[Winstonm]

Perhaps I am behind the curve, but I don't remember hearing of a debate concerning the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's origination being challenged by redshift controversy.

What is the status of this debate? Has the Big Bang been bounced?

Source: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Quote

What is redshift?
If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'.  The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us.  This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us.  The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume?  It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

If the wavelength of an absorption line in an object's observed spectrum appears at a wavelength that is, say, 1.56 times its 'normal wavelength' (the wavelength at which it is observed in a laboratory experiment here on Earth), then we say this object has a positive redshift of z = 0.56.  The 'z value' is simply the observed fractional increase in the wavelength of the spectral lines.  The simple interpretation of this is to say that this object must therefore be receding from us at 56% of the speed of light or 0.56 x 300,000 km/sec.  Mainstream astrophysicists believe that recessional velocity, v = cz.  This object, therefore, must be very far away from Earth.

But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values.

So, does this mean the universe might not be expanding and the "Big Bang" is bogus?

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Jun 7 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Perhaps I am behind the curve, but I don't remember hearing of a debate concerning the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's origination being challenged by redshift controversy.

What is the status of this debate?  Has the Big Bang been bounced?

Source: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm


So, does this mean the universe might not be expanding and the "Big Bang" is bogus?

*chortle*

it concerns me that this "article" doesn't even try to give another explanation for the observed wavelength shifts, nor does it cite (afaik) any papers by Arp (or anyone else holding this POV). (edit --- i take it back, it's trying to sell his book)

I can come up with several reasons for why some of their arguments have a perfectly logical interpretation within the scope of the standard understanding of redshift.

[luke warm]

are we talking about the hubble redshift as it applies to big bang? i thought that was the reason the BB was first formulated as an explanation

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jun 7 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

are we talking about the hubble redshift as it applies to big bang? i thought that was the reason the BB was first formulated as an explanation

Yes. Apparently there seems to be at least some degree of controversy over the concept of redshift as solely a measurement of distance - and that would cause quite a problem for the BB theory - but I had heard little debate on this subject.

[Winstonm]

This article seems a more complete explanation: http://www.livingcosmos.com/quasar.htm

[luke warm]

i thought there were already a lot of arguments using redshift that pretty much already debunked BB, but it's been awhile since i looked at any of this - the same on the age of the earth/universe (i'd have to go look for it, but it seems there was something about a radioactive isotope found in granite that couldn't be there, i'll try to look later)

[Winstonm]

Obviously I haven't kept up with this debate so it is news to me.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Jun 7 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Obviously I haven't kept up with this debate so it is news to me.

Quote

As with all the web pages on the Living Cosmos web site, this web page is a fully referenced work, and is only a portion of the factual, empirical support for the ideas presented. However, these references are not included on this web page, but are included in the book, The Vital Vastness. Because this book is just published the full scope and references could not be presented. An attempt will be made to address queries, but not all queries can be answered. The plates that are mentioned in the excerpts are not included, but maybe included at a later time. Excerpts are presented here as indented paragraphs, and those lines appearing with quotes are from some of the cited references.

(emphasis added by me)


Bullshit.

[EricK]

This isn't another one of those grand conspiracies is it? The "scientific establishment" is holding back The Truth for their own nefarious ends. Meanwhile some struglling young self-taught "scientist" has proof of The Truth but can't get published in any reputable scientific journal so has to create a website and publish a book in order to get The Truth out to the masses.

[onoway]

I know nothing about the science of this, but ran across a quote yesterday in my rambles..."First, there was nothing. Then it exploded."

[mike777]

onoway, on Jun 8 2008, 03:31 AM, said:

I know nothing about the science of this, but ran across a quote yesterday in my rambles..."First, there was nothing. Then it exploded."

Object!


From nothing comes nothing.

If you want to debate that a vacuum is in quantum flux ok...but ........from nothing comes nothing.

[helene_t]

The Big Bang theory as such is not controversial. There has been some debate about the rate of expansion of the early Universe, though. I recall a physicist saying that "Big Fuss" would be a more apt description.

[luke warm]

actually helene, iirc BB has become a bit more controversial in recent years... and i found the granite thing, the radioactive halo polonium 218 (with a half life of about 3 minutes) shouldn't be in granite - but it

[Winstonm]

matmat, on Jun 7 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 7 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Obviously I haven't kept up with this debate so it is news to me.  

Quote

As with all the web pages on the Living Cosmos web site, this web page is a fully referenced work, and is only a portion of the factual, empirical support for the ideas presented. However, these references are not included on this web page, but are included in the book, The Vital Vastness. Because this book is just published the full scope and references could not be presented. An attempt will be made to address queries, but not all queries can be answered. The plates that are mentioned in the excerpts are not included, but maybe included at a later time. Excerpts are presented here as indented paragraphs, and those lines appearing with quotes are from some of the cited references.

(emphasis added by me)


Bullshit.

