One of the discussion topics in the pub after the CCC2 presentations (and this was the best bit) was

What will it take to bring the Big Bang down?

Several think it is wrong but what do y'all think will finally bring it down? - discuss.
Lyndon

To me it seems that if current trends continue, it will just evolve to something else bit by bit. There had been severe problems before, but as we have seen, they just make up a new... well, I don't know what to call it... "concept" to make the theory fit again. I don't see that coming to an end anytime soon. Lately, there has been lot of stange things going on with CMBR, but that doesn't really seem to worry people in theory-shaking sense. So, my answer is that it will take thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers to bring the big bang eventually down.

Somebody, can't remember who, pointed out that in its favour, The BB is an 'exciting' idea. One can do computer simulations showing things whizzing here there and everywhere - and they look good on T/V or in a museum display.
How about a 1 hour T/V programme on an infinite, static universe. "I think something changed there - nope! It was the T/V flickering."
Not quite as marketable!

Well yes, but isn't it also so that people in general don't like changes, so static universe would be a safe choice and in that sense marketable. ;)

Simple.......Because all the alternative people want ALL there stuff to be right!!!

SR is totally wrong....Van Riins "invisible elf" is "light traveling ANY distance in 0 time"
That means that that the speed of light is still Constant at "c" BUT "Time" is also a Constant!!!
Ari agreed with that....so why isn't he (or anyone else) helping me here...
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80061-carryover-black-hole-thread.html

The BB is wrong...Van Riins "Invisible elf" is "Naked Singularities" do NOT exist and ALL the horizons Expanding or Contracting and yes even Einsteins Lambda, have never been able to exist!!!

The Universe 'collapsing' in on itself has NEVER even been a possibility!

The Universe Could be Infinite and Forever, BUT there is NO observation that science can make to put an age on the universe. You can't just start with a forever universe though, because that defines absolutely nothing.

"Space" had to get here somehow, and baryonic Matter has to become baryonic somehow!

I have developed now, a full self consistent way to show that Einstein was a little right, Hoyle was a little right (Even though he didn't have the proper observation), and Alfven was a little right, BUT ALL of them were TOTALLY wrong when it comes to the structure of the universe!

Also check out this gobbledy-gook...the newest total rewrite of all of cosmology since CDM+L was introduced...geeeeeeeeezzz

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80143-looking-back-into-tiny-distance.html

That means that that the speed of light is still Constant at "c" BUT "Time" is also a Constant!!!
Ari agreed with that....so why isn't he (or anyone else) helping me here...
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80061-carryover-black-hole-thread.html

Well in my case I have an eternal ban on the BAUT forum! Is that a good enough excuse!
There is usually a turning point in science though. A single experiment that turned everything upside down.
I.e photoelectric effect and wave/particle models of light.
The BB??

Lyndon...

Could you give someone not "in the know" a brief synopsis of the cause of your ban on BAUT?  Enquiring minds want to know.

:-)

Regards, Mike Petersen

RussT said:

SR is totally wrong....Van Riins "invisible elf" is "light traveling ANY distance in 0 time"
That means that that the speed of light is still Constant at "c" BUT "Time" is also a Constant!!!
Ari agreed with that....so why isn't he (or anyone else) helping me here...
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80061-carryover-black-hole-thread.html

I don't remember agreeing to something like that, I don't know enough about time to be able to form a sensible opinion on that. In one thread I said that I too think that SR is wrong, but only because I think all theories are more or less wrong.

But to answer your question:

1) I haven't noticed that thread. I read only a very small fraction of BAUT threads. It's because:

2) I don't have the time. Most of the time I can devote to my astronomy hobby I spend researching the things I'm interested in and working on ongoing projects. I do take some time each day to visit this forum and BAUT forum, but in BAUT forum I only read and participate to those threads that interest me. I have gotten tired of multitude of black hole threads in the Q&A section. Now, as I checked the thread you linked to, I'll note that:

3) I'm not generally interested in debating issues relating to theory of relativity. Sometimes I might say something in some threads, but I don't know how I decide which threads to participate and which threads not to participate. It might be almost random thing. Even if I would participate, it wouldn't be of much help to you because:

4) I don't know enough about relativity to debate it anyway. I haven't never learned theory of relativity other than read some superficial popular texts about it years ago. I don't even remember which things are SR and which things are GR. And:

5) I didn't know you need help. If you need help, ask. Also:

6) I didn't know I have obligation to help you in BAUT threads. This is only my hobby, and the same goes to many other here and in BAUT forum. To me a hobby is something what I can do when I feel like it and how I want. If I need help in something related to this hobby of mine, I'll ask. If someone helps me, I'm thankful. But if I don't get help, I don't start pressing on people, because I understand that this is only a hobby for them too, and therefore I have to give them room to do their hobby like they want and I will not hold it against them if they don't get interested in my stuff.

Ok?

No problem Ari...it's just that I have noticed you (and dgruss *Dave*) on BAUT quite a bit, and Dave certainly didn't and wouldn't participate in our "What do you think is true" thread on this forum.

But since the title of this thread is what it is, I just considered that when others see arguements that 'make sense' it would add more validity for others to show support.

QSSC has had what...50+ years to show how "New Galaxies" are being formed and what that means for Cosmology, and "Some Kind" of Steady State Universe to be working.

