Is Big Bang Theory False?

[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

[Sonart]

"Halton Arp is on the Editorial Board of Apeiron, a distinctly unorthodox journal of physics and astronomy."

.

[zynner]

Ad hominems prove something?

Don't shoot the messenger.

~ zynner

[Sandy]

Please tell me he doesn't believe in Creationism. That would be too much.

[Sonart]

Quote by: zynner Ad hominems prove something?

Ad hominem??? What are you talking about? I quoted directly from a page linked by your source. Do you actually have a problem with that?

Here's another direct quote... the title of the website...

quackGRASS ROOTS
Reason, Egoism, Capitalism—spreading underground

Sounds pretty scientific to me. :rolleyes: If you have a problem defending the sources of your information, don't blame me, and it's not an ad hominem to quote directly from your own source.

Quote by: Sandy Please tell me he doesn't believe in Creationism. That would be too much.

Not that I can tell, Sandy. He's simply someone who's ideas are just about 180 degrees opposite everyone else regarding the nature of the universe. Who knows, maybe he's right. Personally, he seems to be a crackpot.

.

[belverron]

Quote by: zynner Is Arp the Galileo of our time?

Probably not.

[SteveA]

Unless laws of nature changed over time it would seem that if the age of universe was relatively infinite that all the stars would have burned out long ago and likely most everything would have fallen into a black hole at some point in time. So either you'd need a way to reverse/undo fusion and gravitational effects.

The universe could be seen as infinite even the way it is. If it eventually collapses again, then it could be a cycle that repeats (whether or not the evolution of the universe repeats identically would be a different question). One theory is that we're inside a black hole and that the universe is constantly evolving as we merge with other other universes and then we in turn form black holes, that are effectively other universes that split off and these later merge again etc. like bubbles in foam. So from that point of view, each black hole is a separate (isolated?) universe that has a limited life span but from a wider persepctive it's still a continual process and in that event it seems less likely that things would repeat. This is just speculation though.

[RickSp]

Halton Arp is an interesting character. By his credentials, he is a serious atronomer, and his theories are based on scientific observations, even if they are in conflict with the "conventional wisdom." It is unfortunate that the original website made him look like something of a flake. Here is a discussion of his theories from another site:

The Arp Controversy Revisited - Concerning the Morphology of Galactic Evolution

From his own site: Halton Arp Bio

[zynner]

Sonart,

You attacked the person and ignored the evidence he provided for his argument.

That's an ad hominem.

You do it a lot.
- - - - -

Sandy,

You obviously didn't bother to read it. The ultimate conclusion one would reach if this theory were true is that the universe has always existed. That takes away any concept of a god as "creator." So, I doubt he is trying to prove such a thing with this theory.

But, you didn't bother to read it or even find out anything about it, so I understand why you would jump to an uninformed conclusion -- and yet another ad hominem.
- - - - -

SteveA,

The point of Arp's idea is that the current explanation of redshift is wrong (or mostly wrong). If so, then that leaves anything that flows from that wrong explanation open to re-examination, as well.

We already know that stars burn out or die out over time. If there is a process such that new stars form, go through a life cycle, die out, return the basic material to "the universe" and new stars are formed starting the cycle again, then the burn out issue would not be a problem. We know there is a cycle of life here on Earth for organic material. We know that the weather constantly creates new storms (like hurricanes) that have a life cycle of sorts. It doesn't seem such a stretch that galaxies and other matter in the universe do the same sort of thing.

Also, keep in mind that black holes are an assumption. They have not been (probably can't be) proven. But if the mainstream concepts of how the universe works have a fundamental flaw (explanation of redshift), then that opens the possibility that there is no such thing as black holes. It changes much of what is commonly thought about the universe. Much of what is commonly accepted is speculation, some of which might be based on false premises, and some of which doesn't seem to fit with the evidence. The key is: what theory really fits the evidence?

I bring it up because I had never heard of Arp's idea, though it fits with what I have always thought made sense. I'm not a scientist, just interested in the truth. I did not know that there are competing theories that seem to explain the evidence better and that are apparently being shut out of mainstream science for reasons other than the best interests of science itself.
- - - - -

Mostly, I'm interested in what some of the more knowledgable scientist types around here think of it. And in forming an opinion about it, is that opinion based on the evidence first, or on the dogma of a particular theory first?

