Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />It seems to me that if in fact we did come from a point, we would see that happening. ... We don't see the point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">None of the five cosmologies currently on the table suggest that the universe came from a point in space. You might want to become more familiar with what the Big Bang <i>does</i> say so that you can be more effective in combating it.

I will be under time pressure for the next few weeks, and cannot continue our enjoyable conversation at present. But perhaps by the time I return, you will be more familiar with MM too, and we can have some serious philosophical and physics discussions. -|Tom|-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

It seems to me that if in fact we did come from a point, we would see that happening. ... We don't see the point.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">None of the five cosmologies currently on the table suggest that the universe came from a point in space. You might want to become more familiar with what the Big Bang does say so that you can be more effective in combating it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, does NASA have anything to say about this? <hr noshade size="1"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

Ask a High Energy Astronomer Dictionary Resources Feedback




The Question
(Submitted November 08, 1997)

What is the big bang theory? What do you believe?


The Answer
The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.
This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So now I don't know who to believe. Somehow I think that science has lost its way. Reminds me of the story about the blind leading the blind. When our leaders are blind, all we can do is follow the noise.
Those of us who follow the leaders.

If all you all got is what you believe then why should I believe you? OK, that's not your view, you work with the facts, it is their view, the paint a bullseye around the arrow people. You know what? I think that all scientists are scared of the Big Bang. They are scared because if they are in a position to bring it down, they are in danger of their lives. On the other side of the theoretical battleground they are scared of losing everything. So we have a bunch who will do anything short of killing the adversary because they stand to lose everything, and on the other side we have that adversary, those who are scared that they will be killed if they go up against the standard theory. Witness the murder last year of the editor of infinite energy. Our friend North showed me that one right here on your message board. So don't tell me I am being naive.

I think the singularity comes from Einstein's equations, I remember hearing about that. Do they argue that this singularity is not a point? So our classical interpretation of a singularity as a point is not correct, so that makes us incorrect?

My point is that if the Big Bang really did occur, we would see the after effects, the Universe would look different in certain directions. And the dimes on a balloon model doesn't work either, because the dime's space inside it would also be expanding, so the dime itself expands too. This means that the dime's measurments change. This is a physical change of matter from one locaton to another location. Thus, an expansion of space would impart a physical movement on matter, it would be expanded outward too. And as it is impacted outward it would aquire a momentum. Once it acquires this momentum, it is vectored in with any other forces. The only other force I can think of is the gravitational forces between atoms. I predict that the expansion momentum imparted on the atoms greatly exceeds the intergravitational forces of those atoms by a factor of 1.45 x10^45. In other words, in a Big Bang coming from a single singularity point, all matter would still be flying away from eachother, with still the original momentum, and with gravitational forces diminishing expodentially. I looked at wikipedia entry for the Big Bang, it gave a good summary treatment. The only evidence that is not interpretation is the redshift Doppler measurement. And even this is based on the assumption that the redshift is an indicator of velocity. Remove that Doppler effect and the only supporting evidence becomes Einstein's equations. The CMR is an interpretation of what is happening right now. We know from the ZPE that empty space will show us an energy, how does that zero space energy manifest itself? So what is left - the isotropy, did I spell that right, of space? Why would a Big Expansion show that? We would have to be at the center to see that.

Anyway, how come I haven't come across your meta-model theory?

There is an article is Scientific American about the objections some people have about the BB model. It should add to the confusion-it did for me anyhow. The author says(I think) the 14 billion years since the event is really 43 billion years due to contraction caused by the speed of light being constant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/study/sci/.../internal/steady.htm
The steady-state theory is now no longer accepted by most cosmologists, particularly after the discovery of microwave background radiation in 1965, for which steady state has no explanation.

The Hubble Deep Field photograph taken in 1996 by the Hubble Space Telescope shows the most distant view known. It was expected to show the birth of galaxies, but instead shows galaxies looking remarkably like present day ones, perhaps there is life in the steady state yet. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that the proper way to say what paragraph one says, is that "it used to be that there was no explanation in steady state to account for the microwave background radiation" Today we know, even I know, that the background radiation could very well be the radiation of the ZPE. THe ZPE, after all, is a measurement of energy at absolute zero. So if there are areas in the Universe that are at absolute zero, there would be an energy there. The alternative explanation of the temperature of starlight may very well be coupled with the CZPE so as to produce a cosmic background radiation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Ask a High Energy Astronomer Dictionary Resources Feedback<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since. This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So now I don't know who to believe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">from MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BIG BANG by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M.Davis (Scientific American, March 2005)<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What kind of explosion was the Big Bang?
WRONG: The Big Bang was like a bomb going off at a certain location in previously empty space.
RIGHT: It was an explosion of space itself.