In 3 short years, Starting with SMBH's being Created as "Mini Bangs" I have developed a full galaxy classiification, Plus knowing that those SMBH's are "Vacuum Collapses" have been able to Falsify many/most of the Big Bang's cherished "Notions", they just wont admit them...to name just two...

There are NO Schwarzschild non-rotating black holes Period...which means there is NO "Point Singualrity"
I got Tim Thomson to agree that he "thinks this" also, BUT won't agree that all the Maths associated with this are "Meaningless"...thay are absolutely "Meaningless"!!!

NO Point Singularity means NO "Naked Singualrities" NO expanding OR contracting Horizons.

Because of those findings, and some other insights...Knowing that the High Energy Gamma ray Bursts is where the electrons/protons are being created, I finally figured out that the CMB was NOT "High Energy" BUT actually, exactly what is "Observered"...The Lowest Energy "Leaking" to Our Universe (Lisa Randall) and that that IS the Luminiferous Aether!!!

Let me put it this way...

IF, mainstream did NOT have SR to protect, they would have figured out the Luminiferous Aether a long time ago, AND IF mainstream Alan Guth hadn't saved the Big Bang with "Inflation" then the Big Bang Expanding Naked Singualrity would have been untenable, and they would have figured out that Space was going through the SMBH's back in the 80's when Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, and Preskill were working on Cosmic Censorship.

They stopped working on that because they figured out it would Falsify the Big Bang Naked Singualrity...;)

By the Way Lyndon, your BAUT banning was a real shame and a very raw deal!!!

I'm taking a more detailed look at the bringing down the BB:

- CMBR - I don't know what one could observe here to take away the confidence to it originating from BB. There has been lot of different strange things observed relating to this, but apparently these haven't even raised any eyebrows.

- Redshift - One could in principle show that some objects don't obey the redshift-distance relation, but that is not a threat to a big picture. Only slight modifications would be caused by observations like that. One would need to show that space expansion would not cause redshifting, and I mean generally, not just locally, but I don't know how that could be done.

- Light element abundance - there are already existing problems here, but perhaps they could be shown to be even worse. That would just cause a situation where there would be slightly bigger problem for initial conditions. It would not make much difference for the big picture.

- Time dilation issues - this is rather interesting issue. What would happen if one would show beyond a doubt that for example SNe are not time dilated? There has also been the Hawkins quasar time dilation issue, but that has been brushed aside because we don't know how quasars should behave anyway. Hmm... has anyone looked for time dilation effects from regular galaxies? Aren't there some periodic processes we understand? Well, aren't some distance indicators just the thing I'm asking about?

- Internal theoretical problems - theory of relativity and quantum physics don't mix, yet they both are currently utilized by big bang theory. Perhaps here might be something leading to fundamental problems.

- Creativity - every time there has been major problems, new strange things have been invented to patch the theory. There doesn't seem to be sanity checking for these patches, because now we are stuck with a theory that has space expanding, dark matter, dark energy, period of inflation, higher dimensions, parallel universes, moment of creation (for the matter at least), ... What we could possibly come up with that would bring it down? It seems that at worst you would just gain another entry to the list (for example, dark space and dark time haven't been utilized yet).

What will it take to bring the Big Bang down?

That's a tough question to answer. It has lasted for decades upon decades, although it only truly pushed out its sole opposition in the 70s and 80s.

Lambda CDM itself might be abandoned for some other extant Big Bang variant over the next couple of decades.

Big Bang itself? It's far too flexible - you can stuff just about any parameter in there, counter claims of relationships with claims of evolutionary phenomena. I think it would take even better observations to do it, since such observations seem to provide a wealth of surprises and a means to determine previous Malmquist bias, or some new, more reliable means to determine distance (say, some next-generation effect akin to the way a correlation interferometer can determine stellar angular diameters). If we could catch something redshifting and not moving away, the one major problematic axiom could be revisited.

Another possible path would be to have observations start to more fully resolve the alternatives; once again, the more observations, the better, though this time, not necessarily all in astrophysics. If we can catch plasma physics, vacuum polarization, matter creation or non-Doppler/non-expansion redshift physics in the act, that will increase momentum behind particular hypotheses. A strong enough set of alternatives that have passed muster could take over in that case, although that could still entail waiting out the "old guard".

- CMBR - I don't know what one could observe here to take away the confidence to it originating from BB. There has been lot of different strange things observed relating to this, but apparently these haven't even raised any eyebrows.

This is the key right here. And, it basically boils down to 100 years of denying the Aether!!!

Forget for a moment that I am saying it is "Leaking" (Lisa Randall) to our universe.

The Just-so-story of the Big Bang says it started off hot...BUT if the electrons/protons are created at the galaxy core, For each New Galaxy/Dwarf Galaxy, one at a time (Hoyle), then

The CMB is Exactly What is "Observered" IE; low energy "the Base Energy" for the Universe.

It was never Gamma rays, and they aren't stretched!!!

Now, I am the only one who is saying this, along with Neutrinos being the Aether...the Luminiferous Aether, being ALL of "Space"

And, the Steady State is All the high energy trying to get back to it's Steady State of Low Energy...IE, "High" energy is NOT conserved.

And Nereid fully admitted that they know that energy is not conserved when Neutrinos were postulated and tested...

http://www.bautforum.com/1290008-post78.html

This means that everything they think they know is WRONG!
I have even suggested many tests for alot of this, BUT they just ignore that and rail against one thing they perceive as wrong.
Here's one I have said several times....just do the Pount/Rebka experiment (Gravitational redshift) at the North Pole,,,I guarantee those Gamma rays will NOT stretch there!!!

