[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Jackson, you suggested that there was a uniformity of mind set within Hypogrpahy staff. I sugest this is not so. I am a mere minor moderator, yet I certainly have grave suspicions about the reality of the Big Bang. These misgivings arise from philosophical considerations, not scientific, therefore I rarely mention these reservations at all.

Nevertheless they exist and I welcome any evidence that might substantiate alternative views such as those of Arp. However, what is important is evidence, not my (or anyone elses) opinion of what I would like to see as evidence.

NewScience made much of the anomalous redshifts, claiming these quite invalidated Big Bang theory. This recent research offers a simple explanation for these anomalous shifts and demonstrates, again, that taking absolute positions in science lies somewhere along an axis that runs from unwise to downright foolish.



Zhang, T. X. Electric Redshift and Quasars The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 636, Issue 2, pp. L61-L64. 01/2006
Abstract
A new redshift mechanism-the electric redshift-is proposed, in accord with the five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies Einsteinian general relativity and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory. It is shown that a dense, massive, and charged object can significantly shift a light ray that is emitted from the object's surface toward the red as compared with the gravitational redshift. A compact, electrically charged object with density and mass comparable to those of a neutron star can impart a redshift as great as quasars have. Therefore, if quasars are dense, massive, and electrically charged objects, their large redshifts do not imply that all quasars are extremely distant; thus, the luminosity of quasars and their association with low-redshift galaxies can be understood. This interpretation does not conflict with big bang cosmology, because the electric redshifts are negligible for normal stars, galaxies, and large-scale matter, which are not dense and electrically charged.

Source: Content Page

I overlooked this site for a while but now would like to post a rebuttal of the above 'A new Redshift' based on the Maxwell-Einstein premise.

It 'also' refutes the 'expansion of space' as the main cause of the Cosmological Redshift since it is much greater than the Hubble Expansion. Also, these variations vary relative to each other that the Hubble Expansion would not project.

Secondly, it is based on the Maxwell equations that deal with 'continuous waves' and not the Planck Quantum pulsations that we observe as 'Black Body Radiations.

These are two entirely different forms of radiation since the hydrogen atom radiates a continuous 'one angstrom' (approximate) continuous wave in its 'ground state' that we do not detect.
Only electron transitions radiate the EM spectrun we can detect.
Neutrons do not radiate any light that I know of?

NS

[Brian Dwight]

I don't believe in the Big Bang theory. That if there's a Big Bang it hasn't happened yet.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Brian Dwight

I don't believe in the Big Bang...

Only cause you haven't been invited to the party at my house last night.

Seeing is believing, Brian.

[Pluto]

Hello All

People talk of alternative theories.

As if the standard theory is correct.

The MRB is not evidence for the BBT. It is an opinion and not a fact.

As a matter of fact there is no evidence to support the BBT. They are just ideas put together to form the model.

Evidence for or against the BBT will not be available for another few more years.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello All

People talk of alternative theories.

As if the standard theory is correct.

The MRB is not evidence for the BBT. It is an opinion and not a fact.

As a matter of fact there is no evidence to support the BBT. They are just ideas put together to form the model.

Evidence for or against the BBT will not be available for another few more years.

Yes, you are right.
This is just one piece of evidence (CMBR) to refute the BBT.

It was supposed to be the 'clincher' evidxence that gave credibility to the BBT.

Mike C

[arkain101]

According to this site:

There are three main evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred:

Evidence of the Big Bang

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by arkain101

According to this site:

There are three main evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred:

Evidence of the Big Bang

The BBT occurred in the minds of the scientists that accepted the Doppler relative motions as an expansion of the universe.

Then why did they refute Doppler (real science) with the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the observed redshifts?
Doppler has nothing to do with the EoS.
It was originally applied to the expansion/contraction of the sound waves by moving objects that radiated the sound.
Of course, this can be applied to the light waves as well.
But this involves the 'electric fields' that surround the charged particles, not space itself.

When the false interpretation of Doppler was accepted and later refuted, all the following evidence is 'ad hoc'.

The evidence against the BBT is overwhelming in opposition.
To begin with. It shows that the BB is a 'creation out of nothing'.
This gives the bible some credibility?
That site you posted, seems to have some Jewish involvement in it.

That would make the BBT cosmoGONY rathert that physical cosmology.

Mike C

[PhysBang]

Actually, the general redshift of light throughout the universe was predicted as a feature of possible relativistic models of the universe before it was detected and its origin is not in the Doppler effect but in the time dilation of distant galaxies. A quick review of the beginning chapter of any textbook on cosmology will show the equations that generate the redshift and they are not the equations of the Doppler effect.

Additionally, now that supernova observations allow us to extend our measurements of the redshift-distance relation, we see behaviours that are only explained in the relativistic models, not any other models. The derivative and second derivative (analogous to acceleration and jerk) of the redshift-distance relation has an explanation in the Freidmann equation (modified by the work of Lemaitre) that can be used to measure the important parameters of the theory. These measurements can be compared to other measurements (like the specifics of the CMB, as opposed to its presence, which is about all that an Arp supporter has been able to produce) and the measurements agree.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Actually, the general redshift of light throughout the universe was predicted as a feature of possible relativistic models of the universe before it was detected and its origin is not in the Doppler effect but in the time dilation of distant galaxies. A quick review of the beginning chapter of any textbook on cosmology will show the equations that generate the redshift and they are not the equations of the Doppler effect.

Additionally, now that supernova observations allow us to extend our measurements of the redshift-distance relation, we see behaviours that are only explained in the relativistic models, not any other models. The derivative and second derivative (analogous to acceleration and jerk) of the redshift-distance relation has an explanation in the Freidmann equation (modified by the work of Lemaitre) that can be used to measure the important parameters of the theory. These measurements can be compared to other measurements (like the specifics of the CMB, as opposed to its presence, which is about all that an Arp supporter has been able to produce) and the measurements agree.

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Mike C

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

That's not exactly true. The original GR equations predicted a non-static universe. This irritated Einstein, so he came up with the Cosmological Constant in an attempt to make his equations fit his philosophy of a static universe. After Hubble discovered the expansion of space, Einstein gave up on the cosmological constant, calling it the biggest blunder of his life.

Somewhat ironically, the concordance model relies heavily on the cosmological constant.