A Big Bang conundrum

A Big Bang conundrum

I’ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed, and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I’ve collected the topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the popular Big Bang model.

The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from the observer’s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn’t jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far, this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I’ll call "Galaxy A" for illustrative purposes.

Let’s go back and take a look at deep field space as a spherical entity, with observers on Earth in center of this sphere, with seen objects extending out in all directions. Looking toward Galaxy A, the observed light originates from a time when the universe was relatively young and small. But looking in the opposite direction from Galaxy A, observers also see 13-billion-years-old galaxies which originated from the same small Big Bang. There is no experimental nor logical explanation for the above event to happen within the Big Bang model, and the phrase; "The Big Bang happened everywhere" does not seem to explain it either. Hence, it stands to reason that objects opposite from Galaxy A are actually 26 billion light years away from the compact small universe.

But that doesn’t make sense and here’s why. Let’s examine the galaxy, the one blasted far ahead of the Milky Way, and call it "Galaxy X." The light rays coming from Galaxy X are coming back toward our observing Milky Way while the Milky Way is at the same time hurtling toward the rays. So if the Milky Way has traveled 13 billion light years from the infant universe, and the observed light from Galaxy X is 13 billion years old when seen by astronomers, X and its neighbors must be 26 billion light years away from the young and small universe. Those galaxies have traveled twice as far as the Milky Way has traveled from the small universe. How did Galaxy X and it’s neighbors get way out there in 13 billion years if they are from the small confined entity of galaxies? They would have to travel far faster than the speed of light to do so.



Let’s also examine the validity of the red shift observation, the one that scientists used to reinforce and ultimately validate the Big Bang theory. It’s a generally accepted concept that the universe is larger than what the observed view indicates. The Milky Way is not in the center of the universe but rather in the middle of the observable section of universe. Hence, its inevitable that relative to the observer the view of galaxies in expanding motion are not only moving away but also moving sideways. This extra motion may add an uncounted factor to the true meaning of the red shift observation.

Also, those 13-billion-year-old light rays that are being observed have traveled an incredibly long distance -- through cosmic dust and gravitational fields, including neighboring galaxies and finally penetrate the denser interstellar system of the Milky Way. Add to the distortion related to the light’s origin the fact that on the receiving end, observers are also in linear and rotational motion, via the nature of the Milky Way, the our solar system and the earth itself. While the adapted tracking system used by scientists is designed to guarantee a steady image via long exposure, data collected from a spectrometer does not benefit from a similar treatment. It stands to reason that all of the above factors independently or combined may alter the interpretation of the red shift phenomenon, and one day that may change the understanding of the universe..

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
it seems to me that observations of deep space
indicate the long-discounted steady-state
universe theory makes more sense than the
popular Big Bang model.

How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of entropy?

The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the
universe lies in what happened after the
universe formed, when it was much smaller
than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
see in deep field space is the observable
universe as it was at the time when light rays
were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
ago.

Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on this side of the CMBR curtain.

According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-
years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
directions from any point on the globe from
the observer's position within the Milky Way
galaxy.

Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your starting point, perhaps many times.

But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time
line.

Yes, it does.

During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
the location of the young and small universe.

No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things.

Now, in the present location, observers are
looking back to where the Milky Way came from

No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads. Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that matches "right", no matter how far out we look.

and seeing light rays from galaxies that were
also located in that small universe. So far,
this can still make sense,

No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense.

Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic, let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe displayed:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.... four parts. Also:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...q.html#bestfit
.... and:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

David A. Smith

Originally Posted by dlzc

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
it seems to me that observations of deep space
indicate the long-discounted steady-state
universe theory makes more sense than the
popular Big Bang model.

How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of entropy?

The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the
universe lies in what happened after the
universe formed, when it was much smaller
than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
see in deep field space is the observable
universe as it was at the time when light rays
were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
ago.

Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on this side of the CMBR curtain.

According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-
years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
directions from any point on the globe from
the observer's position within the Milky Way
galaxy.

Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your starting point, perhaps many times.