Here, I'll even edit this right here to Add...

The Neutrinos, being ALL of "Space" is the non-baryonic answer to the Galaxy Rotation curves as well, which is what mainstream modeled first, BUT it didn't fit the Big Bang Structure...of what??? A collapsing Universe...in other words "Gravity" :0)
Enter Alfven...the Galaxies and Solar System are held together by Magnetic Fields, with the CMB Neutrinos electric Constant/ the magnetic field of Frozen-In field lines ..NO dark Matter Halos ;)

And, did anyone check this mess out???

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80143-looking-back-into-tiny-distance.html

Looking at Ritchies post, I realized that I completely overlooked one important thing; in order to bring BB down you also need a good alternative theory, in addition to showing how the BB is wrong. It's because it seems to be common attitude that we always need a theory we can consider as "truth". I disagree with that, but it seems to be prevailing attitude, so without an alternative, we don't stand a chance.

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

RussT said:

And, did anyone check this mess out???

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80143-looking-back-into-tiny-distance.html

Yes, but I don't see a mess there. I think you don't understand the difference between angular size distance and redshift distance. Consider a big bang universe long time ago. There is a galaxy quite far away from us, say 3.5 billion lightyears from us. Let's assume that the galaxy emitted a snapshot of itself then. Next we let time pass, space expansion increases the distance between us and the point where the snapshot was emitted, but the emitted snapshot is somewhere in between flying towards us and getting closer. The snapshow redshifts all the time, so according to theory we can read the place where the snapshot was taken from the amount of redshifting. During this time consider how the angular size of the snapshot behaves. The angular size is larger than the galaxy's angular size when seen as if it would be at the distance of the original point of emission. That's because the snapshot of the galaxy has not gotten further, it has gotten closer, so its size never got smaller. To say it another way, space expansion works as a magnifying lens for the images of distant objects. When we look at highly redshifted galaxy in big bang universe, we see a kind of a mirage. Therefore, the angular size of the high redshift galaxy gives shorter distance than redshift distance.

Do y'all think that maybe the BB lasts because it is the 'best' description/model we have at present? Faults and all?

No, I don't think so.  I think it's because Main Stream theory insists upon an origin.  Any competing theory that does not include a Big Bang has no origin.  So, when the BB'er asks the question, "Where did your Universe come from?", he gets no answer.  That is ultimately unsatisfying, so the alternative theory of the Universe is not accepted.  Any alternative theory is actually a theory of how the Universe behaves, not about its origin.  Any alternative theory will not, and cannot, address this issue.

I think that's why the BBT is still around, in spite of its obvious faults.

- Mike Petersen

Lyndon said:

Do y'all think that maybe the BB lasts because it is the 'best' description/model we have at present? Faults and all?

It's hard to speculate on the staying power sometimes. Sometimes I wonder whether it hangs around so much because it appeals to the Theory of Everything "unification" ideal, where the closer you are to t=0, the higher the temperature, and the higher the temperature, the more unified are the forces, and this meshes with the notion that particle accelerators are somehow taking us closer to that t=0 as the useful collision energy increases.

Of course, there's nothing to say that symmetry at higher temperatures means that there has to be an era in which these temperatures occurred, but I can see the appeal of having a symmetry between cosmology and particle physics like that.

I find it likely that the same sort of Theory of Everything drive is what's keeping String Theory alive after a few decades with no experimental touch points.

Physicists really want an all-rounded interlocking set of theories. An alternative to Big Bang Theory would seem like a great big step away from that ideal.

Of course, I'm just pontificating here; that's the way the hopefulness in books like Greene's and Davies' comes across to me. The true explanation could be quite different.

Lyndon said:

Do y'all think that maybe the BB lasts because it is the 'best' description/model we have at present? Faults and all?

Yes. I have seen that being stated quite explicitly almost in those exact words in some BAUT forum discussions.

OK,
What is the alternative?
Do we all believe that 'infinite' started nowhere? It was all around all the time?
How can 'something' ie something as small as the universe, just have been all around all the time?
If the BB did not happen then how come we are all here?
Just playing devils advocate here but infinity must have started somewhere - if not, how?

Yes. I have seen that being stated quite explicitly almost in those exact words in some BAUT forum discussions.

You forget, I have a permanent ban there so it don't apply!!!! - Why does everyone go on about BAUT?
I have not missed it.
I am better for being banned.
Anyone seen "life of Brian?'
"What did the romans do for us?"
So What have Fraser and the BA done for Science apart from setting up a very good forum?
Makes you think , don't it?
Ok, question is, what has the BA done for science? papers, original ideas etc.
Whilst we are at it, lets include Stephen hawkins.
Just a thought

Hi Mike,

Lyndon...

Could you give someone not "in the know" a brief synopsis of the cause of your ban on BAUT?  Enquiring minds want to know.

:-)

Regards, Mike Petersen

Unfortunately I am not in the know either!!

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64413-new-evidence-tired-light.html

The BA wrote:

after much discussion with the moderators, we have decided to permanently ban lyndonashmore. There have been multiple rules violations, including not answering questions in a timely manner.

To be clear: if someone comes here and has the time to post their theory, then they have the time to stick around and answer questions. lyndonashmore has waffled, obfuscated, and delayed many times. It is clear to all of us that he won't answer many of the direct questions asked of him, and instead answers easy or older questions.

