BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement
that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth
of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it
"pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

I've got news for you: cosmologists don't claim that the Red Shift is
due
to a Doppler shift. That's only what you find in most pop science
descriptions
of the Big Bang Theory. In reality, cosmologists claim that the Red
Shift is
due to the expansion of space itself (wave lengths get stretched). I
recommend the book "The early universe" by Kolb&Turner to you.


[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the
alternatives do.

My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and
arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-)

I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that
it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the
facts and (b) none of the alternatives do.

Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory
opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality,

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension
are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you?


one needs
to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make
snide comments to defend traditional theories.

Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is
expanding if one discards red shift data.

What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was
"hotter" in the past; see e.g.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz.


I think this is
why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light
properties do not appear to have ever been measured).

Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know
no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you?

Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm


But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.

Oh, nice, another (apparenly) layperson with an alternative theory to
the Big Bang (who, as usual, doesn't know that the red shift isn't
claimed to be due to the Doppler effect).

Does your theory explain all the observations? What about the
following
one, for example?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005006

BTW, theories are never proved in science, didn't you know that?


If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?

To convince other people?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's
believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of
the
alternatives do.

My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and
arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-)

I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that
it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the
facts and (b) none of the alternatives do.

Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory
opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality,

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension
are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you?

Precisely how does a 'dimension' physically 'curl up'? And how does it know
when to stop curling?

one needs
to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make
snide comments to defend traditional theories.

Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is
expanding if one discards red shift data.

What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was
"hotter" in the past; see e.g.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz.

"In addition, the temperature of the cosmic background can be measured in
some very distant clouds that produce absorption lines in the spectra of
quasars. The neutral carbon atoms in these clouds are excited to an
excitation temperature that can be measured using line ratios. These
excitation temperatures are upper limits to the CMB temperature and are
shown as triangular data points at right."

2 specially-selected data points! Whose only advantage is that they "miss"
the BB prediction. Sure, if you play with coarse enough "upper bounds" you
can miss your target enough to claim that it isn't disproved. Then there's:

"In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be made,
giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data point. This data
agrees very well with the evolution expected in the Big Bang model: TCMB =
To(1+z), which is shown as the red line in the figure."

If you get to "correct" the data for unnamed and undefined processes, you
can match anything. And then you plot 4 whole data points. Too bad Ned
didn't bother with any references for any of these.

I think this is
why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light
properties do not appear to have ever been measured).

Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know
no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you?

That's because you define a 'cosmologist' as someone who believes in the big
bang.

Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

As you well know*, Dr. Wright has already been shown to be either less than
principled or less than competent in his 'disproofs' of theories in his
webpages (and if the latter, he is also unwilling to correct known
mis-statements).

See:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
and
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com

At least in Ned's anit-TBBNH thread, Ned referenced the opposing view. (He
screwed it up, royally, but at least it was possible to check his
statements.) In the 'tired light' page, there's not a single reference to
an actual tired-light theory paper or book. Why don't you at least
identify what *you* think is correct about Ned's page on tired light?

- - - - - -

* From your achingly quibbly defense of Ned's 'rewording' of opposing
theories. At least someone did, since Ned wasn't willing to respond
publicly or privately -- except a one-shot repeat in defense of French's
travesty.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

In sci.astro Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension
are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you?

Err, sure I do. So let me ask this. Does it matter from our viewpoint
in three-space that the other dimension(s) are "curled up"? I mean
the way things appear to us. I'm suggesting that from our viewpoint
it doesn't matter. If it did, then it wouldn't really be another
dimension, would it? I do think string theory is a gigantic leap
forward toward a unified field theory, and is a "good first step" toward
the debunking of Quantum Mechanics, but it would be silly to proclaim
the theory as totally correct at this point. But I do say that
string theory is pointing in ways I believe are fundamentally
correct.

Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know
no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you?

No, I don't. I think it's a clever theory and also points to a psychology
that says that the Big Bang idea is somehow hard to swallow, but
unfortunately "tired light" requires properties of photons that remain
largely unobserved to date.

Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Yes, I have. Decent page.

But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.

