How Roy Masters tried to disprove the Big Bang
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
Next: Terra incognita, Sacred ground, Mysterious territory.
From: Thomas Heger on 17 May 2010 02:07 Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 5/16/10 3:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Personally I think, the 'big-bang' is a totally flawed idea. > > Then it make sense to study the argument and evidence the > big bang theory. > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html May favorite text about the subject is that of A.F. Meyer. http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html He shows in great detail, that the big-bang theory mismatches observations by many orders of magnitude. The main argument is a fractal behavior of the distribution of stars. These fractals are abundant in nature and I personally think, this is the right approach. But that would mean, that time cannot be one-dimensional, but has to be considered geometric and has some kind of direction. The big-bang in contrast is based on the idea of a steady, calender-like timeflow. This is most certainly wrong. One reason would be actually relativity, because that theory describes time geometric, too. One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot happen, if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates redshift to age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. My own 'theory' (if you like) is, that the universe undergoes a shift on very large scale, with an extremely long frequency, that could happen on much smaller scales with much higher frequencies, too. That resembles a bit the process of breathing. Than the universe as we observe it is the 'condensing' phase, that creates new objects steady and in realtime. And this shifts into a direction, that is imaginary to us, but real in that direction. Greetings TH
From: Sam Wormley on 17 May 2010 10:07 On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very > different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot happen, > if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates redshift to > age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger.
From: Thomas Heger on 17 May 2010 11:16 Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very >> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot happen, >> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates redshift to >> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. > > That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase with distance? Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see earlier events further away. If you link redshift to distance and that to age, than nearer events happened later and have lower redshift. But the direction of influence goes from earlier to later and not in the opposite direction. If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each other, that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different times, but the direction has to be from past to future. But later events cannot influence earlier ones, because they have happened already. If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each other, that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot attribute redshift to age and not to distance. This because only objects in relative vicinity would (could) influence each other. This would very much invalidate one of the main assumptions of the big-bang cosmology. Greetings TH
From: G. L. Bradford on 17 May 2010 13:04 "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message news:85d4ttF9biU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Sam Wormley schrieb: >> On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very >>> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot happen, >>> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates redshift to >>> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. >> >> That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. > > You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase with > distance? > Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see earlier > events further away. If you link redshift to distance and that to age, > than nearer events happened later and have lower redshift. But the > direction of influence goes from earlier to later and not in the opposite > direction. > If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each other, > that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different times, but > the direction has to be from past to future. But later events cannot > influence earlier ones, because they have happened already. > If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each other, > that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot attribute redshift > to age and not to distance. This because only objects in relative vicinity > would (could) influence each other. This would very much invalidate one of > the main assumptions of the big-bang cosmology. > > Greetings > > TH ========================= At its increased velocity relative to the observer and instrumentation a particle decays earlier than the physicist observes it to decay, thus appearing to have stretched time. The time to observation of the decay (a non-local event) took longer due to a somewhat milder equivalent of a black hole existing, not the event of the decay itself (a local event). Light even at the constant speed of c taking longer to escape a relative deflation of a relatively malleable space but in the end escaping. GLB =========================
From: Thomas Heger on 17 May 2010 13:30
G. L. Bradford schrieb: > > "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message > news:85d4ttF9biU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Sam Wormley schrieb: >>> On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very >>>> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot >>>> happen, >>>> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates >>>> redshift to >>>> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. >>> >>> That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. >> >> You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase >> with distance? >> Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see >> earlier events further away. If you link redshift to distance and that >> to age, than nearer events happened later and have lower redshift. But >> the direction of influence goes from earlier to later and not in the >> opposite direction. >> If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each other, >> that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different times, >> but the direction has to be from past to future. But later events >> cannot influence earlier ones, because they have happened already. >> If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each >> other, that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot >> attribute redshift to age and not to distance. This because only >> objects in relative vicinity would (could) influence each other. This >> would very much invalidate one of the main assumptions of the big-bang >> cosmology. >> >> Greetings >> >> TH > > ========================= > > At its increased velocity relative to the observer and instrumentation > a particle decays earlier than the physicist observes it to decay, thus > appearing to have stretched time. The time to observation of the decay > (a non-local event) took longer due to a somewhat milder equivalent of a > black hole existing, not the event of the decay itself (a local event). > Light even at the constant speed of c taking longer to escape a relative > deflation of a relatively malleable space but in the end escaping. > I don't see the relevance of particle physics in the realm of galaxies. And I can't find a connection to the question considered. So, please, explain, what you have in mind. My statement was, that redshift cannot be attributed to distance according to Hubble's 'law', because galaxies with different redshift seem to influence each other. So, they cannot be too far away from each other, because otherwise their effect on each other would be negligible. TH |