After many weeks of this, and multiple warnings, enough is enough. This thread is closed.

Let's be scientific here.
The thread was started on 9th Sept. It was stopped and I was banned on the 22nd Sept. That is 13 days from start to finish???
In that time I posted approx. 35 replies - around three per day.
Let's get real here. The post by BA is unreal.
I have e mailed him to ask if he would like to explain his actions here on this forum.
I am not bothered about BAUT, it served its purpose. I have moved on.
But why again should this person be allowed to post things which I believe to be untrue on the internet - which are suspect??

Ari said:

Looking at Ritchies post, I realized that I completely overlooked one important thing; in order to bring BB down you also need a good alternative theory, in addition to showing how the BB is wrong. It's because it seems to be common attitude that we always need a theory we can consider as "truth". I disagree with that, but it seems to be prevailing attitude, so without an alternative, we don't stand a chance.

That said, I don't think that in itself is a reason to just converge on one alternative at random just to have a single alternative. That could easily, at least to my mind, end up committing the same sort of grave all-eggs-in-one-basket error that carried us over the decades to this point in history.

I wonder: how would we be able to determine what kind of observations would be able to separate the alternatives, given just how much tweaking can accomplish?

Quantum reality research, for example, suffers from the problem that there are a good handful of hypotheses that all explain the observations equally well. Nick Herbert's book (which I dearly love, although he went on to write a quantum woo book about consciousness) listed eight different kinds of explanation. If there is a means to discern which hypotheses cannot be, it is currently beyond our reach.

We may be in the same sort of situation for lack of observation power, though I think we might ultimately have better luck. Quantum reality research might never be able to reach a conclusion.

Lyndon said:

What is the alternative?

I don't think we have that. If we would have to choose an alternative right now, then I think QSSC would be in most developed stage. But I wouldn't like that either because it has expanding space.

I think one of the problems of currently available alternatives is that many of them are basically just one idea extrapolated to cover all cosmological problems, usually so that one aspect of the theory works well (say, redshift-distance relation), but other aspects are just treated with some excuse type of arguments.

To me it seems that we should have a focused team effort in alternative side to create one reasonable static universe model which then all involved would be devoted to develop, instead of everyone trying to sell their own idea.

Lyndon said:

Do we all believe that 'infinite' started nowhere? It was all around all the time?

I do believe that, yes. We had a whole thread about our beliefs recently.

Lyndon said:

How can 'something' ie something as small as the universe, just have been all around all the time?

Well, my universe is not small, it is infinitely large. Finite universe doesn't make any sense to me. Infinitely large universe makes more sense. It's same with time; creation of the whole universe makes less sense to me than infinitely old universe.

Lyndon said:

You forget, I have a permanent ban there so it don't apply!!!! - Why does everyone go on about BAUT?

I do spend lot of less time there than I used to. There's two sources where I get information on mainstream cosmology; the journals and BAUT. BAUT is good because there are few professionals that post there, so it's not just the bunch of pseudosceptics.

So, the reason I mentioned that place was because it is my source of "inside information".

Ritchie said:

That said, I don't think that in itself is a reason to just converge on one alternative at random just to have a single alternative. That could easily, at least to my mind, end up committing the same sort of grave all-eggs-in-one-basket error that carried us over the decades to this point in history.

Yes, it would even be probable, I think. I don't really need an alternative, but if we would like to bring big bang down, we would need an alternative. For the time being, I'm quite ok with BB being nr. 1, but it would be nice if the attitudes towards alternatives would be little more welcoming.

Lyndon said:

Do we all believe that 'infinite' started nowhere? It was all around all the time?

I do believe that, yes. We had a whole thread about our beliefs recently.

Said Ari.
Then where did it all begin?
Who made it?
It is like a religion, believe in god and you will have eternal life.
But one doesn't enter eternal life - you are already in it. Eternity is eternity.
Infinity has to start somewhere.
so the question is, where did it all begin?

so the question is, where did it all begin?

It all began in the Voids, between the galaxy clusters, BUT there is NO WAY to put/define a "Beginning" T=0.

The Universe is NOT "Static", it is "Dynamic".

The Universe is Dynamic because it is 'expanding', BUT not from r=0.

SO, what is expanding, and How is it "Infinite"?

Simple, Just think of ALL of Space as "Neutrinos" coming out of those Voids between the Galaxy clusters.

Neutrinos, carrying the minimal energy for the Universe, the CMB, are going in straight-line motion to "Infinity" in ALL directions.

That describes the "Empty Space" Einstein should have started with!!!

Now, do you want to understand how New Galaxies are Created?

Lyndon said:

Then where did it all begin?

To me the beautiful part of it is that it didn't ever begin, it has always been there. Questions of origin are meaningless.

Lyndon said:

Who made it?

There are no creators in my worldview. (Obviously, because there is no moment of creation.)

Lyndon,

The term "start of infinity" is an oxymoron.

Regards,
Mike

Are you implying that a discussion on infinity will go on forever??

To quote Ari,

To me the beautiful part of it is that it didn't ever begin, it has always been there. Questions of origin are meaningless.

So have humans been 'there' all the time too - or did they evolve?
To say that a universe has always been 'there' is like telling a child who asks
"mummy, where do babies come from?"
" They don't, they have always been there!"
Nah, the universe came from somewhere.

