Is Big Bang Theory False?

[5010]

Just to clarify something. As far as I know there are no blue shift galaxies anywhere in the known observed universe except those in the local cluster. The local cluster includes the great Andromeda Galaxy, as well as the Magellanic clouds and Pinwheel and others. Mainstream science adopts the idea that all clusters are moving away from other clusters but gravity is king within each cluster.

One peculiar thing about scientists is that they often accept one theory over another. There is a popularity contest going on with the theories. Most scientists prefer a simpler explanation over a more complicated one, as if it's prettier in a beauty contest. Also most scientists don't accept incomplete theories. They want to see the math instead of taking the half-baked idea and helping determine the math. Science sometimes gets stuck in a rut and it sometimes takes a maverick like Gallileo or Einstein to shake them out of it.

Whether Arp's theory is true or false, astronomers and physicists are benefitting from his cataogued list of peculiar galaxies. It's good data to chew on because those who look at the common data come up with oversimple theories IMO.

[gallo]

There are actually two different phenomena that show red shifting.

One is in the emission lines where the presence of certain elements in the source is recognized by a bright line in the spectrum. It was the analysis of these lines from which Hubble (and Arp too, as Hubble's assistant) first hypothesized an expanding universe. The idea is really quite simple; in an expanding universe those objects that are farthest away from us should also be moving away from us at a faster rate and therefore show more red shift. This has been tested on some objects whose distance can be measured by other means and has been found to hold true. By the way, this isn't actually the Doppler effect. The objects are not really "moving away from us." The distance between them and us is expanding because of the expansion of the universe and we see that as a red shift in the spectral emission lines. However, the Doppler effect is a pretty close analogy.

The other phenomenon is absorption lines in the spectrum caused as the light from distant stars pass through gas clouds. Normally, the absorption lines caused by an element are at the same place in the spectrum as the emission lines. However, since these gas clouds are closer to us than the emitting star they should be expanding away from us at a slower rate. Therefore, the red shift of the absorption lines should be less than that of the emission line. This has also been found to be almost universally true. In fact, light from very distant objects pass through many gas clouds and the light is absorbed at several different red shifts. Thus we can see a phenomenon known as the Lyman alpha forest, a region of red shifted absorption lines of the same elements. This region is always blueward of the emission lines.

There was an ad hominem attack against scientists by a philosopher in which it was asserted that scientists had closed minds, refused to consider and to test with appropriate vigor any new evidence contrary to current theory. That assertion is, of course, bull. I refer you to Evidence consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts. So it seems that Dr. Arp's hypothesis has been given a fair hearing and, so far, found to be wanting. The whining by our philosopher is quite similar to that of creationists, and for the same reason. Did you notice how the objection to the creationist reference was followed by a comparison to Galileo and the church? I guess philosophers don't study history.

In the above paper the spectra from 400 quasars were examined and in every case but one the absorption lines of the Lyman alpha forest were found to be blueward of the emission lines. In the case of Arp's objects, one set of absorption lines from the quasars corresponded to the recession velocity/distance of the claimed associated galaxies.

Also, comparisons of galaxies and solar systems with orbiting planets to atoms and electrons is a really, really bad analogy. The first understanding to the structure of the atom was described along those lines, but quantum mechanics has changed all of that. The nature of electrons and their relationship to the nucleus is controlled by nuclear forces, not gravity. The forces haven't been united in one grand theory of everything yet.

Additionally, as 5010 points out, some galaxies in the local group may be blue shifted because they are moving towards us. The Andromeda galaxy and our galaxy, the Milky Way, are bound together by gravity, along with other stellar objects. The big bang theory does not state that everything is moving away from us. It states that the universe is expanding and objects not bound to our local group are appear to be receding because of the expansion.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: zynner guess the most important question is whether or not we have a method of verifying the distances between stars by something other than redshift

I have long said that we should send a craft into space solely for the purpose of triangulation.

[gallo]

Anyone interested in how astronomers know how far away stellar objects are can read the following. Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects at Talk.Origins. The article is full of links to more detailed information about much of it.

[SteveA]

Quote by: gallo Anyone interested in how astronomers know how far away stellar objects are can read the following. Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects at Talk.Origins. The article is full of links to more detailed information about much of it.

Thank you for the link.

[gallo]

Quote by: SteveA Thank you for the link.

You're welcome.

And I think that the article, along with the linked more technical sites, answers zynner's question about having other methods besides red shift to determine the distances of stellar objects. How sad that he thought that redshift was the only method of determining the distance to astronomical objects. What makes it sad is not that he was ignorant, but that he was so aggressive in his opposition to a whole field of science that he didn't understand. I have always thought that it was a good idea to learn at least the fundamentals of a subject that I wished to discuss. I don't see a problem with asking sincere questions in an effort to learn. But zynner didn't do that. He took a position of knowledge without the knowledge.

