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

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I would love info on Arp

Halton to me is one of the true scientist.

Halton Arp’s life story is a case study in confirmation bias. In the 1960’s he built a theory on very little evidence as there was little evidence on the topic at the time. The evidence has since come in and invalidated his ideas. I don’t think he noticed.

We can paint the picture like this:

It’s 50 years ago and Arp sees his first picture of the sun. This is the first real image of the sun and people wonder what's going on with it (this is obviously an analogy)


source

Not knowing too much what to make of the funny-looking orb, he formulates a theory to explain things. It’s easy enough to see that the sun is being held by the tree so he starts there. This is confirmed by the way the tree buckles to the right. Perhaps the sun is heavy. He looks at the branch holding the sun and notices how it is bent down from the mass of the sun clearly validating his idea. The sun is a glowing ball being held by a tree which strains to keep it off the ground. The sun and the tree are the same distance from the camera and are motionless to each other.

Arp looks closer:



The parts of the tree that are touching the sun are red. In fact, the only part of the tree that’s red is the part touching the sun. Arp therefore proposes that there is a reaction between the sun and tree creating heat. He looks at the sun itself and notices it is red on the bottom and white on top. The white part is clearly hotter than the red part. This confirms his hypothesis showing that the sun is hottest where it’s white and touching the tree and the tree is hottest where it’s red and touching the sun.

With just this one picture this isn’t a bad theory. It is not yet confirmed, but it does make some sense. But, then another picture comes in. In the new picture the sun is a bit lower in the sky and it’s no longer visibly touching the tree. While this might seem to be a problem for Arp’s theory - he sees it as supporting evidence (confirmation bias hard at work). Clearly the tree has dropped or ‘ejected’ the sun and it is falling to the ground. Arp supposes that the sun became too hot for the tree to hold and ejected it. This is Arp’s theory in its final version.

Over the next few decades hundreds of meteorologists obtain millions of pictures of the sun and trees and sky and so on. It becomes clear to everyone that the sun is in fact not part of the tree at all. In fact, the sun is measured at millions of miles away while the tree is right up close. To Arp this doesn’t make sense at all. His evidence shows that the tree and sun are part of the same system regardless if there are millions of pictures that show otherwise. So, he goes on a fact-finding mission.

He pours through millions of pictures of trees and suns and finds 10 or 20 that support his position, such as:



They show the tree connected to the sun. While most meteorologists simply ignore the crazy old man, some try to show him the error of his ways. They develop his 10 or 20 images at a higher resolution and better developing equipment. The better images clearly show no connection between these two things. However, there are still a couple images Arp holds to and slightly over a billion other pictures and data that disagree. This is where we are today. Arp continues to believe that the sun (or quasars) are part of the tree (or local galaxy) and the distance to the sun being 93 million miles is wrong. Therefore the method of measuring distance is wrong.

There are other ways of measuring distance such as how things appear smaller the further away they are. All other ways of determining distance confirm the fact that redshift is a good measure of distance and are (as they must be) ignored by Arp.

This is confirmation bias. It’s ugly and it’s part of human nature. All evidence such as the hubble deep field must be ignored for his clearly-wrong theory to work. That's not good science and I see no reason to say "Halton to me is one of the true scientist" because he does this. To ignore all the evidence in order to protect a belief and propagate a falsehood is very bad science indeed.

-modest

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Pluto

People will support the Big Bang without scientific evidence.

People support or oppose all sorts of theories and beliefs both with and without scientific evidence. Certainly many people support any particular known theory without even the necessary education to understand its scientific support or lack of support. However, in the case of the Big Bang model of the universe, many very well educated people support it based on a large body of scientific evidence. There is also scientific evidence suggesting the Big Bang model is incorrect. It’s not unusual for a scientific theory to be supported by some data, and contradicted by other.

Originally Posted by Pluto

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Introduction
…
127,000,000,000 galaxies in deep filed images if we covered the sky with spots.

This number is on the order of the commonly given “hundred billion galaxies observable with present-day instruments”.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Now! Imagine making all these galaxies in just 500 million years.

This is one reason why I cannot support the Big Bang.

