its
original energy level).

If galactic red shift were due to absorption by hydrogen gas, why is it
that intergalactic hydrogen gas doesn't seem to have an effect on the
observed shift? True, it's very tenuous, but there are cubic megaparsecs
of it. It's a lot of hydrogen. Yet galaxies at roughly the same distance
by other metrics do not exhibit variations in red shift depending on
whether there's a lot of hydrogen gas in the way, or very little. There
are variations, yes--but they don't depend very much on how much hydrogen
gas is in the way.

This is a simplified overview, and real scientists have been weighing in
support of the hydrogen-photon theory of the Apparent Red Shift of the
frequencies of light.

By which you presumably mean those scientists who agree with you that
quantum effects somehow explain galactic red shifts. And the rest of
them are just faking it? Probably you think I'm faking it, too.

I'm afraid I don't play that game. I play the game of science, which
means that you don't discount well-established theories because they
haven't been proven (which can't happen, anyway), and you don't favor
a theory simply because it makes more sense to you. Nature doesn't
always make sense--at least, not initially.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Ralph Hertle wrote:
B. Dean:



B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If the question was asked on alt.astronomy why reply to alt.astro.amateur?

Massive Snippage


Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence. Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.

Actually in your extended rant against Big Bang Cosmology and the expansion
of the Universe you neglected several important facts.

1. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which still remains the best
explination of Gravity on large scales shows that the Universe must be
expanding or contracting; it is almost impossible for it to remain in
a continuously stable state.

2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of Big Bang
Cosmology and up to this point, its existence and the variations in it
agree well with the predictions of the theory. I see nothing in your
alternative that would explain it.

3. Where does all the Hydrogen come from? In a Universe infinitely old and
one that will exist into infinity, where do we get hydrogen for the continued
birth of stars?

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.

I would not write off the Big Bang yet. Even to a relative lay person
like myself, I have not seen any of the alternatives proposed make a compelling
case to being a real alternative.

--
Bill

Remember, the Rayleigh light scattering theory cannot explain
blue-shifts. Blue shifts occur in a number of object such as
glob-clusters and galaxies. In the former case the blue shifted light
from a glob. is considered to come toward us. In the case of galaxies
that rotate, the red shift of the edges is assumed to be travelling
away from us while the blue shif indicates the tip is rotating toward
us.
Also I thing there was some work showing a gradient of shifts
across the galaxy.

William McHale wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:
B. Dean:



B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If the question was asked on alt.astronomy why reply to
alt.astro.amateur?

Massive Snippage


Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything
continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence
has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment
ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence.
Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.

Actually in your extended rant against Big Bang Cosmology and the
expansion
of the Universe you neglected several important facts.

1. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which still remains the
best
explination of Gravity on large scales shows that the Universe must
be
expanding or contracting; it is almost impossible for it to remain in

a continuously stable state.

2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of Big
Bang
Cosmology and up to this point, its existence and the variations in
it
agree well with the predictions of the theory. I see nothing in your

alternative that would explain it.

3. Where does all the Hydrogen come from? In a Universe infinitely
old and
one that will exist into infinity, where do we get hydrogen for the
continued
birth of stars?

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.

I would not write off the Big Bang yet. Even to a relative lay
person
like myself, I have not seen any of the alternatives proposed make a
compelling
case to being a real alternative.

--
Bill

Excellent retort. The CMBR issue occurred to me immediately, but the
other two (especially Einstein's Theory of General Relativaty) should
have also occured to me.

By the way, Ralph, the one part of your argument regarding the redshift
was unclear to me. I understand your argument that the "inelastic
collision" of hydrogen atoms and photons can cause redshift (By the
way, Brian, are these collisions really inelastic? That seems
counter-intuitive to me, but I am a layman). What I did not follow is
why this MUST be the explination of the redshift. I also notice you
did not discuss blueshift. In space, it would seem that the percentage
of hydrogen atoms alone, all other factors aside, would not be high
enough to produce the observable redshifts. Also, given that these
would be random, as Brian points out, why would galaxies of equal,
measurable distance by other means yield a similar redshift?

Erik
socalsw

Ralph Hertle wrote:

big snip

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.

Blah, blah, blah. Still doesn't explain why events that happen at
higher red shift take longer to occur. Specifically Type Ia supernovas.
The further out you look (higher RS) the longer these "standard
candles" take to blow up. Easily explained by the expansion of
space/time. I'd like to see the data that shows that increased red
shift and the hydrogen absorption/re-emission time of photons syncs up
over distance as well in the model you espouse (along with type Ia
luminosity, of course) as in the Big Bang model.
Plus, if the universe is now steady state (more or less), How did it get
that way? So great, now it's self perpetuating, it still had to arise
somehow, somewhen. 'Splain.

Shawn

William:


William McHale wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

B. Dean:

B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If the question was asked on alt.astronomy why reply to alt.astro.amateur?

Massive Snippage



Of course. I also posted a copy on humanities.philosophy.objectivism. The
topic has great importance, and I wanted to express a viewpoint that has
received too little press these days.

The intellectual battle that is being waged in science is reduceable to two
main points of view:

In one view the Red Shift spectrographic effect is being explained by the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble expansionist theory, and creationist proponents of
that theory claim that nothing can be the cause of something.

In the other view the Red Shift spectrographic effect is being explained by
the principles of physics and chemistry that have been demonstrated
empirically in laboratory experiments. That the Red Shift is due to the
interaction of photons and hydrogen atoms or electrons of same that causes
the photons to have reduced energy levels. Proponents of that theory say
nothing about any claims of causation for all existents, only that
existents can be identified to interact causing specific RS results, e.g.,
that interacting existents cause continued, although changed, existents.

