Center of the Univers

Hurkyl

Sigh, so much for the myth of standardized terminology!

subtillioN

The CBR is only measured at ~3K and the matter near the sun is HOTTER than 3K. Therefore it is NOT seen in the 3K CBR surveys.

subtillioN

You are severely lacking in your understanding of the alternatives. Do you know Plasma Cosmology models?

see www.electric-cosmos.org

Learn it and then come back to debate it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

subtillioN

The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

Actually the steady state model was much more accurate with its prediction.

Obviously if the radiation gets red-shifted it cools down. That is no argument for the BB.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about two times!! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

Plasma Cosmology can deal with that as well through fusion and fission processes in stars. See www.electric-cosmos.org if you care to understand the alternatives which you are dismissing off-hand.

CrystalStudios

Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

subtillioN

So is that how you deal with any alternate interpretation? By calling its proponents trolls?

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

This is a sign that your mind has ossified. You can no longer participate in civilized debate.


You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

Hurkyl

That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.



Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.


Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

subtillioN

Care to back up this or any other statement? I am attacking the BBT head on. If you think otherwise then prove it.

Besides the fact that proving Relativity Theory does not prove BBT the perihelion had been calculated by classical science previously to Einstein and when Einstein calculated it he used Newtonian time not relativistic time to do so. See this classical explanation of the Mercury perihelion.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/MERCURY/Mercury.html

"Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculatd by P. Gerber in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless. "

Well you are half right. [t)]

Brad_Ad23

The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

And I did some research on this Arp fellow.

Quoted from a site containing his theories

That alone tells me that we are dealing with a crackpot fringe movement here. It is appealing more to the layperson who does not have a firm grasp of just how immense the cosmos is. It is indeed so immense that such an 'improbable' allignment is actually rather probable. Indeed, such sights that rely on imagination and the massive scientific conspiracy are just plain silly.


And you misunderstood my point about the gas and all. They showed the CBR was hotter, not merely the gas clouds.


Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.


That and it is generally not good when sites you link to deal with such things as "Were the ancients really visited by aliens? We think so!"

D'oh!

subtillioN

You are wrong on that one. You are simply repeating a BBT mantra. Look up the ACTUAL history... I don't have the time to do it for you.

Planck radiation from interstellar gasses is BASIC physics. That is why none of you can argue against it. It was known to the SST physicists who made CBR predictions much closer than the BBT theory did.

NOTE: I am not arguing for SST either, but for the Plasma Cosmology model.

That is not true at all. I have seen the pictures and they look just the same. There are massive spiral galaxies and eliptical galaxies just like everywhere else. The spiral galaxies at the very limits of perception have had a mere two revolutions since the BB. That is not even close to enough revolutions to generate their spiral structure.


You clearly have not studied Plasma Cosmology. The Plasma Cosmology model does indeed account for the production of ALL the elements. Learn it and then debate it.

Brad_Ad23

That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

Again I say D'oh!


Hurkyl, I think we have a lost cause here.

subtillioN

What are you talking about. Please quote the article and we will see it in context.

Brad_Ad23

there ya go.

subtillioN

Homer,

Einstein used Newtonian time to to explain the perihelion of mercury, not relativistic time. This calculation had already been done previous to Einstein through classical methods.

You are attempting to shift the focus onto Relativity theory which does not prove BBT. You claim that BBT is proven yet you cannot list any argument that does not have a better explanation in a nonBB theory.

subtillioN

“To Einstein’s law of gravitation Newton’s law is an extremely close approximation so that these laws give results in our own solar system which are indistinguishable from those of Newton except in one place, namely, the motion of the perihelion of Mercury. The law which is usually used was first given by Schwarzschild and it indicates an advance in the perihelion of Mercury of 43 seconds of arc per century greater than that indicated by Newton’s Law. Now it happens that there were two small discrepancies between the implications of the Newtonian theory and the observations. One of these is a slight irregularity in the motion of the moon, and the other is that the perihelion of Mercury is advancing 43 seconds per century faster than the theory indicated. Einstein’s theory would explain one of these, but not the other.
“That Einstein’s law of gravitation should fit one of these discrepancy so perfectly and ignore the others altogether is a bit puzzling. But naturally the relativists seize upon this one agreement as a striking confirmation of their procedure.
“The electromagnetic theory was based upon the concept of an ether, and it is the relativists themselves who put the ether into the discard. This is one of the defects of the doctrine of relativity for it does not say anything about how light is propagated. Both the emission theory and the wave theory give clear notions on this point. They may not be adequate, but the doctrine of relativity gives nothing at all.
“We of the present generation are too impatient to wait for anything. Within thirty years of Michelson’s failure to detect the expected motion of the earth with respect to the ether we have wiped out the slate, made a postulate that by no means whatever can the thing be done, and constructed a non-Newtonian mechanics to fit the postulate. The success which has been attained is a marvelous tribute to our intellectual activity and our ingenuity, but I am not so sure with respect to our judgement.
“It is not our normal mode of procedure to assume, after two or three failures, that by no means whatever can the thing be done. It is particularly distasteful to do so when such an assumption involves the conclusion that our experience can no longer be interpreted in terms of the time and space of our intuitions, and that we have accordingly reached the limits of what is intelligible .
“It will be observed that in the preceding discussion I have granted all of the claims of the relativists, and still I have denied their conclusion that the relativists are the sole dispensers of the truth and that we must all become relativists. The situation is something like that of a boy and his bed clothes. The boy grew but discovered that his little toes were sticking out from under the covers and he was decidedly uncomfortable. Try as he would the bed clothes could not be stretched far enough to cover them up.
Suddenly he had a bright idea. All he had to do was to slip the entire bed covers down six inches. His feet went under beautifully and he was so happy about it that it took him some time to discover that now his neck was uncovered and that he had merely shifted the seat of difficulty for the bedclothes were no longer than they were before. The relativists have succeeded in covering up the little terms of order two, but in doing so they have robbed us of all ideas as to how light is propagated in space, and that problem is even more important than the little difficulties at the other extremity.
“Let us turn attention now to another of the so-called proofs of Einstein theory. This is the advancement of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are ellipses. It has been observed that the orbit of Mercury slowly rotates about the sun. Leverrier computed the path of Mercury, taking account of the attractions of Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and three other bodies. He found that the actual and calculated motions failed to agree by an amount which would be nearly 38 seconds of arc per century. Leverrier could not understand this discrepancy and suggested that there might be unknown masses of matter near the sun. Since that time some matter has been found and exactly where Leverrier predicted that it should be. In 1895, Newcomb repeated the calculation and by slightly reducing the eccentricity of the orbit he slightly increased the rotation and obtained 41 seconds per century.
“Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.


----------------

Max Born, “Einstein’s Relativity,” pp 132-133.

Abstracts from “A Debate on the Theory of Relativity.” M. E. Hufford, “Is the Experimental Evidence of Relativity Conclusive?” and W. D. MacMillan, “Postulates of Normal Intuition,” pp 56-86, noninclusive. The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1927.

Hurkyl

Hrm.....

subtillioN

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Read my latest post before this one.

I will be back later to continue this discussion....

Anyway enough of this diversion from the Big Bang Theory... Can you successfully defend it? We'll see...
[:))]