Why is there a Cosmic redshift?
WRONG: Because receding galaxies are moving through space and exhibit a Doppler shift.
RIGHT: Because expanding space stretches all light waves as they propagate.

Do Objects inside the Universe Expand, too?
WRONG: Yes. Expansion cause the universe and everything in it to grow.
RIGHT: No. The universe grows, but coherent objects inside it do not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Tommy]: those who are scared that they will be killed if they go up against the standard theory. Witness the murder last year of the editor of infinite energy. Our friend North showed me that one right here on your message board. So don't tell me I am being naive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you are being naive about that. I knew Gene well. He was checking on his mother's old house at night. The house had been unoccupied for months. It appears he surprised a vagrant who had taken up residence. A struggle ensued, and Gene was killed and robbed. Being a scientist does not give one a free pass from being victimized by random violence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how come I haven't come across your meta-model theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because you still haven't read the book that describes it? See <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>.

I will not be able to make general replies to most follow-ups for the next few weeks. A single, short question I might be able to deal with, if you are patient. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">from MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BIG BANG by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M.Davis (Scientific American, March 2005)
quote:

---

What kind of explosion was the Big Bang?
WRONG: The Big Bang was like a bomb going off at a certain location in previously empty space.
RIGHT: It was an explosion of space itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is not my fault that there are misconceptions, my reference was from NASA. Every picture I have seen of the Big Bang shows a point. So far, I have been able to determine that such a point is required by GR, they call it a singularity. In one place they even stated the computed size as a fraction of a centimeter. So it is the mathematics that says there was a point. Apparently, it is not only the Big Bang that is in trouble, but Einstein's General Relativity as well. I laughed when I read this quote: "First there was nothing, then it exploded."


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why is there a Cosmic redshift?
WRONG: Because receding galaxies are moving through space and exhibit a Doppler shift.
RIGHT: Because expanding space stretches all light waves as they propagate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a circular argument. They are saying that space expands because we can see a redshift. We see a redshift because space is expanding.

Do Objects inside the Universe Expand, too?
WRONG: Yes. Expansion cause the universe and everything in it to grow.
RIGHT: No. The universe grows, but coherent objects inside it do not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This "right" is completely WRONG regardless of who says differently. Rutherford's experiments show that matter is largely empty. Empty here means mostly full of space. Are they trying to tell me that space ends at the boundary of an atom? So how come light waves gets stretched? Also, Einstein's principle of equivalence of gravitaional force and acceleration tells us they they cannot be told apart, SO the matter itself is being accelerated just like matter falls toward a gravitational source. I say that the principle of equivalence says that we would not be able to tell the difference between exploding matter and exploding space. Furthermore, space exploding from a singularity would require that space did not exist outside the singulairity. Today we know that space is not empty, but full of energy. Modern theorists would do well to take that into account, and actually they do with their dark matter and dark energy concepts, but in a very misleading and devious way. Problem is that dark matter and dark energy exist as physical entities. The INSIDE of space is not a physical entity of the kind we would attribute physical propeties to. Also, have the BB theorists taken into account this extra energy at the time of the so-called Big Bang?

BTW, I found a few places where you yourself talk about the CMBR as a temperature, Others have talked about it as the temperature of starlight. It is very obvious to me that it is the temperature of the ZPE. The ZPE also exists in outer space, and any measurement must take this Zero Point Energy into account. I asked you about this and you said, I think, that you never heard of this. Well, it appears that most astronomers never heard of the ZPE. Also, recent experiments indicate that there are local influences on the CMBR, this is being regarded as an anomaly.

The whole thing reeks of "smoke and mirrors" which in today's American scientific establishment does not surprise me anymore. Very sad though....

I will try to find your book, all the reviews I have seen give if five stars.