Lots of possibilities for infinity.

"Everything must have a cause" does not count for whatever particular thing you have that is infinite. You can always play "what came before that".

Big Bang gets by that question that by having time 'start' at the same time as the universe. In some formulations, there isn't a 'sharp' start, it's a rounded section. There are still Big Bang/Big Crunch formulations, though, and many of those imply infinite regress.

You can have the entire thing wrap around, so it's infinite in duration but finite in cycles. VMT might have a corollary that mass itself has a lifetime (would mass really increase forever?) and lead to cycles on its own.

You can have smaller 'starts' and 'ends' in a larger infinite cosmos, or, regardless of whether it makes 'sense' to us, everything, stars and galaxies and all, might always have existed.

The very definition of time might be at issue. We experience it because we're in it, and it's what's at the heart of causation, but reality might be beyond that. There might be something that we cannot interact going "the other way" in time (as in one of the earlier ideas that a positron was an electron going backwards in time). It might be in a cycle or a hypercycle itself.

Very few of these scenarios make sense in our everyday experience, but that doesn't count them out. Bell Inequalities which show that reality must be non-local don't make sense in our everyday experience, either, and neither does quantum entanglement, or even how plain old quantum measurement that "collapses the wave function" could possibly work. In some variant of Bohm's model, the entire universe could be filled with a unified instantaneously (not just superluminal) changing pilot wave; that scenario still fits with all the quantum facts (i.e. what all of our experiments tell us).

If the universe is eternal, it will be so whether or not it makes sense to us. Whether we can tell that scenario from just a very, very long-ago beginning (where we might have to explain the "start of time") is anyone's guess :)

...and no, that doesn't mean that humans have always been here, unless there's some other way to experience "always" at right angles somehow :)

Lyndon said:

So have humans been 'there' all the time too - or did they evolve?

I have no reason to doubt our theories about the history of the Earth, so humans have been there about 2 million years (unless I remember the number wrong), and they did evolve from some kind of apes.

Or, are you going for the good old argument that "if the universe is infinite, then there must be infinite amount of copies of Earth"?

Lyndon said:

To say that a universe has always been 'there' is like telling a child who asks
"mummy, where do babies come from?"
" They don't, they have always been there!"

It is not the same thing. We have very good body of evidence (most of it very direct) for our theories about the origin of babies, but our body of evidence for the origin of the universe is very weak. Even the prevailing mainstream theory is not capable to explain the assumed origin. So, I'm saying much less ridiculous thing than your "mummy". Besides, we know that children are routinely being lied to in these difficult questions, so even if your mummy told you this when you were child, I think you should at least be sceptical about it.

Lyndon said:

Nah, the universe came from somewhere.

Well, I'd say that the universe comes from itself... continuously.

Ari said:

I have no reason to doubt our theories about the history of the Earth, so humans have been there about 2 million years (unless I remember the number wrong), and they did evolve from some kind of apes.

That depends on what you classify as "human", of course. If you count anything past the most recent common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees/bonobos, then a fairly recent estimate would be around 4.1 million years, as from Hobolth et al's paper. Otherwise, you can place an arbitrary cutoff at or near any of the transitional species up to modern day.

Technically, too, "ape" is a clade, and thus humans are apes, so you'd have to say they evolved from some other kind of apes ;) I'm just being pedantic, though; you're fine :)

Ari said:

It is not the same thing. We have very good body of evidence (most of it very direct) for our theories about the origin of babies, but our body of evidence for the origin of the universe is very weak. Even the prevailing mainstream theory is not capable to explain the assumed origin.

Our powers of extrapolation can lead us in wildly different directions as well. Even with redshift-as-velocity, you can still get weird things as in the 1990 paper, Is the universe infinitely old? where the "edge of the universe that behaves like a singularity" (one of Hawking's well-known positions) shows an infinite but singular (as in singularity) past. Linde posited "perpetual inflation" where this universe is a bubble but we are doomed never to be able to contact any other bubbles. I haven't really read Linde's stuff, though, so I can only speculate as to whether this scenario would be infinitely old, but it seems likely.

Parents could also just as well answer, "the stork brings them" :) As an adoptee who did not know when I was very young, there are some other implications that you can find out are incorrect :)

That's belaboring an analogy, though ;)

Ari said:

Well, I'd say that the universe comes from itself... continuously.

That being the case, there are some definite implications. For an "it always existed this way" kind of infinitely-old universe, for example, it would need a way to escape the constant incline in entropy, for which there are a few candidates, including how matter is produced. If this turns out not to be possible, then we could not extrapolate that particular kind of universe.

Infinitely old universes may defy common sense, but the math and physics behind them may work just fine.

Ritchie said:

Technically, too, "ape" is a clade, and thus humans are apes, so you'd have to say they evolved from some other kind of apes ;) I'm just being pedantic, though; you're fine :)

I agree with that of course, but the term I selected is the correct one because that was what I meant. As you know, there are people who claim that they have no relation to apes (or other animals) whatsoever, so I just highlighted that I'm not one of those people.

Ritchie said:

I haven't really read Linde's stuff, though, so I can only speculate as to whether this scenario would be infinitely old, but it seems likely.

I'm under the impression that it suggests infinitely old "multiverse" but finitely old our "universe".

Ritchie said:

Parents could also just as well answer, "the stork brings them"

But that's just one of the lies I mentioned.

Ritchie said:

Infinitely old universes may defy common sense, but the math and physics behind them may work just fine.