~ zynner

[Averroes]

I am not a scientist, but a philosopher, by training, so I cannot comment on the specific accuracy of Mr. Arp's theories. But I have to say that a scientist that is unwilling to reconsider previous assumptions in light of new evidence is of no greater use to science than a judge who will not consider all the evidence is to justice.
As to the snide allusions directed at Mr. Arp, to allude to the supposed quality of the journal could be seen as any of the 'converse accident', 'petitio principii', or 'argumentum ad hominem' fallacies - and the fact that the journal is referenced does not change that. Bringing up creationism is a simple 'red herring'.
The question of whether Mr. Arp is correct or not may not be answered for years. Hopefully his theories will be given a fair hearing by the scientific community. Unfortunately, the batting average of said community has been rather poor lately, with the public response too often being variations on the 'argumentum ad numerum' and 'argumentum ad populum' fallacies. The closemindedness of the scientific community these days resembles that of the church in the time of Copernicus and Galileo, to my mind. It is not necessary for the scientific community to welcome such a challenge with open arms - it would be ridiculous to expect such - but it is not unreasonable to expect the scientific community to test this new theory with all appropriate vigour, as well as an open mind.

[SteveA]

Arp's view doesn't seem to imply a steady state universe but still implies something like a big bang (though possibly not in an expanding space).

If we look out in space and the further away we look things are shifter redder, then if that instead implies newer systems, then Arp would still be suggesting that the universe had a beginning, as stars that are further away are still viewed as 'newer' under that view. There's also an additional possible paradox to this - do we have any examples of far away/old stars that are blue? If all far stars appeared red (I'll assume we have ways of calculating the distance of stars without relying on redshift information) then there would seem to be a conflict, as stars should still age even if they are distant. I guess the most important question is whether or not we have a method of verifying the distances between stars by something other than redshift - possibly via. galactic clusters? (Triangulation would seem rather difficult unless we had sensitive equipment far apart in space, but I don't know how good the technology is)

Also, regarding that specific picture, it's not impossible to see it as simply a coincidence that their seperate outlines happen to appear connected. Look at the outlines of both sections and imagine where the edge between the two objects would be and it's not too difficult to say it's just a coincidence that they happen to be at a distance apart that makes them appear connected.

Also it seems very unlikely that redshift information is due to the age of matter because we've used redshift informationt to detect large planets orbitting other suns. This gives a wobble to the movement of the sun that is detected as a sinusoidal red/blue shift pattern. So at least the doppler shifting idea pans out for the movement of nearby stars from what I'd guess.

[zynner]

Averroes,

Welcome to the forum.

============================

SteveA,

Quote by: SteveA Arp's view doesn't seem to imply a steady state universe but still implies something like a big bang (though possibly not in an expanding space).

I disagree.

If we look out in space and the further away we look things are shifter redder,

Arp is saying that this is not true. It's just an assumption that things farther out are more redshifted. That's the whole point.

then if that instead implies newer systems, then Arp would still be suggesting that the universe had a beginning, as stars that are further away are still viewed as 'newer' under that view.

No, he's saying that it is only an assumption that redshift is due to velocity (and distance). He is asserting that that assumption is false; the redshift is due to age, not distance.

There's also an additional possible paradox to this - do we have any examples of far away/old stars that are blue?

He cites Andromeda as being blueshifted, which he says means it is older than our system. Mainstream science says the blueshift is due to it moving towards us. But does it make any sense that anything at all would be moving towards us if everything in the universe is supposed to be moving apart from everything else?

If all far stars appeared red (I'll assume we have ways of calculating the distance of stars without relying on redshift information)

I don't know. That might be a false assumption on your part.

I 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 agree that this is important. I don't know the answer.

Also, regarding that specific picture, it's not impossible to see it as simply a coincidence that their seperate outlines happen to appear connected.

That's exactly what mainstream scientists say. Arp's reply is that they are just assuming that these things are far apart due to their bias of a misunderstanding of redshift. Furthermore, he says there are far too many examples of this to just be a coincidence. Finally, he and others claim that certain mainstream scientists, such as those at NASA, routinely crop photos to make their case. Why would do they do that (if they do)?

Oh, and Arp also has at least one photo of a higher redshift quasar that appears to be inbetween us and a lower redshift galaxy. That would impossible unless the mainstream explanation of redshift is false.

Also it seems very unlikely that redshift information is due to the age of matter because we've used redshift informationt to detect large planets orbitting other suns. This gives a wobble to the movement of the sun that is detected as a sinusoidal red/blue shift pattern. So at least the doppler shifting idea pans out for the movement of nearby stars from what I'd guess.

I'm not familiar with that.

Do the planets have higher or lower redshift than the star they orbit?

If higher, could it mean they are younger than the star?

~ zynner

[SteveA]

They use the doppler shift to find large planets orbitting other stars. The planet itself exerts a gravitational force that moves the star (they truly orbit each other, though the star doesn't move by as large an amount).

