Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P 95 Replies latest watchtower bible

PaulJ

If there was a big bang... do you think everyone stood well back?
DannyBloem

Hey there Danny and Elsewhere, don't stop now. I'm quite enjoying your back and forth tete-a-tete.
Have to sleep sometimes, we ahave some time difference :)
I was not successful in identifying the points of light surrounding the primary object, and therefore could not comment on their respective distances either. I looked at literally dozens of sites to find such info and nothing shed any light on this. Perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of us.
Because we are in our galaxy with lots of stars in each direction that you look you will find stars (not in each direction a equal amounth by the way) So the points of light are very probably all stars. Maybe one or two could be other galaxies, but they have a more fuzzy form. It is easy to examine if it is a star when you use a spectroscope. You can see what the star is made of and the temperature of the star. A spectroscopic analysis can always show if it is a single star or a whole galaxy of stars. You do not need the redshift for this.
See my picture of the Andromeda. There are two satelite galaxies, but it is clearly that they differ from the stars. Stars are more pointlike.
Danny, if you look to Velocity (Redshift) as an explanation, are you suggesting that if a quasar appears to be in front of a galaxy (nearer), and the galaxy has a lesser redshift, that therefore it is because the galaxy is travelling at a lesser velocity away from us, and so we get this lower reading? And therefore, the implication is that the quasar could still be farther away?? Please clarify what you are suggesting.
I do not really suggest this, as I do not think it is very likely.
First of all, from this and some other examples it seems that there is a connection between some quasars and some normal galaxies. There is also some support of this in observations made in radio wavelengths.
So this quasar is not in front or closer by then the galaxy, it is near the galaxy, and has about the same distance. So probably at least a few others.
Anyway, we have to ask if the red shift of the quasar is so high, and it is closer than expected, then what other process gives the quasar the red shift.
A possibilty is that it is moving away from us. Red shift is speed, this can be speed due to expansion of the universe or actual speed of the object. So if this object is moving for some reason at half the speed of light away from us, it would give this result in observation.
However I can not see any reason why this object whould travel so fast. So I don't think this is a good explanation, but it is a possible one however.
The second thing is that red shift can also be caused by gravitational pull. If this quasar is a very compact heavy object, its radiation would have a redshift even if it is not moving. So this could explain it.
There can maybe also be another process at atomic scale, causing a red shift.
Does this invalidate the relation between red shift and distance. No, not at all. This relation is shown to exists. It proves that there are maybe other factors, specially in quasars that have to be included in this relation. It can also mean that some or maybe all quasars are not as far as we though.

An anology: There is probably a relation betwen the temperature of the tires of a car, and the speed of the car. (in equal conditions, same kind of cars etc). Supose you have a formula for this (probably a notr very simple one) and it allows you to calculate or estimate the speed my measuring the temperature.
Now we see a motorbike come along and messure that the speed by the temperature of the tires. But this motorbike is traveling alongside a car, and we estimated of course a very different speed. The motor is lighter, different tires etc.
So what is our conclusion now: Cars do actually not move (there was no big bang) or the relation seem to be more complex and in case of cars it works out find, but in case for a motorbike we need to add some things?
Danny
DannyBloem

If there was a big bang... do you think everyone stood well back?
PaulJ, no of course not, that explains why we did not hear anything from God since.....
Rod P

PaulJ,
Not sure, but just in case you might be wondering:
Big Bang Theory - Common MisconceptionsThere are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.
Rod P.
Sad emo

I think all this might be a bit over my head but I love looking at all the pictures anyway!
I clicked on one of the Google ads in an idle moment and came up with this:
http://www.cosmic-cycle.com/pages/welcome.php
It seems to have a slightly different view on the big bang theory without accepting or disproving it. Thought you might want to check it out (the 'concepts' section possibly the most useful) - then again it might just be a crackpot idea.
My own humble, not very scientific view at the moment is that there could have been a big bang - but something must have caused it. And would you call the formation of supernovae/galaxies (not sure which - but when a star explodes and creates loads of little stars and planets) the result of 'little' big bangs? I might not input much to this thread but will be following closely to try and learn something! Thanks to you all!!
DannyBloem