They may defy common sense, but to me finitely old universes defy common sense even more, hence my preference.

Somebody, can't remember who, pointed out that in its favour, The BB is an 'exciting' idea. One can do computer simulations showing things whizzing here there and everywhere - and they look good on T/V or in a museum display.

We were discussing this at the Crisis in Cosmology Conference 2. I said that pupils looked wide eyed at the videos they were shown at school showing the exciting concept of the most gigantic explosion of all time. So I have done my fair share of conditioning and now I am trying to undo it. I now see it as one of the saddest concepts ever conceived. A universe born to die.
Unfortunately my 30 day stint on the BA-AM forum came to an end leaving 2 outstanding problems. I think I have fixed these and just hope people will have the inititative to redirect themselves to the "Roy Caswell" web site. I don't suppose that they will give me another go. It was very popular. It just shows that people are searching for answers.

You can also start your own thread here in this forum. Audience is more limited (but in amount only ;) ) of course...

You can also start your own thread here in this forum.

Thanks. I'll have to compose a suitable summary of where I was up to.

RussT said:

No problem Ari...it's just that I have noticed you (and dgruss *Dave*) on BAUT quite a bit, and Dave certainly didn't and wouldn't participate in our "What do you think is true" thread on this forum.

RussT, I don't know why you think you get to expect anything from me. I'm a very busy man with obligations to family, teaching, and coaching coming as my most important priorities.   On the rare occasions that I have some free time to do what I want with my time (which might only be several hours of time a week), I try to work on my own research, keep updated on the latest research into the Sun's influence on climate, read fiction books for fun, and yes once in a while dabble in a BAUT discussion that might have piqued my interest.  

I'm not even sure what this "What do you think is true?" thread is - although I might have found it perusing the 2nd page of this forum.   I'm just now noticing that you've been critical of me on october 20th for not contributing more.   Believe me, when I say that I wish I had more time to contribute, but I don't.   If I ever aquire independent wealth you'll get to hear more from me than you want.   As for my time on BAUT, I don't know how you define "quite a bit".   Look at my posting history there during the last year.   It is basically limited to stints on certain threads in which I contribute until I run out of time and/or get fed up with the behavior of people on those threads.   Then I disappear for weeks or months at a time.  

As for "What I think is true" regarding astronomy, you can pick up any Astronomy textbook and I'll agree with the vast majority of it as solid science.     If you want to know what I think that would differ from the textbooks, it could be summed up in this list:

For which there is compelling evidence:

1.  The Hubble Constant is ~88 km s-1 Mpc-1 using all the best currently available data for spiral galaxies.
2.  MOND is a better solution to the mass discrepancies in spiral galaxies than CDM.
3.  There is a lot of viable scientific evidence for non-cosmological redshifts with the most important evidence coming from bridged discordant redshift systems.  

For which my opinion is that compelling evidence will eventually emerge:

1.  The Big Bang never happened and the universe is not expanding
2.  There is no CDM or DE
3.  Matter creation occurs in the cores of active galaxies (Seyfert ...)

As for what it would take to overthrow the Big Bang.   I really don't know for sure, but keeping in mind the many lines of evidence that have built the Big Bang edifice, I think the only viable way to disprove the big bang with a single line of evidence will be to demonstrate that the CMB is not cosmological.   Until overwhelming evidence that the CMB is not cosmic emerges, you can count on the BB being the dominant theory in astrophysics. 

(which might only be several hours of time a week),

wow, i wish I had that much time!
Why MOND?
It seems too improbable to me.

Quite frankly, David, I'm pretty pleased that you pop in to say hi. I can hardly imagine the overhead of family, teaching and coaching; I have but one toddler, and that alone has dropped my contributions on my own blog and forum by an incredible amount, not to mention that I typically don't have the headspace to sit down and improve the quasar-counting program I put together to help Ari.

(Now mind you, I was a little worried that the unknown months-long e-mail black hole here would prevent you and others from coming back in the event of a lost password!)

BAUT forums look interesting, but exhausting. It doesn't seem to take too long before incredible incivility sets in, mostly on the part of a few who shall not be named, that really tear the discussion away from the issues.

1.  The Hubble Constant is ~88 km s-1 Mpc-1 using all the best currently available data for spiral galaxies.
2.  MOND is a better solution to the mass discrepancies in spiral galaxies than CDM.
3.  There is a lot of viable scientific evidence for non-cosmological redshifts with the most important evidence coming from bridged discordant redshift systems.

1. That would put the age of the universe at a problematic 11.2 Gyr in lamdba CDM, would it not?
2. MOND is intriguing, though whether its explanation of the phenomenon is correct is a bit beyond us now. Whether 'pushing gravity' theories would ever work at all, I remember encountering one where the gravity field effect changed from d^-2 to d^-1 when it reached the edge of a system - I can't source it at the moment, though
3. It was intriguing to re-watch Universe: The Cosmology Quest, and in particular the episode of people "erasing" a bridge... non-cosmological redshifts are going to be pretty much the hardest fact for theorists to swallow

1.  The Big Bang never happened and the universe is not expanding
2.  There is no CDM or DE
3.  Matter creation occurs in the cores of active galaxies (Seyfert ...)