The initial quote is from the first Google link that popped up when I typed in redshift - the first couple of paragraphs contained the information I was looking for so I copied it and used that as in introduction to the thread.

So, is this a settled debate in the scientific community? Have these observations concerning redshift created doubts?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jun 8 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 7 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 7 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Obviously I haven't kept up with this debate so it is news to me. 

Quote

As with all the web pages on the Living Cosmos web site, this web page is a fully referenced work, and is only a portion of the factual, empirical support for the ideas presented. However, these references are not included on this web page, but are included in the book, The Vital Vastness. Because this book is just published the full scope and references could not be presented. An attempt will be made to address queries, but not all queries can be answered. The plates that are mentioned in the excerpts are not included, but maybe included at a later time. Excerpts are presented here as indented paragraphs, and those lines appearing with quotes are from some of the cited references.

(emphasis added by me)


Bullshit.

The initial quote is from the first Google link that popped up when I typed in redshift - the first couple of paragraphs contained the information I was looking for so I copied it and used that as in introduction to the thread.

So, is this a settled debate in the scientific community? Have these observations concerning redshift created doubts?

This is certainly not a topic that I am well versed in. However, here is the relevant Wikipedia entry discussing "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies". I bold-faced the section that I consider most interesting

Quote

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies is a 1987 book by Halton Arp, an astronomer famous for his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1966)[1]. Arp argued that many quasars with otherwise high redshift are somehow linked to close objects such as nearby galaxies. Arp also argued that some galaxies showed unusual redshifts, and that redshifts themselves could be quantized.

These are controversial views which do not accord with the standard model of physical cosmology. It also contradicts the accepted model that quasars are bright nuclei of very distant galaxies. Most astronomers reject Arp's interpretation of the data since the anomalous observations could be explained by perspective effects. Reportedly, some of Arp's calculations seem to be simply "bad mathematics". Arp asserts that many questions he posed to the scientific establishment are still unanswered and that his requests for more observation time have been systematically rejected.

Halton Arp's proposal was an idea based on analyses done before the sky surveys increased the number of measured redshifts by several orders of magnitude. The idea was that the cosmological redshift might be showing evidence of periodicity which would be difficult to explain in a Hubble's Law universe that had the feature of continuous expansion. However, most astronomers agree that the analysis suffers from poor methodology and small number statistics.

[Winstonm]

These types of questions remind me of this quote:

Quote

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Problem is, absurdity is also ridiculed, and rightly so - at what point would one know that absurdity was indeed truth?

[Al_U_Card]

The corollary is not valid is all.

Truth, quantically speaking, is relative, that is to say that the condensation of reality (which we replace truth with in absolute terms) depends on the observation of the equation of state. Your perspective affects this as well as your intention. Scary but necessary stuff. Its just how the universe works and we are part and parcel of it.

[luke warm]

al, that is a little counterintuitive to me... are you saying that, for example, the laws of thermodynamics are only true in an absolute sense until another law makes them untrue (and thus relative after all)? and the same for the law affecting the first set of laws, and the same for any subsequent law? if that's what you're saying, it seems to me that at some point in the chain there would still have to be an "absolute" law upon which all following laws are dependent... or have i misunderstood you?

[blackshoe]

A scientist observes phenomena. He proposes a mechanism by which the phenomena might occur. This is called an hypothesis. He and other scientist test the hypothesis. If the tests show the hypothesis is wrong, it is junked and (hopefully) another proposed. If after some time the hypothesis is not disproved, it is elevated to "theory". After some more time with the hypothesis (now theory) not disproved, it becomes "law". However, "laws" in science are not absolute - certainly not in the way that a theist would think of "God's law". They are simply theories that have stood the test of sufficient time that it is considered unlikely they will be disproved any time soon.

There is another aspect to this: theories can be seen as approximations, particularly given assumptions about the nature of the world. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a perfectly adequate approximation to relativistic mechanics, for speeds which are only a small fraction of c. Thermodynamics, as described by the "Laws of Thermodynamics" is a perfectly adequate description of energy relationships in a closed system, above the quantum level.

[Al_U_Card]

Not at all. The reality of what happened will be up for speculation as long as the answers fail to provide satisfaction to the questions raised.

Too many suspicions based on actions that reek of incompetence at the least and cover-up at the worst.

Physics and the natural laws will eventually be the ultimate arbitor of what will be revealed concerning the events of that day (unlike Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident etc. etc. that were just straight cover-ups of political machinations) because too many clues remain in sight with too many people looking at them and remaining unsatisfied with what they are told.

You have lost a lot of your rights and freedoms over what appears to be a planned act of political violence......and instead of rising up against the perpetrators and allowing justice to prevail, your government makes you pay. The deeper you go in, the less any of it makes sense. Iraq, IRAN???? and no special forces sent to ferret out OBL and his cronies (no money to be made there, for sure).

So, If that is not what you understood by what I meant then yes, you did.