The philosophical views must be supported by the evidence. Either nothing
causes something or something causes something.





Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence. Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.


Actually in your extended rant against Big Bang Cosmology and the expansion
of the Universe you neglected several important facts.

1. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which still remains the best
explination of Gravity on large scales shows that the Universe must be
expanding or contracting; it is almost impossible for it to remain in
a continuously stable state.



I cannot give a complete answer to that question. I have insufficient
knowledge of the math and physics involved. However, I understand that
gravitational fields are measured by means of mathematical curvatures,
representing vector intensities of gravitational fluxes, and that the
curvatures are mathematical concepts. The curvatures are no metaphysical or
physical existents. They are conceptual identifications. What exists are
the gravitational existents that cause the radiated fluxes, and the
specific nature of the gravitational existents are as yet unknown.

Einstein, as I understand the matter, was not committed to the existence of
physical existence. I gather, however feebly, that he believed that some of
his epistemological mathematical constructs also had metaphysical
existence. Provisionally, I would say that he was incorrect in that
philosophical viewpoint.



2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of Big Bang
Cosmology and up to this point, its existence and the variations in it
agree well with the predictions of the theory. I see nothing in your
alternative that would explain it.



The Cassini mission also demonstrated that the Red Shifted radiation that
was observed could also be produced by the interaction of photons and
hydrogen (was it either H atoms or H2 molecules, I forget). The IR
radiation was observed to emanate from hydrogen gas in space. The case for
CMBR may have disappeared, and the CMBR support for the BB as well.



3. Where does all the Hydrogen come from? In a Universe infinitely old and
one that will exist into infinity, where do we get hydrogen for the continued
birth of stars?



The stuff of the universe is plural in nature. That means every single
thing that exists is either a changed form or is an unchanged form of the
things, or existents, that existed prior. Everything in the universe, taken
together, is. All of everything simply is and continues to be.




Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.


I would not write off the Big Bang yet. Even to a relative lay person
like myself, I have not seen any of the alternatives proposed make a compelling
case to being a real alternative.

--
Bill



It is pretty damned obvious that the universe continues to exist and has
continued to exist for eons, and that there is no evidence at all,
anywhere, of a prior nothing.

Existence existing is not an alternative viewpoint. Existence exists. All
existents have properties, and those properties are knowable to scientists
and individual people.


Ralph Hertle

Havriliak:

Thanks for suggesting some questions.


wrote:
Remember, the Rayleigh light scattering theory cannot explain
blue-shifts.



The issue of the Red Shift when understood in terms of the Doppler effect
can explain the "motion" (Hubble's term) away from the viewer of celestial
objects, for example. Its corollary, the Blue Shift, explains the motion of
objects towards the viewer.

Rayleigh's light scattering theory has nothing to do with that. He did
provide the explanation for the elastic scattering and backscattering of
blue light in the sky of air. That is not the Blue Shift. To say that the
two are the same would be an equivocation on the facts.




Blue shifts occur in a number of object such as
glob-clusters and galaxies. In the former case the blue shifted light
from a glob. is considered to come toward us. In the case of galaxies
that rotate, the red shift of the edges is assumed to be travelling
away from us while the blue shif indicates the tip is rotating toward
us.



That is true, and the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble theory nicely explains that.
One has to differentiate ordinary Doppler Effects from the Doppler Effect
used to explain a general cosmological expansion.

The light photons from distant objects have been clearly identified to have
reduced energy levels. That is sufficient to explain the spectrographic Red
Shift. Hubble ultimately reversed his opinion, and he said that there was
insufficient and inconsistent evidence to conclude that there was a general
cosmological expansion. He said that there was evidence that showed that
the reduced energy level of photons may be due to other causes, and that
those causes should be investigated by other scientists who are concerned
with those matters.



Also I thing there was some work showing a gradient of shifts
across the galaxy.




The Cassini results also show that the IR energy levels vary, and that the
uneven-ness of IR radiation energy levels is probably due to the
interactions of photons and hydrogen, and the varying amounts amounts of
hydrogen. The more hydrogen the photons collide with mean that the energy
level is reduced more. The scientist's reports and conclusions must be
consulted for a proper explanation.

Ralph Hertle

Shawn:

Shawn wrote:
Ralph Hertle wrote:

big snip

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.


[text omitted]

Plus, if the universe is now steady state (more or less), How did it get
that way? So great, now it's self perpetuating, it still had to arise
somehow, somewhen. 'Splain.

Shawn


The "must have" advocates reply upon the absurd argument that nothing can
be the cause for something, or that nothing was the cause for everything.

That is not true. There is no scientific evidence at all anywhere that
nothing or a void is a cause for the existence of something. The
contradiction is that something cannot both be something and not be
something in the same respect. A cause cannot exist simultaneously with the
nothing that is purported to to exist. If a cause exists, then nothing
cannot exist. In that contradictory view nothing is something and facts are
not facts.

The only causes for the physical consequences of changed existents are the
existence, the properties of the existents themselves, the potentials for
change, or the prior existents. Existence is the cause for all subsequent
existence. The universe, being everything and the properties of everything,
is the cause for its continued existence. The universe is existing. There
is no contradiction in that; the universe exists continually and
verifiably. In that view facts are facts.

If you claim the non-existence of the universe - or the simultaneous
existence of physical causes and nothing - prove it.

The identification of the continuing existing universe has all evidence to
support it.

Ralph Hertle

My apologies, I mistook your post as a serious attempt at a scientific
discussion of the big bang theory, not a philosophical ontological
discussion without reference to evidence (odd that, you seem to be
accusing the BB folk of that). You are right, this does belong in
humanities.philosophy.objectiv=ADism.

Erik
socalsw