1. I think Hubble was correct in hedging on the meaning of redshifts
2. No DE, certainly; CDM is too vague a term... they won't find enough of it to help their claims, but they could find something that matches one of the many definitions. Pretty sure no winos, though
3. That does intrigue me as a possibility, but I have to ask, what prevents the universe from filling up with matter? Well, presuming that Narlikar and Arp's "m = at²" or something similar is true

Until overwhelming evidence that the CMB is not cosmic emerges, you can count on the BB being the dominant theory in astrophysics.

There are so many tantalizing clues that the CMB is not cosmic (soft X-rays, indications of movement, SZ effect discrepancies), but yes, it really is going to have to be overwhelming, and with the pace of research, no idea how long that could take.

*sigh*

lyndon ashmore said:

wow, i wish I had that much time!

Sleep less!  :)

Why MOND?
It seems too improbable to me.

I've read a tremendous amount of MOND literature.  The success with galaxy scale dynamics is very impressive - numerous predictions have been verified.   You really just need to read Stacy McGaugh's research to get an idea.  Read his MOND pages too.  What seems improbable about it?   The one thing that has gone unnoticed is that MOND researchers have established as an observational fact that the mass discrepancies in systems occur at a specific acceleration scale when normal Newtonian dynamics is applied.  So even if DM was the answer, it must be explained why DM's effects appear at a specific acceleration.   It is perplexing to researchers that tidal dwarfs and globular star clusters show mass discrepancies.  Not so for MOND researchers becasue that is what is expected in MOND.

Ritchie Annand said:

Quite frankly, David, I'm pretty pleased that you pop in to say hi. I can hardly imagine the overhead of family, teaching and coaching; I have but one toddler, and that alone has dropped my contributions on my own blog and forum by an incredible amount, not to mention that I typically don't have the headspace to sit down and improve the quasar-counting program I put together to help Ari.

(Now mind you, I was a little worried that the unknown months-long e-mail black hole here would prevent you and others from coming back in the event of a lost password!)

BAUT forums look interesting, but exhausting. It doesn't seem to take too long before incredible incivility sets in, mostly on the part of a few who shall not be named, that really tear the discussion away from the issues.

Thanks Ritchie!   BAUT can be exhausting - which is why I limit my posting there.   My biggest frustration is that mainstreamers there never (with a few exceptions) admit when you've made a good point.   So you take the time to type up a lucid explanation to their responses, and it ends up being a complete waste of your time.

That would put the age of the universe at a problematic 11.2 Gyr in lamdba CDM, would it not?

Yes it would - and that is a fairly serious problem for Lambda-CDM.

That does intrigue me as a possibility, but I have to ask, what prevents the universe from filling up with matter? Well, presuming that Narlikar and Arp's "m = at2" or something similar is true

Considering the huge space between galaxies and galaxy clusters I don't think this is a major issue, but that would depend upon how fast matter is being created.    The variable mass hypothesis is interesting, but correct or not, I think that there enough observations hinting at ejection of matter that I'm willing to accept it while we wait for someone to explain it.

My biggest frustration is that mainstreamers there never (with a few exceptions) admit when you've made a good point.   So you take the time to type up a lucid explanation to their responses, and it ends up being a complete waste of your time.

When beating one's head against a brick wall, the only thing that gets damaged... :)

I understand. After a while, you know that you're typing not just for your opponent's sake, and shortly after that, not for your own sake, but for the benefit of other potentially more impartial observers. If the composition of the audience doesn't change much, then you can only make your case so many times before the effect is lost, and you really might as well go on hiatus :)

Considering the huge space between galaxies and galaxy clusters I don't think this is a major issue, but that would depend upon how fast matter is being created.    The variable mass hypothesis is interesting, but correct or not, I think that there enough observations hinting at ejection of matter that I'm willing to accept it while we wait for someone to explain it.

I'm just looking at a slightly longer picture. If matter is continually being created, then there are a few cases to consider:

1) The universe has an age
2) The matter in the universe has an age
3) The universe has an age and is expanding (though not necessarily in BBT terms)
4) Matter "peters out" after a while (an end to the m=at² curve)
5) The matter creation will eventually stop when there is not enough energy to power it
6) There is some means of recycling matter
7) There is something opposite of matter balancing the matter (in QSSC, this is not antimatter, but C-particles that collect in near-black holes until they reach a point where they overwhelm gravity and spew out particle production again)

I'm also fairly willing to consider matter ejection. I just wonder which scenario, if any of the above, will turn out to be the case. All of them are compatible with matter ejection.

Off now to beat the snowstorm!

Dave said:

So you take the time to type up a lucid explanation to their responses, and it ends up being a complete waste of your time.

Well, there's also the silent audience to be considered, some of them are likely to appreciate your efforts.

5) The matter creation will eventually stop when there is not enough energy to power it
6) There is some means of recycling matter

I am quite a believer of the galaxies being the recyclers of the universe (with acknowledgements to Rufus Young). We have been conditioned to think of galaxies as having collapsed out of the 'big bang'. We are told that they will eventually burn out and die as the universe dies. In my mind I always imagined it like water down a plughole. This conditioning restricts our creative thought. Suppose we stand the whole thing on its head. Galaxies are completely the opposite and the job of the galactic regenerator at the centre is to do just that. The tremendous gravitational and electromagnetic forces do the opposite of what happens in the rest of the universe, producing protons and electrons which they inject into two the spiral arms via the poles of this rotating object which rotates at 90 degrees to the rest of the galaxy and gently processes producing the spiral effect. It may therefore be more correct to think of them as double-ended pinwheels. There was an article in 1979 in Scientific American called 'The Central Parsec of the Galaxy'. They casually mentioned that "something" was rotating at the centre at 90 degrees to the plane of the galaxy and a new spiral arm appeared to be unfurling from the centre. Perhaps it was not a new spiral arm but just the beginning part of one of the existing ones.

