A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Facts against BB Theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 14, 09:22 PM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Facts against BB Theory

Large scale structures
----------------------

From the web site "http://bigbangneverhappened.org" In the page "Dr
Wright is wrong"

"Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large
voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These voids
typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and
occur with some regularity[E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network
V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23
(2002)]. These are merely the largest structures commonly observed in
present-day surveys of galaxies. Still larger structures exist, but are
few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size
with the scope of the surveys themselves.

Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of
the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would
have to be moved out of the voids[F. Hoyle and M.S. Vogeley, "Voids in
the Point Source Catalog Survey and the Updated Zwicky Catalog",
Astrophys. J., vol 566, pp.641-651, Feb. 20, 2002].

Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies
indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[L.N. Da Costa et al,
"Redshift-Distance survey of Early-type galaxies: dipole of the velocity
field' Astrophys. J., vol 537, ppL81-L84, July 10, 2000]"

"To give the maximum leeway to the BB theory, we look at work that
assumes some explosive mechanism created the voids, which would be much
faster than if they were formed by gravitational attraction. For a cold
dark matter Big Bang model, the time T in years, of formation of a void
R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final, present-day,
velocity V cm/s is[ J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464]:

T=1.03n-1/4V-1/2 R1/2

For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming the ratio of
baryons to photons, h=6.14x 10-10), T= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long
as the Hubble time. Even if we increase n to reflect current assumptions
about dark matter being some 6 times as abundant as ordinary matter, we
still get 100 Gy, or 7.4 times the Hubble time. This is actually a bit
worse than the figure we arrive at by just diving the distance moved by
the current velocity, which ends up as 6.3 time the Hubble time.

Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized
"cosmological constant" run into the same contradictions, in that they
produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of
assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc[S.
Arbabi-Bidgoli, and V. Muller, arXiv:astrop-ph/0111581 Nov. 30, 2001], a
factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales.
In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are
typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities[J. D. Schmidt, B.S. Ryden
and A.L. Melott, Astrophys. J., vol. 546, pp609-619] which mean that
voids larger than 60Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang
simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those
observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of
over 600km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities.

Thus even with dark mater AND a cosmological constant, it is impossible
for the Big Bang theory to produce voids as large as those observed
today with galactic velocities as small as those today. As was true in
1991, the large-scale structures are too big for the Big Bang. They in
fact must be far older than the "Big Bang".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been insisting in examples of huge structures and objects just
too close to the supposed "bang" for a long time here. I add a new
example I haven't brought up before.

We have the huge cluster of galaxies discovered recently.

In the paper pointed to by the hubble site
(http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2014/22/pdf.pdf)
we can read :

quote
While clusters as massive as ACT-CL J0102?4915 are quite rare at its
redshift,
the cluster does not pose any significant difficulty for the standard
lambda CDM
cosmology provided its mass is in the lower portion of its statistically
allowed
mass range.
end quote

In other words, if we arbitrarily take the lower portion of the
statistically allowed mass range everything is OK. Of course if we do
NOT do that, obviously lambda CDM model is gone for good. This is
typical of the tone of scientific articles in astronomy these days:
Orthodoxy must be observed at all costs even if it implies taking
scientifically wrong procedures like chgoosing the range of a
statistically allowed range.

[Mod. note: there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the error
bars on data are consistent with the standard model. Indeed, it would
be wrong to do anything else -- mjh]

quote
Our Chandra and VLT observations additionally show that ACT-CL
J0102?4915 is
undergoing a major merger with a mass ratio of approximately 2 to 1 between
its subcomponents. We find no analogous high-mass merging systems, with
properties broadly similar to ACT-CL J0102?4915, within any current
large-volume
cosmological N-body simulations (e.g., MICE, Cubep3m).
end quote

In other words: This is the first we discover and it fits barely the
current cosmology if we cherry pick the data. There are none like this
one in the current surveys, but other, bigger surveys or surveys that
explore other parts of the sky could find others like this one.