Oh, nice, another (apparenly) layperson with an alternative theory to
the Big Bang (who, as usual, doesn't know that the red shift isn't
claimed to be due to the Doppler effect).

Well you can play word games all you like and chase your tail
around Einsteinian 4-space trying to justify Red Shift, but
the bottom line is that it isn't about word games it's about
velocities. Without velocities, there is no Big Bang. Period!

It's true I do not make a living from astronomy and my training
is not in that discipline, however, if you think that this means
I have no training, that would be incorrect. I presume you are
attempting to suggest that new ideas are ONLY allowed to come
from the science establishment. Isn't that just a tad arrogant?
I take it you want all comets and other bodies discovered
by "lay" astronomers kept out of offical catalogs as well?

Does your theory explain all the observations? What about the
following
one, for example?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005006

Dunno. I'll have to go give it a peer. Sorry, can't do that
from here...

BTW, theories are never proved in science, didn't you know that?

Yes I do, and have been loudly stating so. But you'd never guess
it the way that establishment science spokesmen go on and on pretending
that various theories are estabished facts and above being questioned.
Evolution is probably by far the worse example.

If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?

To convince other people?

Do you mean to convince other people that my theory is totally correct?
Hardly. But if you mean to convince other people to simply take a
fair look at what I'm saying and add their 2 cents to the mix
(Positive or negative, it really doesn't matter so long as
it's constructive and fair) then yeah, I AM trying to convice them
to do that.

bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
g message om...

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't
you?

g Precisely how does a 'dimension' physically 'curl up'? And how
g does it know when to stop curling?

This is of course an attempt to translate mathematics to English. A
useful analogy might be to consider viewing a highway from a jet. If
the altitude of the jet is large enough, the highway will appear to
have essentially no width, even though we know that it does.


What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was
"hotter" in the past; see e.g.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz.
[quote from Wright's Web site]
g 2 specially-selected data points! Whose only advantage is that
g they "miss" the BB prediction. Sure, if you play with coarse
g enough "upper bounds" you can miss your target enough to claim that
g it isn't disproved.

The upper limits are only a factor of two above the predicted value.
That's hardly "coarse," certainly not by astronomical standards.

g Then there's:

"In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be
made, giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data
point. This data agrees very well with the evolution expected in
the Big Bang model: TCMB = To(1+z), which is shown as the red line
in the figure."

g If you get to "correct" the data for unnamed and undefined
g processes, you can match anything. And then you plot 4 whole data
g points. Too bad Ned didn't bother with any references for any of
g these.

Ignoring the bibliography that is linked at the bottom of this
document, I'll point out ADS
URL:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html and astro-ph
URL:http://arXiv.org/. One can go to either of these places and
find the original papers. Within 30 seconds, I found a couple of
papers on ADS by searching on "cosmic microwave background" AND
"temperature" AND "absorption lines." I'm sure that one can find more
papers with a bit more effort.


Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I
know no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable;
do you?

g That's because you define a 'cosmologist' as someone who believes
g in the big bang.

Interestingly, Narlikar & Padmanabhan (2001,
Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.)---Narlikar being no fan of the Big Bang
model himself---make no mention of "tired light" in their review
article entitled "Standard Cosmology and Alternatives."

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

In sci.astro Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

I've got news for you: cosmologists don't claim that the Red Shift is
due
to a Doppler shift. That's only what you find in most pop science
descriptions
of the Big Bang Theory. In reality, cosmologists claim that the Red
Shift is
due to the expansion of space itself (wave lengths get stretched). I
recommend the book "The early universe" by Kolb&Turner to you.

Word games. There are different ways to calculate things but
the bottom line is if there is no velocity, there is no
"Big Bang" I see the difference between things moving in space
and things being fixed in space which itself is supposed to be
"moving" as being only a slightly different viewpoint, but basically
these never question the fundamental Velocity assumption.

There are lots of theories and calculations, but I've yet to see
that "space meter" with a dial that shows just how fast space
is moving where you are standing. Oh, wait, I get it. Red Shift
is that meter! Just chasing your own tail! At least the "tired
light" folks and I are at making the interesting suggestion that
the apparent wavelength shift just perhaps might not be due to
velocity at all. Without velocity what does a cosmologist have
left?