But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time
line.

Yes, it does.

During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
the location of the young and small universe.

No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things.

Now, in the present location, observers are
looking back to where the Milky Way came from

No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads. Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that matches "right", no matter how far out we look.

and seeing light rays from galaxies that were
also located in that small universe. So far,
this can still make sense,

No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense.

Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic, let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe displayed:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.... four parts. Also:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...q.html#bestfit
.... and:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

David A. Smith

I think your analyses are a bit hasty, if you read it again and more thoughtfully the outcome may be different.
JK

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....

I think your analyses are a bit hasty,

I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum.

if you read it again and more thoughtfully the
outcome may be different.

No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about topics you clearly are not interested in researching.

David A. Smith

Originally Posted by dlzc

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....

I think your analyses are a bit hasty,

I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum.

if you read it again and more thoughtfully the
outcome may be different.

No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about topics you clearly are not interested in researching.

David A. Smith

The observer cannot see a 13 billion years-old light unless the observer is located 13 billion light- years-away from the point the light was emitted. How this event works with the Big-Bang model, where the emitted light and the observer originated from the same young and small universe. Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an observer and the emitted light rays traveled near same speed and near parallel paths, until 13 billion years later the Milky-Way is observing these old lights. This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels only 300 km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang model, this speed is not enough to reach the position for observing 13 billion years old light rays. Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old lights are not coming from the small, young and compact universe.
Jaakko Kurhi

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:48:35 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
The observer cannot see a 13 billion years-old light
unless the observer is located 13 billion light-years
away from the point the light was emitted. How this
event works with the Big-Bang model, where the
emitted light and the observer originated from the
same young and small universe.

The CMBR light was emitted from a nearly fully -ized Universe. Inflation lets you outrun the light. Besides, the light could go round and round a closed Universe.

Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an
observer and the emitted light rays traveled near
same speed and near parallel paths, until 13
billion years later the Milky-Way is observing
these old lights.

"Only" way? No, clearly you operate from complete ignorance. You choose to spout, rather than learn.

This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels
only 300 km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang
model, this speed is not enough to reach the
position for observing 13 billion years old light
rays.

"Conundrum", no.

Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old
lights are not coming from the small, young and
compact universe.

So sad you spend time justifying, rather than learning.

David A. Smith

Originally Posted by JAAKKO KURHI

I think your analyses are a bit hasty, if you read it again and more thoughtfully the outcome may be different.
JK

During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
the location of the young and small universe.

“No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things.”

So, how can a slow-moving Milky Way be as an observer of the 13 billion years-old light, if both the light rays and the Milky Way originates from the same small entity? , The moving speed of the Milky Way is not fast enough to place it to the right position for observing that old light.
Dear David, because of your communicating format is not very informative, perhaps a related link to this subject, that explains, how a fast inflating universe can be observed from the point of view of the slow-moving Milky Way, should be truly helpful.

Jaakko Kurhi

On 05/04/2013 11:06 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
A Big Bang conundrum

I’ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the
subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of
knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed,
and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I’ve collected the
topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your
thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the
long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
popular Big Bang model.

The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is
now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What
astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was
at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
the observer’s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn’t
jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion,
the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location
of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers
are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays
from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to
stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I’ll call "Galaxy A" for
illustrative purposes.

What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.

The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
*faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
224 times the speed of light!

After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of light.

Yousuf Khan

Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_]

On 05/04/2013 11:06 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
A Big Bang conundrum

I’ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the
subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of
knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed,
and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I’ve collected the
topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your
thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the
long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
popular Big Bang model.

The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is
now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What
astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was
at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
the observer’s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn’t
jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion,
the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location
of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers
are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays
from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to
stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I’ll call "Galaxy A" for
illustrative purposes.

What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.

The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
*faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
224 times the speed of light!

After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of light.

Yousuf Khan

When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored. For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive action.

Jaakko Kurhi

A Big Bang conundrum


Think of it like this. When the big bang "banged" it did not start
from single point.