Is Big Bang true?

1mmorta1

Man, I can't believe I didn't realize that I said ardent...I must now dedicate myself to physics for the remainder of my natural life in order to make up for this...

Haha. Thank you for pointing that out :)

LaurieAG

You said it DaveC426913, I agree 100%
I came across one of Chronos' old posts in a locked thread that put things in a similar perspective.
But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

Does that mean any model resembling our universe, that is based on the application of something like a higher level (field, cyclic, period) construct with only 1 real cycle, that has many sub parts with independent infinite/VL number limits, is equivalent to multiple discrete improper integrals that should not remain linearly undefined or artifacts of Pi will be expected to start popping up to hilight the original falsification under the burden of truth?

I'm all in agreement so far.

So something as simple as the the latest time back to the big bang divided by the time back to our own solar systems creation should never be be considered as an artifact because we are just viewing ancient light as our solar system spins around our own galactic centre? And the artifact that you get when you divide a Galactic year (the time light travels while a source makes 1 complete galactic rotation) by the diameter of the galactic rotation in years is also misconstrued because Pi is what you would expect when you were viewing spiral light paths in linear observation experiments?

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.

phinds

HEY ... leave the pooka out of this. I believe in the pooka. The world NEEDS the pooka

DaveC426913

No, you can falsify a model using current, accepted research to show a contradiction. What you can't do is introduce research that has not been accepted.

But yes, this not the forum suited to falsifying current models. Primarily, this is a forum to help students learn and understand science as it is currently understood. Not much point in people trying to run before they've learned how to walk.

Agerhell

If there really is a picture of a quasar in front of a galaxy I would like to see it. Perhaps someone could provide a link to a picture of that configuration on some website that is not considered a "crackpot" site. Please insert such a link if you know anything about it.

wildwill

im with jinkurichi300 on this one

how can matter be created.

"matter can neather be created nor destroyed only change form."

thats why i dont believe in the big bang



red shifts could be caused by gravitational lensing of light being bent by gravity of larger objects.


please tell me. could the galexies that appear to be redshifted just be rotating on an elips around the center of the universe, but on a different elips then ours

Drakkith

Matter can be and is created and destroyed all the time. We do it in particle colliders every day here on Earth. ENERGY and MASS cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred. Furthermore, the theory of the Big Bang never says that this energy was created from nothing. It only describes the universe after a certain point in time after the Big Bang. What happened before this point in time is beyond that model.

Light does not redshift when it is bent around something, only when it moves out of a gravity well. On average there will be equal mass in front of and behind a photon as it moves through space, so the amount of redshift would be counteracted by an equal amount of blueshift.


There is no center of the universe nor would a rotation around a common center explain the observed redshift.

phinds

Wildwil, you are continuing to post wildly speculative stuff with no basis in science. I again suggest that you read some basic comsmology.

jinchuriki300

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy

Drakkith

Which doesn't explain redshift, as the absorption and emission spectra of different objects is equally redshifted, which wouldn't be the result of compton scattering. Do you know what absorption and emission spectra are?

SHISHKABOB

so there are clouds of electrons floating in space between us and galaxies, etc. and these clouds are such that they exactly change the energy (and thus frequency) of intervening photons that they appear to be red-shifted?

That's what it sounds like you're implying. Otherwise how does Compton scattering play into the red-shifting of light from so many sources?

The red-shifting of light even correlates with distances determined through other methods, I think. Is this correct? For example Andromeda. I'm pretty sure we can look at the blue-shift of the light coming from Andromeda, but we can also use the Cepheid variable stars their. I have never heard of any disagreement there.

Chalnoth

Bear in mind, however, that inverse Compton scattering also occurs, where the electron adds energy to the photon.

That said, since the CMB was emitted, our universe has been extraordinarily transparent. WMAP estimates that approximately 92% of the light from the CMB arrives at us without scattering.

clamtrox

Energy is a coordinate-dependent quantity, and even worse, it's not really conserved in GR anyway (remember that the conservation law is about the energy-momentum tensor, not a single component of it). Mass is only due to interactions with the Higgs field so you shouldn't really be so zealous about them either.. :-)

Usually how one thinks about this is that the gravitational field's energy (which is a muddy concept so I'm not going to be very precise about it) is negative, and for a flat universe, you can show that the sum of gravitational energy and energy of the matter content is exactly zero. So there is nothing (or atleast energy conservation) stopping you from having a theory of quantum gravity which produces flat universes out of the vacuum.

CaptFirePanda

Where is the proof the NGC 7319 is opaque? Also, I'm pretty sure your reference has no associated credibility.

Eric333

philosophically big bang is the most likely, as everything would have to start somewhere...how it happened is of course the question being investigated.

Mark M

'Philosophically' does not matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and that's why we KNOW the big bang model is correct.

clamtrox

Can you show your work? How do you evaluate the probability?