Note to Milton Bradley: the HIPPARCOS satellite was launched in 1989. It measured the parallaxes and other parameters of about 120,000 nearby stars. Please refer to the article I linked in a previous post for a link the the HIPPARCOS catalog. GAIA launch is planned for 2010 to gather information on more distant stars.

Your idea is good but about 26 years late - but also about 5 years early.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gallo Note to Milton Bradley:[/b] the HIPPARCOS satellite was launched in 1989. It measured the parallaxes and other parameters of about 120,000 nearby stars. Please refer to the article I linked in a previous post for a link the the HIPPARCOS catalog. GAIA launch is planned for 2010 to gather information on more distant stars. Your idea is good but about 26 years late - but also about 5 years early.

Thanks for the kudos.


I am actually familiar with this information you provided. It is that the information is contested that gives birth to my idea in the first place.


I think we could solve the problem if my idea was utilized. This is a known formula for calculating great distances that has proven itself time, and time again.

[Kite]

The theory as it stands right now may be proven false or modified as new evidence surfaces, but Arp's steady state has been more or less debunked due to its lack of explanation for CMBS, or Cosmic microwave background radiation. The big bang theory however, predicts the presense of CMBS. Heres a link if your not to familliar with CMBS (like I was)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwa...ound_radiation

[Walmas]

My opinion on the big bang is that it is just the current commonly accepted theroy. There are many other ideas that work and many problems with the big bang. For example if there was a big bang the heavier metals would be shot further meaning that stars farther away from the site of the big bang would have a greater concentration of metal. From what we know this is not true. This could indicate a steady state theory.

[gallo]

Quote by: Walmas My opinion on the big bang is that it is just the current commonly accepted theroy.

It is actually the dominant theory of the origin of the cosmos.
[quote=Walmas]There are many other ideas that work and many problems with the big bang.No. There aren't many, but there are some. Brane theory for example. But none of the others is as well developed as the big bang theory.

Quote by: Walmas For example if there was a big bang the heavier metals would be shot further meaning that stars farther away from the site of the big bang would have a greater concentration of metal.

Why would that happen?

First of all, the big bang would produce mostly hydrogen, some helium, and very little of elements above that. The heavier elements are actually produced in stars. You see, fusion yields energy for elements until you get to iron. Heavier elements are produced by super novas because fusion of anything above iron requires energy. So it really doesn't matter how far you think the big bang would shoot things, the heavier metals are mostly produced by stars anyway.

And, explain to me why something heavier would go farther, please. From my experience with exploding things, the little light things go farther than the big heavy things. Of course, the big bang wasn't really an explosion.

Quote by: Walmas From what we know this is not true. This could indicate a steady state theory.

I think that the steady state theory has been pretty much debunked. In fact, recent research has actually shown that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. But that's one of those problems with the big bang. Nobody knows why and nobody has any good explanations for it.

[northtexan]

Quote by: zynner I ran across some information about a book called Seeing Red by Halton Arp. Arp has put forth an idea that, if true, would prove the Big Bang Theory is false. It would mean the universe is infinite and stable, not finite and expanding. The whole premise of the Big Bang Theory is that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else at high velocity, so there must have been a time in the past when all that velocity got started. The theory is based on the concept that redshift is due to velocity of objects moving away from us (redishift being that light from distant objects tends to be shifted toward the longer, redder wavelengths in the light spectrum). But this idea that redshift is due to velocity is not proven. It is assumed. What if redshift is only partly due to velocity or not at all due to velocity? What if redshift is due mostly to age of the objects being viewed? It would completely change our understanding of the universe. I have to say that this idea makes more sense than the big bang of infinite expansion from essentially nothing. I have always thought that "infinity" means infinity and not boundries. If the redshift as a measure of velocity is the cornerstone of the big bang, and it turns out that redshift is actually something else, then it makes for a much more understandable universe (infinite, stable). It is surprising that mainstream scientists are actively trying to ignore these ideas. Is Arp the Galileo of our time? Here’s a pretty good summary of the idea: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ~ zynner

Actually, the principle of frequency shift with velocity is well-established. Now, nothing in science is proven, but this is a solid part of science.

[northtexan]

Quote by: zynner My understanding of Arp's theory is that he asserts the primary cause of redshift is age, and there is also a secondary (minor) cause, such as distance/velocity. With regard to this planet/star combo, is it the case that: (a) one of them has a uniformly higher redshift than the other, (b) both have about the same, or (c) they fluctuate so that one is higher and then the other is? Also, if everything is supposed to be moving away from us, generally, do these two entities show an ever-increasing redshift over time? ~ zynner

The Doppler Effect links redshift, and other shifts, to velocity. The amount of red shift is determined by the velocity. Is Arp actually attacking the idea of the Doppler Effect?

Now, some time after the Big Bang was hypothesized, other evidence was discovered serendipitously: the three-degree background radiation. This is taken as further evidence for the Big Bang. Does Arp deal with this?

[Walmas]

IF arp is attacking the doppler effect he truley is an idiot. But the doppler effect still has problems. light coming from gravitational wells shows a higher red shift.