Problems with using Cepheid variables to calculate distances:
1) Their luminosity can be diminished by dust between stars. p. 56-57
yes but you can seeif there is just between them by spectral analysis. And as you continue it can be corrected for it.
To compensate for this “astronomers either observe...(them) at infrared wavelengths where the effects are less significant,” or they “observe them at many different wavelengths so they can assess the effects and correct for them.” p. 57
Translation: Although Cepheids are what we use as a standard candle to measure distances, they really are not very useful in determining whether or not the universe is expanding (or at what rate) because to do this, we must accurately determine the distances to far off galaxies. And even though Cepheids are what we use to do this, we can’t do it very accurately because Cepheids are only useful in nearby galaxies
We can't give the distances in three digits that is right. But the relation between red shift and distance is clearly shown in those galaxies that could be measured. Farther away galaxies are based on extrapolation.
The method is maybe not very accurate, that doesn't make it invalid. You will get distances with like +- 10% or so.
Do you see what I am getting at?
Yes probably, but maybe you should tell us a bit more, where you getting at...
“Nevertheless, astronomers have developed several methods for determining distances to remote galaxies.”
But “Because many of these techniques must be calibrated using the Cepheid distance scale” they are considered secondary distance indicators...Yet scientists cannot reach a consensus about which, if any, secondary indicators are reliable.”
Not all are. I give some of the methods of calculating distances above. They all seem to fit the red shift expanding universe theory resonable. So I do not see any problem to throw the whole theory away because of some not very accurate. However how futher the galaxies the uncertaincy of the exact distance increases.
Rod P, is there any more to say about the distances etc? I have given a lot of information about it now.
Do you want to make a point about some other things of the big bang? Like background radiation or others?
Danny
Rod P

Danny,
No, not right now. There are many other areas we need to cover, but for now I think we need to put one set of problems to bed before introducing a whole bunch more. It's a bit like trying to juggle too many balls all at once.
I do apologize, but I am really involved with some clients on my accounting work right now, so it is hampering my ability to sit on this thread all day long. I will try to fit things in as best I can as we go along. I do need to spend some time on your responses, and then I will get back to you.
I do appreciate the time and effort you and others are putting into this topic.
In the meantime, do feel free to carry on if you have the inclination to add a few other comments on this topic, and if others jump in and want to ask questions or debate. I meant this thread to be for everyone, and like I have said, I have a lot of questions myself, and certainly do not pretend to have all the answers.
I am curious about one thing though. Have you spent a lot of time in the field studying the stars and studied astronomy and/or cosmology formally to any extent? You seem to be up on a lot of things here.
Rod P.
Elsewhere

Yes, it is true that making measurements with Cepheid variables and the Red Shift can be off, but so far they are among the most reliable means for measuring the distance of objects very far away. Bottom line: We have no other way of measuring their distances. We know that on average the distances measured are reasonably correct because of the way we have been able to identify clusters of galaxies and even the super filaments that spread across the universe. If the Red Shift was completely unreliable, we would end up with a evenly random distribution of galaxies across the universe with no super structures visible.
In the end, I just have a very hard time accepting the idea that a quasar is near a given galaxy simply because the two object happen to be in the same line of site. In my opinion, making such an assertion is very irresponsible on the part of the cosmologists doing that.
Saying such a thing would be no different than saying that all stars in all constellations are at the same distance from the earth, which we know is not true. Just because the stars appear to be grouped together does not mean they are at the same distance... this is just an optical illusion to the human eye because our depth perception is not sensitive enough to detect the differences in distances of the stars.
Rod P

Elsewhere,
I am going to be commenting further on the question of the likelihood of these quasars being near a given galaxy. But in the meantime, I would like to say that the statements by these Astronomers (not Cosmologists) are not being made on the basis that they are in the same "line of sight". "Line of site" works for things really close up, not for galaxies and quasars, because they are simply too far away to do that.
I also have a difficult time attributing their observations to a mere "optical illusion to the human eye because our depth perception is not sensitive enough to detect the differences in distances of the stars." There is absolutely no way that anyone can look at galaxies and quasars in terms of the human eye when these heavenly bodies are that far away.
Allow me to highlight a couple of paragraphs from the last article posted above, that provides clues as to how the group of international astronomers came up with their observations:
Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle:

Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?
By Kim McDonald An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?
Notice that they refer to the light spectrum of the quasar, and that is the conventional method utilized to help determine that it is supposed to be billions of light years away, according to conventional Big Bang wisdom.
The team’s findings......... raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that the “high redshifts” in the light spectra of quasars meant these objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and, therefore, billions of light years away.
.Again, these astronomers are using the same criterion of the "redshift" as all other astronomers use. There's nothing maverick or irresponsible here that I can see.
“Most people have wanted to argue that quasars are right at the edge of the universe,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team. “But too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental. If this quasar is physically associated with this galaxy, it must be close by.”
Here you see them stating a conditional claim "IF" the quasar is physically associated.....
Then they go on to explain the "Doppler Effect" which again, is conventional.
Astronomers have used redshifts and the known brightness of stars as fundamental yardsticks to measure the distances to stars and galaxies. However, Burbidge said they have been unable to account for the growing number of quasi-stellar objects, or quasars—intense concentrations of energy believed to be produced by the swirling gas and dust surrounding massive black holes—with high redshifts that have been closely associated with nearby galaxies.
“If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them like bullets or cannon balls,” he added.
Here is being explained what they have found so puzzling, within the framework of the conventional approach of using redshifts and known brightness of stars. If this redshift differential between the quasar and that of the galaxy had not been observed, then astronomers would have attributed the galaxies would have been the origin of the quasars. I just don't see that as an irresponsible statement, especially since they are stating things like this at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, and also publishing this in the Astrophysical Journal. It this was so wrong or irresponsible, they would have been laughed out of the room by their peers, and I doubt this would have been able to be published.
“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said Geoffrey Burbidge.
Margaret Burbidge, who reported the team’s finding at the meeting, said the quasar was first detected by the ROSAT X-ray satellite operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and found to be closely associated with the nucleus of the spiral galaxy NGC 7319. That galaxy is unusual because it lies in a group of interacting galaxies called Stephan’s Quintet.
Using a three-meter telescope operated by the University of California at Lick Observatory in the mountains above San Jose and the university’s 10-meter Keck I telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, she and her team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy.
Here is described the equipment that was used for the observations and the measurements for the redshifts of the galaxy and the quasar. They were in two different locations. I find it difficult to conclude here that the problem lies with optical illusions and line of sight. It all seems pretty normal in the life of an astronomer, and the fact is, they are simply reporting what is being observed: the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy. What would possibly make them say that. Obviously, they must have noticed some activity, some perturbations with the interstellar gas within the galaxy, and it appeared to be the result of the quasar influencing it. Is is irresponsible to report this? I don't think so. And again, I don't think this is about optical illusion and line of site, but rather the measurements and calculations that had to be used to come up with this, again within the framework of conventional astronomical methodology.
Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy, its light shining through the galaxy near its center by “an accident of projection.”
Again, they have observed that this quasar is only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus of the galaxy. Further, the interstellar gas do not appear to shroud or obscure the quasar. That makes it a reasonable assumption that the quasar is not lieing behind the galaxy, or that the quasar's light is not shining thru the near centre of the galaxy by some "accident of projection". Let us not forget, that this international team is testifying of these observations to their peers. I hardly think that they would be making outrageous and irresponsible claims to them, and risk the destruction of their individual professional reputations. I think instead, that they are reporting exactly in accordance with their observations and made measurements in accordance with the generally accepted astronomical science, to people of their profession, and what they are really saying here is "Gentlemen and ladies, we have a problem!"
So what I'm saying in all this Elsewhere, I am very doubtful that these people have been irresponsible in their statements, and I believe that what they have observed, measured and reported are not because of optical illusions and line of sight.
What then, do we do about this? Well, maybe what would be a good position to take is that we suspend judgement for the time being, then all of us keep open minds as to several possibilities. Notice I did not say "any possiblility". I don't mean gullible or logically inconsistent or voodoo imaginations. It is about being open to the possibility of other Reality Models.
Sometimes this can be unnerving, even messy, because we all have certain facts and theories in our individual heads already. To have to redefine all this is something like taking all the pieces of a jigsaw that we thought fit together into a nice neat picture, and rip it all apart, and now have to put them back together again but into a different arrangement because the picture has now changed. Maybe all the pieces are there and are valid, but just need to fit in a different way. It may be messy and confusing for a while, but in the end we may find it comes back together in a brand new fresh picture that looks even better than it did before. In the process, we may have to throw some of the old pieces away because they are no longer necessary.
Rod P.
DannyBloem

Rod,
No, not right now. There are many other areas we need to cover, but for now I think we need to put one set of problems to bed before introducing a whole bunch more. It's a bit like trying to juggle too many balls all at once.
I agree with that. There are a lot of comments I would like to make on the article of Lerner and Alt, but I will wait until we are ready with this first point about distances.
I am curious about one thing though. Have you spent a lot of time in the field studying the stars and studied astronomy and/or cosmology formally to any extent? You seem to be up on a lot of things here.
Cosmology was part of my study, and I did some research in the radio astronomy field. VLBI observations.
But I do notpretend to have all the answers also. Danny

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

Share this