I imagine these galaxies were not “made” in the sense that an artifact is made in a factory, but formed under the influence gravity. I also imagine that all galaxies of a given stellar population (or “generation”) formed concurrently (at the same time), rather than consecutively (one after another, the way artifacts produced by a single factory assembly line are).

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by CraigD

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

The galaxy from 'The Deep Field Images' are said to be from the early years of the Universe. The 10k estimates are from a very tiny area and you are welcome to estimate what should be if the total was viewed. Certainly in the billions...

Those said galaxy, would have to be all the near same age, if the Universe has a limited age. The images represent what was 13-13.5 billion years ago and all in existence at that one moment. There is a consistency of density and even our own galaxy is assumed about 13byo or so. There is no logical or mathematical explanation to explain what existed 13-13-5 byo and what should have been under BBT 14.5 byo......IMO.

We have determined these figures to begin with on the premise our that dating systems are correct, carbon dating, half lives or however. Everything we measure in our little solar system that has been measured, Earth, Moon, comets and space dust, and from our understanding points to 4-4.5 byo, for all in our system. We all accept, I think, what all is here, was from extinct or dead systems which existed prior to our system. All that was then from before. Even if we could determine the ages of atoms that made our solar system, I think those ages would be the same. Someway, somehow when a star is in formation or possibly on ignition, all matter becomes or is new. If incorrect and when possible, we can determine the age of elements in there simplest state, you might get a more accurate estimate, but I would bet in the regeneration of matter and all matter, our primitive methods will give only the age of the last matter that those elements existed in...

Pluto; Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition. The folks that fought the acceptance of BB, for all practical purposes have retired, died or gone into economics to make a living. For years, you would receive 'low grades' if questioning BB and if lucky enough to graduate with a degree, jobs in the field would be short lived or non-existent to promoting, exploring or testing for anything contrary. Even here on this fine forum, you will get little 'red dots' for advocating, even the possibility.
Keep up your interest, learn BBT first, understand where opposition is coming from and by all means accept the remote possibility, they may be right. Its the only way to get along...

[Pluto]

Hello Jackson33

You said

If incorrect and when possible, we can determine the age of elements in there simplest state, you might get a more accurate estimate, but I would bet in the regeneration of matter and all matter, our primitive methods will give only the age of the last matter that those elements existed in...

I agree with you.
This is one point that is missed by many.

Pluto; Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition. The folks that fought the acceptance of BB, for all practical purposes have retired, died or gone into economics to make a living. For years, you would receive 'low grades' if questioning BB and if lucky enough to graduate with a degree, jobs in the field would be short lived or non-existent to promoting, exploring or testing for anything contrary. Even here on this fine forum, you will get little 'red dots' for advocating, even the possibility.
Keep up your interest, learn BBT first, understand where opposition is coming from and by all means accept the remote possibility, they may be right. Its the only way to get along...

You hit the nail on the head.

I have read hundreds of papers on the BBT and the more I read the more I find that science went walking elsewhere.

Its like going down a river, the force keeps you in line with current thinking called main stream. Even a dead log floats down stream. To talk against the BBT is like swimming upstream and working against the current thinking.

So the application of science comes into play to overcome those currents.

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

CraigD explained very well. They were formed in parallel, not series. If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

Think of a rain storm. If it's nearly 100% humidity and there is a slight change of temperature or pressure then you can get trillions of rain drops over a city in an hour. You can go from no drops to trillions in an hour. Science doesn't make it impossible for a few trillion to form that quick because rain doesn't form one drop at a time. In the same manner, galaxies wouldn't form one at a time.

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

I said science. So please give me some form of science. It sounds to me like ad hoc ideas to make the BBT work.

CraigD explained very well. They were formed in parallel, not series. If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

Is this some form of a joke?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello Modest

I said science. So please give me some form of science. It sounds to me like ad hoc ideas to make the BBT work.

Simultaneous actions are not a concept put together ad hoc in order to support BBT. It’s something you can use in many situations. When things happen simultaneously then they happen at the same time. It doesn’t take any less time for two simultaneous things to happen than for a hundred simultaneous things because they are all happening at the same time.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Is this some form of a joke?

