Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[maddog]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

BTW, You have put forward three good reasons for not having an instance of a singularity or a BB, or at least one that we mere mortals can model.

It is for this reason, I am hesitant to subscribe fully with models that strive to pursue within
seconds of the initial Bang event. I don't think we have full fidelity
models of what is going on before that.

I am not saying I'm in or out. It am waiting for more information to assess better.



maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

This link is quite interesting in comparing mainstream and the Time acceleration Hypothesis (TACH)

Time acceleration hypothesis
Time acceleration hypothesis - Academic Publishing Wiki

I have not heard of TACH until now. I will need to investigate further.

One point about the website I thought odd, was the website list in the Mainstream as using
VST (Variable Speed of Light). It is my understanding this is not mainstream standard Cosmology. I have read the book by the Portuguese Physicist (I forgot his name) that wrote
the book "Faster than the Speed of Light " -- which promotes a VST Theory. This would be
in place of using Inflation.

What I did find interesting is that TACH is aligning with Wheeler and the Multiverse idea.

maddog

[CraigD]

Though I can’t see the relevance of it to astronomy or cosmology, I feel compelled to challenge the claim

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Around 11 years ago Microsoft changed it's mind about allowing anything to be divided by zero being equivalent to infinity, negative or otherwise and changed their calculator program to reflect that point.

Do you have a reference supporting this claim, Laurie?

AFAIK Microsoft’s “calculator for windows”, CALC.EXE (which I’ve used at least occasionally since the early 90s) has never had any “equivalent to infinity” feature. While Microsoft is a very big company employing people with many different math and science backgrounds, it’s not a company much interested, by all appearances, in fundamental math topics such as the interpretation of division by zero. As the preceding link notes, the issue of interpreting , or not, has been around in more or less its present-day form for at least 800 years, long before any computer programmer or engineer existed to worry about it.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Please fogive me for posting so many papers.

When I come across them, agree or not agree I just want to share the information.

May 16, 2009
Do satellite galaxies point to modified gravity?
Do satellite galaxies point to modified gravity? - physicsworld.com

A recent study of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way casts doubt on existing models of dark matter — according to its authors in Germany, Austria and Australia. The locations of the galaxies suggest that they should not contain any dark matter — but the motions of their constituent stars cannot be explained without invoking the elusive dark stuff. According to the researchers, this contradiction could provide support for alternative theories of gravity such as modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND).

The need for dark matter came to light when astronomers realized that galaxies were rotating at abnormally high speeds – and would otherwise be torn apart in the absence of hidden mass to provide ‘gravitational glue’. Dark matter is fundamentally different from normal “luminous” matter because it seems to interact only through gravity. However, direct proof of its existence has not yet been found.

As a result some physicists have proposed alternative theories to explain galactic rotation — theories that dispense with dark matter and assume that our current understanding gravity is not complete. Now Manuel Metz and Pavel Kroupa at the German Aerospace Centre in Bonn along with colleagues at the University of Vienna and Australian National University have found new evidence that could support such theories.

[enorbet2]

Originally Posted by maddog

It is for this reason, I am hesitant to subscribe fully with models that strive to pursue within
seconds of the initial Bang event. I don't think we have full fidelity
models of what is going on before that.

I am not saying I'm in or out. It am waiting for more information to assess better.



maddog

Agreed! Especially right now with the renewed HST w/ CosmicOriginsSpectrograph, and the extremely ambitious European effort with Herschel Space Observatory and the Planck telescope

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...y_FS_HTML.html

ESA Science & Technology: Herschel

ESA Science & Technology: Planck

I suspect we are in for some homework rather soon!

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Thats funny I posted something hours ago and it seems its gone to another planet.

Anyway

Enorbet
I agree with you.

There are many issues that are not answered, particularly the BBT issues.

[enorbet2]

Hey Pluto
While I am open to change, even sweeping change, I am not "switching horses" here as I do think it is doubtful that the BBT is fundamentally wrong. By that I mean that it seems to me that all of the various so-called problems with BBT hinge on one - Is redshift indicative of an expanding Universe or not? Even though the most recent "Scientific American" explores the "void" hypothesis as a possible explanation as an alternate explanation of redshift, it is very new and has little supporting empirical evidence so far. That may change, possibly even soon, and if it does I may owe you a boilermaker "Salut!", but until then I'm still fairly well convinced The Standard Model is relatively safe.

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

No one is asking you to change horses.

Just remove the flaps and see what the other horses are doing.

Smile

Wahts a boilermaker's salut?

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

If Redshift data is in error, what next?

There are a number of papers that are of interest.

You make up you own opinion of them

[0806.4481] Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe


[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics


[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift


On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)


There is 4 more papers that I was going to post.

Science is sharing of information.

[modest]

Continued from Re: How far can we see?

Originally Posted by Pluto

[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift

On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913

Could these papers be wrong or is the Big Bang theory in question.

The two papers that appear in your quote above (I did not quote the other two) vigorously support big bang theory. Reading the first paragraph of this link:

Lambda-CDM is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter. It is frequently referred to as the concordance model of big bang cosmology, since it attempts to explain cosmic microwave background observations, as well as large scale structure observations and supernovae observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is the simplest known model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena.

Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then read the title of the paper you link:

The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift

What that means is that Lambda-CDM is another name for "Big Bang theory" so that when you read that Lambda-CDM explains some certain data, it is saying that Big Bang theory explains the data. What may have mislead you is the word "anomalous". Usually when you do an arxiv search for "anomalous redshift" or you see the words "anomalous redshift" in the title of a paper it's a good bet that the paper is at least bringing up issues with standard cosmology, but in this case you really need to know what the other words mean. You could also read this sentence from the abstract:

...There is no need to introduce any "anomalous" redshift mechanism to explain the observed redshift excess...


[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift

~modest