But with all othodoxy genuflexions, the authors still have the courage
of writing:

quote
We expect that more detailed analysis of large cosmological simulations
and better understanding of the propagation of the initial Gaussian
fluctuations, particularly at high redshift, will be required to compare
with the predictions of a lambda CDM model using massive systems like
ACT-CL J01024915.
end quote

[Mod. note: non-ASCII characters removed. PLEASE DO NOT cut and paste
non-ASCII characters from papers etc -- mjh]
  #2  
Old April 21st 14, 09:26 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Facts against BB Theory

In article , jacob navia
writes:

"To give the maximum leeway to the BB theory, we look at work that
assumes some explosive mechanism created the voids, which would be much
faster than if they were formed by gravitational attraction. For a cold
dark matter Big Bang model, the time T in years, of formation of a void
R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final, present-day,
velocity V cm/s is[ J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464]:

T=1.03n-1/4V-1/2 R1/2

For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming the ratio of
baryons to photons, h=6.14x 10-10), T= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long
as the Hubble time. Even if we increase n to reflect current assumptions
about dark matter being some 6 times as abundant as ordinary matter, we
still get 100 Gy, or 7.4 times the Hubble time. This is actually a bit
worse than the figure we arrive at by just diving the distance moved by
the current velocity, which ends up as 6.3 time the Hubble time.


Since Levin, Freese and Spergel are not sceptical of the big bang, my
assumption is that this analysis misunderstands their work, uses it in a
regime where it is not valid, or deliberately misrepresents it. If this
is really a killer argument against the standard ideas of structure
formation, people who believe it should put their effort in getting a
statement from one or more of these authors: why do they still believe
the standard cosmological model if their own work suggests otherwise?
Unless such a statement is forthcoming, or a documented refusal to
comment, my default explanation will be the one in the first sentence of
this paragraph.
  #3  
Old April 23rd 14, 08:45 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Facts against BB Theory

Le 21/04/2014 10:26, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a ecrit :
Since Levin, Freese and Spergel are not sceptical of the big bang, my
assumption is that this analysis misunderstands their work, uses it in a
regime where it is not valid, or deliberately misrepresents it.


Excuse me but this is not a scientific argument.

In a nutshell: the size of the voids is so huge that using normal speeds
of galaxies it would take several times the "age of the universe" to
void them.

This is a fact that you apparently do not contest...

If you say that the equations are wrong, or "taken out of context" it
would be nice if you would bring something to back it up!

In fact I do not care what the authors think about the big bang or about
the necessity of sending people to the moon, or the size of their
wifes's hats. The equations shown are correct or not? If they are not
please explain how the voids are created.

Thanks for your input.

jacob
  #4  
Old April 23rd 14, 09:40 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Facts against BB Theory

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Le 21/04/2014 10:26, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a ecrit :
Since Levin, Freese and Spergel are not sceptical of the big bang, my
assumption is that this analysis misunderstands their work, uses it in a
regime where it is not valid, or deliberately misrepresents it.


Excuse me but this is not a scientific argument.

In a nutshell: the size of the voids is so huge that using normal speeds
of galaxies it would take several times the "age of the universe" to
void them.

This is a fact that you apparently do not contest...


I looked at the paper (which I had never heard of before), but didn't
read it in detail. It is quite technical. However, all three authors
are major players in cosmology and if they had disproved the big bang or
whatever I'm sure that I would have heard of it before now.

In fact I do not care what the authors think about the big bang or about
the necessity of sending people to the moon, or the size of their
wifes's hats. The equations shown are correct or not? If they are not
please explain how the voids are created.


Let me ask another question. Suppose I take the time to read through
this paper and explain to you why it does not disprove the big bang.
Would that convince you?
  #5  
Old April 24th 14, 09:02 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Facts against BB Theory

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:40:01 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

Let me ask another question. Suppose I take the time to read through

this paper and explain to you why it does not disprove the big bang.

Would that convince you?

--------------------------------------------------

This thread is not about "disproving" the Big Bang model.

It is about the status of the Big Bang model and various
add-ons, with the idea of exploring where our cosmological
assumptions are empirically supported and where they are
little more than speculative guesses backed up mostly by
hype and endless repetition.

Matt Strassler's informed discussion of conventional
cosmological thinking provides an open-minded starting
point for useful discussions.
http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03...-are-reliable/
  #6  
Old April 26th 14, 09:30 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Facts against BB Theory

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

This thread is not about "disproving" the Big Bang model.


Says who? That is certainly the agenda of many contributors.

It is about the status of the Big Bang model and various
add-ons, with the idea of exploring where our cosmological
assumptions are empirically supported and where they are
little more than speculative guesses backed up mostly by
hype and endless repetition.