No, I mean this seriously. Here are some examples. If you disagree with any then please explain why and we can see where we differ:

I drop five marbles at the same time. Each one takes one second to hit the floor. How long does it take them all to hit the floor?

answer: one second

Ten people say the pledge of allegiance at the same time. Each person takes 20 seconds to say the pledge of allegiance. How long does it take all ten people to say the pledge of allegiance?

answer: 20 seconds

100 archers shoot an arrow into the air at the same time. Each arrow is in the air for 30 seconds. How long does it take for all the arrows to hit the ground?

answer: 30 seconds

A million people watch a football game at the same time. The game lasts 2 hours. How long does it take all million people to watch the game?

answer: two hours

A hundred billion galaxies form at the same time. Each galaxy takes 500 million years to form. How long does it take all hundred billion galaxies to form?

answer: 500 million years

So you see, the amount of time it takes the galaxies to form really doesn't depend on how many there are. Is this ok?

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

I understand the logic.

But! mate do you understand the complexity of cluster of clusters of galaxies its not a two bit explanation.

As per the BBT it occured everywhere at the same time.

Even if it started at one spot, do you know how long it would take a black hole that has over 10 billion star masses to form and surrounded by clusters of galaxies.

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

Please refrain from making ad hominem attacks.

Those who oppose Big Bang theory in this thread seem to think that it is some kind of conspiracy theory. I would really recommend reading some books on the subject.

One excellent resource on the Big Bang is Stephen Weinberg's The First Three Minutes:
Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe

For a more complete history of our universe, I really liked Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time:
Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The Illustrated Brief History of Time, Updated and Expanded Edition

(Both of these books are written by scientists and backed up with numerous references).

Big Bang theory is excellent science.

It helps us pose questions like:
-was there a T=0 (e, a beginning of time)
-was there a period of inflation?
-was there a universe before ours?
-is our universe a part of a larger ensemble of universes (ie, "multiverse")
-is our universe a "bubble" in a larger universe?
-what role does the big bang play in the expansion of the universe?
-why does it appear that the expansion of the universe has accelerated during the past 2 billion years?

There are a number of (more or less recent) observations which support the expanding universe theory. First of all it is the redshift theory, which is well documented. 95% of the observed objects are redshifted as expected. The remaining 5% is statisticially significant and means that we do not understand everything about redshift. Nor do we know what causes expansion.

There is really no reason to *believe* in the Big Bang. It is a documented theory, but it is, and will probably remain for a long time, a *theory* tha can be tested.

One way it is tested is the COBE and WMAP missions. If you want scientific data, head over to their websites:
Wilkinson Microwave Microwave Anisotropy Probe
LAMBDA - Cosmic Background Explorer

These are both examples of extraordinary science missions. The observations support the big bang theory.

The Hubble Space Telescope also gathers evidence for the big bang theory. The story Pluto linked to above is an example of shocking results (yes, scientists where shocked and awed when they saw the northern sky Hubble Deep Field image from 1995).

Here is NASA's story:
NASA - Hubble Digs Deeply, Toward Big Bang

It is imperative in a discussion to consider the evidence, not only the counterevidence. Halton Arp is a brilliant scientist and his fascination with "freak" galaxies is an example of why alternative ideas are the cornerstone of science - he manages to question theories with scientific alternatives, rather than just cry wolf without knowing a thing about the topic.

Science is all about examining *and* reexamining theories and data in order to see if our explanations can be improved. Currently the Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have for the origin of our universe. It, like most other theories, can be improved upon, falsified, replaced, or even forgotten and fade into history. But until we get a better explanation that is better supported by the evidence we are able to gather, Big Bang theory is what we have.

[Mike C]

Tormod

If I may offer my opinion, the BB is based on a scientific source (Doppler) that was refuted and replaced with an idea (expansion of space) that is strictly subjective.

So the BBT is really not based on real science.
All the science following this idea is 'ad hoc'.

I have written two articles that refute the expansion of space as just an idea.
See below:

Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space

http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...ght-waves.html

Mike C