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

"greywolf42" writes:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
om...
[ ... ]
What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was
"hotter" in the past; see e.g.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz.

"In addition, the temperature of the cosmic background can be measured in
some very distant clouds that produce absorption lines in the spectra of
quasars. The neutral carbon atoms in these clouds are excited to an
excitation temperature that can be measured using line ratios. These
excitation temperatures are upper limits to the CMB temperature and are
shown as triangular data points at right."

2 specially-selected data points! Whose only advantage is that they "miss"
the BB prediction. Sure, if you play with coarse enough "upper bounds" you
can miss your target enough to claim that it isn't disproved.

You have erroneously supposed that the quoted upper limits were
"played with." Upper limits are what they a a constraint in
parameter space. If you don't find the upper limits interesting, that
is your own problem.


... Then there's:

"In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be made,
giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data point. This data
agrees very well with the evolution expected in the Big Bang model: TCMB =
To(1+z), which is shown as the red line in the figure."

If you get to "correct" the data for unnamed and undefined processes, you
can match anything. And then you plot 4 whole data points. Too bad Ned
didn't bother with any references for any of these.

You have erroneously supposed that the corrections are unnamed or
undefined. The discussions in the literature of the observations and
analysis are in fact quite detailed and extensive [ see refs. ].
There are also more measurements in the literature than Wright shows.

If you are criticizing *Dr. Wright* for not naming or defining the
excitation corrections on his web page, then your criticisms are
irrelevant: he is writing a tutorial for the general science public,
not a scholarly article.

CM


References
Silva, A. I. & Viegas, S. M. 2002 MNRAS, 329, 135
Srianand, R. Petitjean, P. & Ledoux, C. 2000, Nature, 408, 931
Molaro, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 381, L64

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:50:35 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of the
alternatives do.

My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and
arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-)

I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that
it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the
facts and (b) none of the alternatives do.

Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory
opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality, one needs
Isn't that already the case, I mean, I can count at least three?

to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make
snide comments to defend traditional theories.


Regards, JaM

---------
Sometimes wishfull thinking cloud ones mind
#2105

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension
are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you?

Err, sure I do. So let me ask this. Does it matter from our viewpoint
in three-space that the other dimension(s) are "curled up"?

What do you mean by "our viewpoint in three-space"?

If the other dimensions weren't curled up, our viewpoint wouldn't be
in
"three-space", but in nine-space! (or, more likely, we wouldn't exist,
because the laws of nature would be totally different)


I mean
the way things appear to us. I'm suggesting that from our viewpoint
it doesn't matter.

And why do you suppose that our viewpoint doesn't depend on the number
of not-curled up dimensions?


If it did, then it wouldn't really be another dimension, would it?

Sorry, I don't understand this question.


I do think string theory is a gigantic leap
forward toward a unified field theory,

I'm not sure if one can still speak of a field theory when one deals
with strings - I would suspect this isn't possible any more.


and is a "good first step" toward
the debunking of Quantum Mechanics,

Huh? Pardon? Last time I looked, string theory did depend on QM!


but it would be silly to proclaim
the theory as totally correct at this point.

I totally agree! String theory looks nice and promising, but there is
yet no experimental evidence for it, and therefore no one can judge if
it is valid or not.


But I do say that
string theory is pointing in ways I believe are fundamentally
correct.

Nice that we agree on this.


Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know
no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you?

No, I don't.

If you know no cosmologists who thinks that tired light theories are
viable, then why do you say that such theories are popular?


I think it's a clever theory

Why? What's so clever about it?


and also points to a psychology
that says that the Big Bang idea is somehow hard to swallow,

A static universe, where the red shift comes from "tiring" of light,
is in my opinion even harder to swallow.


but
unfortunately "tired light" requires properties of photons that remain
largely unobserved to date.

So why not abandon this idea, if no positive evidence comes up for it,
but instead several counterarguments exist?


Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Yes, I have. Decent page.

And you don't think that its arguments against tired light are valid,
or what?


But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.

Oh, nice, another (apparenly) layperson with an alternative theory to
the Big Bang (who, as usual, doesn't know that the red shift isn't
claimed to be due to the Doppler effect).