Such a false dichotomy (either empirically supported or hype) is a
caricature which is not helpful for serious discussion.
  #7  
Old April 28th 14, 09:11 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Facts against BB Theory

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:30:01 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Such a false dichotomy (either empirically supported or hype) is a
caricature which is not helpful for serious discussion.


Rather than airing personal opinions and assumptions, I would like to
see posters actually discuss the status of the Big Bang model, using
Matt Strassler's discussion as a jumping off point.

For example, do people agree with his division of the Big Bang
scenario into red, orange and yellow zones (which characterize the
confidence and testability of different parts of the models main
events)?

What do people think of the cold Inflationary event that precedes the
hot Big Bang?

What are the initial conditions?

How did the infinitesimal cosmos go from very cold
to very hot? Not to mention Why?

[Mod. note: reformatted, quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
  #8  
Old April 28th 14, 09:13 PM posted to sci.astro.research
wlandsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Facts against BB Theory

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:45:53 AM UTC-4, jacob navia wrote:


In a nutshell: the size of the voids is so huge that using normal speeds
of galaxies it would take several times the "age of the universe" to
void them.


One of the spectacular successes of cold dark matter (CDM) cosmology
is that it quantitatively explains the observed void structures.
Because CDM does not interact electromagnetically, gravitational
perturbations in the CDM can grow even in the radiation dominated
early universe. Then because CDM contains most of the gravitational
matter, it can subsequently guide the formation of baryon
perturbations, with the most dense regions forming galaxies. (In a
nutshell: the voids do not form by "explosions" or fast moving
galaxies -- the void structure is there from the beginning.). We can
simulate the formation of structure in the universe. using the
perturbation spectrum derived from the microwave background, and the
known densities of CDM and baryons.

For example, Sutter et al. (2013, http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7155) find
nearly 1000 voids in the Sloan survey, and compare these with their
cosmological simulations, and conclude: "Our void abundances,
ellipticity distributions, and radial profiles all indicate that voids
in theory have the same sizes, shapes, and interior contents as
observed voids."
  #9  
Old April 29th 14, 09:17 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Facts against BB Theory

On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:13:04 PM UTC-4, wlandsman wrote:

One of the spectacular successes of cold dark matter (CDM) cosmology

is that it quantitatively explains the observed void structures.

-------------------------------------------------

What would have been truly spectacular
is if some theory had actually *predicted*
the vast filamentary cosmic web/void
structure before there were observations
that revealed this important cosmological
clue.

As far as I know, no theory did this but I
am wiling to listen to counter-arguments.

To me retrodictive model-building is not
"spectacular", but rather is almost
guaranteed to come up with several good
explanations for the observed phenomenon,
given a considerable number of motivated
and talented theorists.
  #10  
Old May 1st 14, 01:11 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Facts against BB Theory

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:13:04 PM UTC-4, wlandsman wrote:

One of the spectacular successes of cold dark matter (CDM) cosmology
is that it quantitatively explains the observed void structures.

-------------------------------------------------

What would have been truly spectacular
is if some theory had actually *predicted*
the vast filamentary cosmic web/void
structure before there were observations
that revealed this important cosmological
clue.


In a sense, this is what happened. The theory is Newtonian gravitation.
It just happened that observations were more advanced than computing
technology, so they were discovered before they were simulated and hence
predicted from the theory. You can be sure that Newtonian gravity was
not modified in any way in order to fit the observations.

As far as I know, no theory did this but I
am wiling to listen to counter-arguments.

To me retrodictive model-building is not
"spectacular", but rather is almost
guaranteed to come up with several good
explanations for the observed phenomenon,
given a considerable number of motivated
and talented theorists.


In some cases, yes, but in this case, all one needs is Newtonian gravity
and the background metric of the expanding universe. The general
structure (filaments and voids) is quite generic. Just start with your
particles and let gravity act.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacing BigBang theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 3 September 29th 11 08:38 PM
How do you shut up Hagar and Sgall over Healthcare? Just the facts,nothing but the facts......... vtcapo[_2_] Misc 0 November 12th 09 01:29 PM
MECO theory to replace black-hole theory #41 ;3rd edition book: ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY [email protected] Astronomy Misc 8 May 20th 09 01:17 AM
Farm Theory, Also Called, Spring Theory, Yard Theory And TheEvolution Of Our Universe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 September 29th 08 01:11 PM
Facts of the Universe vs the BB theory Ralph Hertle Misc 3 November 4th 07 11:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.