This Rufus Young? Interesting site :) A little like Hoyle's QSSC but a little less exotic.

I think I'd feel better about such things if there were a plausible description of how things such as Young's neutroid or Hoyle's near-black holes could possibly reset entropy, or otherwise violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Not saying that it can't, somehow, but what is it that would make the 2nd Law invalid under such longer-term circumstances? Some relationships or conservation laws that we presume hold under all circumstances that don't?

Not that the answers are readily available, of course.

what prevents the universe from filling up with matter?

I believe that, if the Universe is infinite in extent, this question does not make sense.  How can one fill up an infinite quantity of volume?  On the other hand, the question may be in reference to local space, in which case it would depend upon the ratio of the amount of new matter being created versus the slow(?) dispersion rate of the matter in the area being discussed.

- Mike Petersen

Mike Petersen said:

I believe that, if the Universe is infinite in extent, this question does not make sense.  How can one fill up an infinite quantity of volume?

Be careful when dealing with infinities. By way of example, given that the set of whole numbers is infinite, how many multiples of a trillion are there?

Also infinite.

If there is any sort of applicable average density, then the matter goes to infinity right along with the volume. If there is only local mass, though, then in the larger scale of things, the average density of an infinite universe is zero.

So, if the latter, then technically, no problem, though it might put an age on the matter in our local universe, and indicate some sort of "fireworks" origin (super-Seyferts spitting out other active galaxies and so on unto the lamest galaxy)

If there is an average density in an infinite universe, then some sort of recycling or expansion is needed...

lyndon ashmore said:

wow, i wish I had that much time!

Sleep less!  :)

I don't sleep.
What did Ginger Rogers say about Fred Astair?
I do everything he does but backwards!
Seriously, congrats on your paper.
However,
1) I don't think a few years either way makes any difference to the BB. It won't bring it down.
With an infinite universe?
Well infinity goes both ways.
As a greek friend said to me.
Take a piece of paper, cut it in two.
Take a half, cut that in two,
Can you go on for ever.
He said,
Costos, (he didn't know my name) can you go on forever?
And Costos said.
No, you come up with atomosos.
So if you have an infinitely large universe, do you accept that you will also have to have an infinitely small one too?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Lyndon said:

So if you have an infinitely large universe, do you accept that you will also have to have an infinitely small one too?

No, I wouldn't think so.

The infinite doesn't necessarily "intrude" into either the present scale or the present time; it's the impossibility of reaching a final destination if you keep going along a particular vector, be it time, space, scale, what have you.

General Relativity does imply an infinitely small division of a universe, being universally interpreted as a geometrical relationship, and that causes no end of troubles, like singularities and the need to "reconcile" it with quantum physics.

Richie Wrote:I think I'd feel better about such things if there were a plausible description of how things such as Young's neutroid or Hoyle's near-black holes could possibly reset entropy, or otherwise violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Not saying that it can't, somehow, but what is it that would make the 2nd Law invalid under such longer-term circumstances? Some relationships or conservation laws that we presume hold under all circumstances that don't?

Mike wrote: I believe that, if the Universe is infinite in extent, this question does not make sense.  How can one fill up an infinite quantity of volume?  On the other hand, the question may be in reference to local space, in which case it would depend upon the ratio of the amount of new matter being created versus the slow(?) dispersion rate of the matter in the area being discussed.

We have to bear in mind that Fred Hoyle believed in the expansion with the provision that a hydrogen atom was being created in empty space to maintain the status quo. However, some of us are questioning the idea of expansion all together, in that the universe may be dynamically balanced. Also, if a galaxy is in self-equilibrium then as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics are not broken.
The big bang supporters have a convenient way of dealing with then centre or black hole of a galaxy in that it’s a singularity and the known laws of physics break down. I prefer to try and apply what little we know to the situation even though it can be nothing more than theoretical. I imagine a very fast spinning torus or doughnut which from the side has a very intense gravitation field capable of tearing matter apart. The centrifuge action allows the lighter particles to gravitate towards the centre. Here the gravitational force is balanced but they come under an intense electromagnetic Lorenz force, which accelerates them to relativistic speeds from the centre. Like I said, you can only imagine.
Most research appears to be in the nature of studying rotation curves. I would like to see more info on a strainght line from the centre to the outer parts of our galaxy with a comparison of the movements of red giants to new stars. If Rufus Young is right there should be a difference in the movement along such a line.

Be careful when dealing with infinities. By way of example, given that the set of whole numbers is infinite, how many multiples of a trillion are there?

You might be attempting to talk about whether one infinity is "greater" than another.  This is talked about in mathematics as the "aleph" level of infinities.  For example, the set of whole numbers is an infinity on the level of aleph zero, but if you look at the "density" of the set of real numbers, then you have an infinity on the level of aleph one.  There are "more" entities in the set of real numbers because there is not an isomorphism between the two infinities.

Ugh, this makes my head hurt!  I remember this from my mathematics studies (I have BS in Math), but never used it.  This is the first time I have thought about aleph levels of infinity in 40 years.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Regards,
Mike