Well you can play word games all you like

I didn't play word games anywhere - why do you think so?


and chase your tail
around Einsteinian 4-space trying to justify Red Shift, but
the bottom line is that it isn't about word games it's about
velocities. Without velocities, there is no Big Bang. Period!

Apparently you are unable to understand the difference between
"moving in space away from us " and "apparently moving away from
us because the space in between is expanding". And, hint: velocities
depend on the frame of reference.


It's true I do not make a living from astronomy and my training
is not in that discipline, however, if you think that this means
I have no training, that would be incorrect. I presume you are
attempting to suggest that new ideas are ONLY allowed to come
from the science establishment.

I'm attempting to suggest that new ideas should only be considered
to be valid if they have been compared against all the old ideas,
and against all the data available. Obviously someone who *knows*
all the old ideas and all the available data is better able to do
this than people with only a bit "training" in astronomy.


Isn't that just a tad arrogant?

Well, your straw man is.


I take it you want all comets and other bodies discovered
by "lay" astronomers kept out of offical catalogs as well?

*yawn*

It's so easy to attack straw men, right?


Does your theory explain all the observations? What about the
following one, for example?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005006

Dunno. I'll have to go give it a peer. Sorry, can't do that
from here...

Good luck.


BTW, theories are never proved in science, didn't you know that?

Yes I do, and have been loudly stating so.

Then why did you say:
"But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either."

I noticed that you put "proved" in apostrophes, but I don't know
what you want to express by that.


But you'd never guess
it the way that establishment science spokesmen go on and on pretending
that various theories are estabished facts and above being questioned.

I've never encountered any scientists who claims that the Big Bang
theory
is established fact.


Evolution is probably by far the worse example.

Err, there is a fact of evolution and a theory of evolution. I'm not
aware
of anyone who has ever claimed that the two are identical.


If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?

To convince other people?

Do you mean to convince other people that my theory is totally correct?

For example, yes.


Hardly. But if you mean to convince other people to simply take a
fair look at what I'm saying and add their 2 cents to the mix
(Positive or negative, it really doesn't matter so long as
it's constructive and fair) then yeah, I AM trying to convice them
to do that.

Nice. Where can I see your theory?


Bye,
Bjoern

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

I've got news for you: cosmologists don't claim that the Red Shift is
due
to a Doppler shift. That's only what you find in most pop science
descriptions
of the Big Bang Theory. In reality, cosmologists claim that the Red
Shift is
due to the expansion of space itself (wave lengths get stretched). I
recommend the book "The early universe" by Kolb&Turner to you.

Word games.

No. Why do you think so?

Doppler effect is due to a motion in space. Cosmological red shift is due
to the expansion of space. I see below that you know that there is a
difference between these concepts - but apparently you nevertheless
consider them to be equivalent???


There are different ways to calculate things but
the bottom line is if there is no velocity, there is no
"Big Bang".

Depends on what exactly you mean by "velocity" - only things moving through
space, or do you include apparent motion due to the expansion of space?


I see the difference between things moving in space
and things being fixed in space which itself is supposed to be
"moving"

No, expanding.


as being only a slightly different viewpoint,

Huh? That's only "a slightly different viewpoint"??? Sorry, I don't
understand why you think so.


but basically
these never question the fundamental Velocity assumption.

What assumption would that be?


There are lots of theories and calculations, but I've yet to see
that "space meter" with a dial that shows just how fast space
is moving where you are standing.

Space isn't moving, it's expanding.


Oh, wait, I get it. Red Shift is that meter!

Oh, nice - you've got it! It's a pity that you won't accept that
you already found the answer...

And unfortunately, you completely ignored another piece of evidence
that space is expanding: the cooling of the CMBR. I gave you a link
for this, remember?


Just chasing your own tail!

Huh?


At least the "tired light" folks

Who are these people?


and I are at making the interesting suggestion that
the apparent wavelength shift just perhaps might not be due to
velocity at all. Without velocity what does a cosmologist have
left?

I already directed you to
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm.
Why do you think the arguments presented there don't rule out
tired light?



Bye,
Bjoern