BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...

[snip]

Others have corrected you already on most of your points, hence I only
want to comment on this short paragraph.


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.

Totally wrong. For example, I consider Steinhardt, Hoyle and Narlikar
to
be cosmologists, too.

And, BTW, cosmologists don't "believe" in the Big Bang - they accept
it as the theory which gives the most and the best explanations for
the available evidence.


[snip rest]


Bye,
Bjoern

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

Wowowowowow.... Hold on a minute there.... Just hold on a minute. Our
reality IS multidimensional, and what the string theories do, under
the hypothetical umbrella of M - Theory, is explain how several of
these dimensions are curled so close togethar under tiny distances
(Planck), that they can only be realised by mathematics, the same way
that, if you look at a straw from a distance, it looks like it only
has 1 dimention, length, but take a closer look, and "Presto" it has
3.

I'd love to hear how ANY of the string theories account red-shift for
anything other than the doppler effect.

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

Tsk Tsk


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

Eehh.... The reams of maths, relativity, the "pear shape" of time,
microwaves, etc etc.

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

Doppler shift has nothing to do with dissipation of light. The
doppler shift is how police use radar guns to determine speed.

Distance is determined using different methods, such as parralax.


But then, my hypersphere theory hasn't been "proved" either.
If it were, then why would I be discussing it here?

bjacoby

(sigh)

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"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.

No. Into physics.

A
useful analogy might be to consider viewing a highway from a jet.

I'm not interested in an analogy.

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.

This is irrelevant.

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.

Riiiiiight.

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/.

Why? I pointed out that Ned didn't provide references for his claims.

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.

Well, la di dah. I could find generic reference on the CMBR, too. But that
doesn't address Ned's claims.

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."

Your point would be what? Bjoern still defines cosmologist as big bang
cosmologist.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

{remove planet for e-mail}

Craig Markwardt wrote in message
news

"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."

No. Simply acknowledged that sufficiently coarse data is selected. The
selecting itself is the play.

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.

Parameter space does not exist. It is a mathematical fiction. I'd rather
do physics.

... 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.

That wasn't an assumption. The corrections *were* not only unnamed and
undefined, but unreferenced.

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.

Your point would be what? Wright has provided no support for his
statements.

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.

Horsefeathers. If you can't provide the references, you're a priest.

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

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

"greywolf42" writes:
[ ... heavy snipping throughout ... ]
Craig Markwardt wrote in message
news

"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.
....
Parameter space does not exist. It is a mathematical fiction. I'd rather
do physics.
....
That wasn't an assumption. The corrections *were* not only unnamed and
undefined, but unreferenced.
....
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

If one would rather do physics, then couldn't one address the
observations and corrections that are defined in the mentioned in the
scholarly references, rather than sling personal gripes about Wright
and his tutorial page?

CM

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.

I could be reading this wrong, but are you saying framework of vectors
and physical laws are DIFFERENT to 2 objects relative to each other???
Are you saying red shift is unreliable? What exactly ARE you saying?

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

"debunking"? You mean the accurate observation and prediction of
objects less than planck length? You gotta be more precise...

, 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.

The string theoirIES are hypothetically connected by the M-Theory (I
think supergravity is what's causing all the hassle).... So the big
bang would not be debunked, in fact, it would almost certianly be
enforced...

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.

Tsk Tsk

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!

Yep.. which is why there are velocities.... Everythings relative...

snip

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"

Word Games??? You're trying to trivialise the consequences of
relativity, inflation/expantion, and the behavior of lightrays under
such expansion as "word games"? Please don't do that...


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!

Did you ever wonder why the theory of relativity is called the "theory
of relativity"? It's because position, velocity, and acceleration are
all relative... There is no absolute 0 velocity, as there is no point
of reference. So tell me, if science does not claim absolute
velocity, then where is the velocity assumption...

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?

Expantion

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?

Expansion, not Expantion (Sorry)