This circling motion in the star moves it closer and further from us in a certain period. This back and forth motion relative to us creates a fluctuation in the doppler shift.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/planet-hunting2.htm

If doppler shift were solely due to the age of a star, then this would imply the star is getting older and younger as the large planet orbits around it, extremely unlikely. So at least Arp must agree that a doppler shift occurs due to velocity.

They can also do photometric searches, where as a planet moves in front of the star, it blocks some of the light and this can be seen as a periodic dimming of the star. So these two techniques can be used together to provide a secondary method of verifying that the color shift is due to velocity and not the star growing older and younger.

Now I do agree that it's possible that physical laws have changed over time, so possibly age has an effect but again that doesn't really imply a stationary universe but one that has evolved over time (with likely some event similar to the Big Bang, though again, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be part of a larger cycle).

[Sonart]

Quote by: zynner You attacked the person and ignored the evidence he provided for his argument.

I did no such thing and you're a goddam liar. I quoted from his own website, word for word, and completely without comment. Period.

Show me exactly where, when you accused me of ad hom, I "attacked the person" or how I "ignored the evidence". Either do that or shut your lying yap!

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said:
I did no such thing and you're a goddam liar. I quoted from his own website, word for word, and completely without comment. Period.

Show me exactly where, when you accused me of ad hom, I "attacked the person" or how I "ignored the evidence". Either do that or shut your lying yap!

I say:

OOOOOooooo.
Sounds like somebody is having a bad day.......(not that I never have, or do)

Anyway, I think you are guilty here.

YOU may not have insulted, but your quote did. The quote couldn't insult him in this forum, if you didn't copy and paste it here. Isn't that guilt by default?

I'll shut up now.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Osborn YOU may not have insulted, but your quote did. The quote couldn't insult him in this forum, if you didn't copy and paste it here. Isn't that guilt by default?

Okay, I guess I owe zynner an apology. Ad Hominem simply means referring to the person rather than the content of his arguement, and my intention was indeed to use the writers own identification against him.

But if using the writers own simple identifying statement is considered an attack, then the writer has his own problems.

Still, my sincerest apologies, zynner, for flying off the handle. I took ad hom to mean "insult" or "personal attack" and I didn't see using the writers own verbatim text as a possible insult. It was, however, referencing the person rather than his arguement.

.

[zynner]

Quote by: SteveA They use the doppler shift to find large planets orbitting other stars. The planet itself exerts a gravitational force that moves the star (they truly orbit each other, though the star doesn't move by as large an amount).

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

[zynner]

Sonart,

Apology accepted.

~ zynner

[SteveA]

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?

The light from the planet isn't detectable as far as I know with current technology. It only reflects a very small amount of light from the star (likely less than 1/1000 the intenisty). So they're only measuring the red/blue fluctations of the star.

Also, if everything is supposed to be moving away from us, generally, do these two entities show an ever-increasing redshift over time? ~ zynner

This is a good question. It depends on how the expansion proceeds. Don't quote me but I believe under the current view, yes, they'd continually be seen as moving away faster and becoming dimmer/redder.

Here's a good link I found that seems to be very informative and addresses many conjectures (generally by showing why they are seen as discredited) but still seems to indicate where some of the potential conflicts lie.

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

Here's a wikipedia entry for some of these non-standard views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

Basically everything seems to hinge on whether or not these objects are truly gravitationally interacting (which would imply they are near each other), or whether the combination of gravitational lensing and statistical sampling can explain them.

Here's a quote from Arp:

"Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being optical illusions caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a single straight line. Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small."

and the link http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

But if you look at the pictures, the objects aren't physically touching, but isolated and on top of it the object affected by gravitional lensing would necessarily be further away which would imply redshifted and that's exactly what's seen.

A way to prove the expanding universe theory wrong would be to find a blue system that was gravitationally lensed around a red shifted/closer system, but that doesn't appear to have been found by him or I'm certain he would have included it as a perfect example.

Of course there are new insights to be made on how the universe works, but my guess is he's seeing Kennedy when it's simply a shadow - http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html (There's a shadow that looks like the face of J.F.K. but it's just coincidence, just like if you look at enough clouds you'll find something interesting). Mostly it seems like they need to do some detailed statistical analysis to see if things are more than simply pure coincidence but the impression seems to be that there aren't enough unbiased samples to do this.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Idiot!!! You're wrong. lol j/k You should all see how planets and stars look like huge models of our view of the atom. Atoms, in our perspective, probably have their "planets" circle around them at very great speeds. (very great speeds? doesnt sound like proper english!) But is tha orbits just circles or do the cover like a sphere shaped orbit around the center? I would love to know